Worker fails to prove discrimination on the grounds he wasn’t a Traveller

A MAN has failed in his attempt to claim that his former employer discriminated against him on the grounds that he was not a member of the Traveller community or a foreigner.

Eamonn Croghan, who had worked for Navan company Xtratherm Ltd since 2003, told the Labour Court that when he started working in the company’s loading area with two settled members of the Traveller community, all three were earning €7.50 per hour.

However, in 2004, the other two workers were given pay increases to €8 per hour but his pay was not increased even though they were all carrying out the same work.

The complainant said he was subsequently moved to another area of the operation where he worked with two other men who were not Irish, but was again paid a lower rate of pay.

He said in late 2005 he was “tricked” into transferring to the “laydown” area of the company on the premise that he would receive more money. He was appointed to a more senior “head 2 operator” role but told by his production manager he was not “cut out” for the job.

He said he resigned in September 2005 after he had heard nothing from the company two weeks after requesting a meeting with management over grievances he had.

The court’s transcript of the hearing recorded that Mr Croghan said that when he started, almost the entire workforce were Irish nationals.

“He said that by the time he left in October 2006 between 85% and 90% of those employed were of foreign nationality,” it said. “This, the complainant submitted, evinced a disposition on the part of the respondent in favour of foreign workers and against Irish workers, who were more easily exploited.”

The company said the failure to increase the man’s pay in line with his comparators was “an oversight” and it offered him a cheque for the arrears.

However, Mr Croghan refused to accept the cheque, saying it was offered without admission of liability in respect of the discriminatory treatment.

However, the court did not find that he had been discriminated against.

“Taking the complainant’s case at its height, there is not a scintilla of evidence to connect the treatment of which he complains with either the fact that he is not a member of the Traveller community, or that he is Irish,” it said. “Where a member of the Travelling community or a person who is part of an ethnic minority is treated less favourably than a member of the settled community, or a person of Irish nationality, a degree of nexus may readily be inferred between the status of the person and the less favourable treatment. However, where, as in the instant case, the converse is contended ... no such inference can automatically be drawn.”

The court accepted that the underpayment was due to error on the respondent’s part.

“The respondent has accepted liability for the payment of arrears which the complainant has refused to accept,” it said. “There is, therefore, no justifiable dispute between the parties on this aspect of the claim.”