Health board discriminates against English worker

A BRITISH social worker who asked not to have to deal with a client known to be a dangerous paedophile and living near his family was told “in Ireland we have to live and work in dangerous conditions ... get used to that”.

The man made the request to the South Eastern Health Board’s (SEHB) senior social worker, when he discovered his client had moved to the small town in which he and his family lived.

He had been warned that his client was a predatory and dangerous paedophile, whose extradition was being sought by British police in connection with offences against children. The man obtained a temporary position as a child protection social worker with the SEHB in January 2000. He complained to the Equality Tribunal that his nationality was a factor in his failure to be appointed to a permanent team leader post; that his contract was prematurely terminated in August 2000 because of bias against him; and that he was victimised by unsubstantiated allegations of professional misconduct made against him to frustrate an internal investigation of his claims of discrimination.

The complainant wrote to the SEHB’s personnel manager complaining of his treatment. A subsequent internal investigation found his claims to be groundless. The man took his case to the Equality Tribunal where the SEHB denied the allegation of discrimination on race grounds. It said the “inappropriate and illegal” remarks were an attempt to explain that there could be difference in working environment, structures and procedures between Britain and Ireland.

However, the Equality Tribunal ruled the SEHB had discriminated against the complainant on race grounds in the way in which his interviews were evaluated.

The tribunal also found he was harassed by the nature of the comments addressed to him by the team leader and the senior social worker, and that he was victimised by the procedures and conclusions of the investigation team.

The SEHB was ordered to provide the complainant with a letter formally acknowledging the discrimination against him; to remove the investigation team’s report from the complainant’s personnel file and to devise a new grievance procedure.

The equality officer considered that some financial compensation for the distress and professional concern caused to the complainant would be appropriate. However, he said he was only seeking recognition of his mistreatment and no other redress.

The SEHB said it complied with decisions reached by third party bodies, but that it did not comment on individual cases.