[Article] Record €189k award against Iarnród Éireann

[Mark Gleeson]

Record €189k award against Iarnród Éireann
By Catherine Shanahan
Tuesday, December 15, 2009

A WOMAN who claimed she was given a "dummy job" and a damp basement to work in after returning from a career break at Iarnród Éireann has been awarded €189,000, the biggest award ever made by the Equality Tribunal.

Monica Murphy, who took her case to the tribunal, said a less qualified younger man was being groomed to take over the promotion she would have expected to obtain.

Ms Murphy began her career with CIÉ in 1971 and was one of three staff – and the only female – to be awarded a scholarship to University College Dublin. She attained first place in international marketing in her commerce degree in 1984. CIÉ sponsored her to do an MBs in International Marketing the following year and she obtained first class honours. She joined CIÉ’s marketing department and was involved with the task force that implemented the establishment of Iarnród Éireann.

Ms Murphy has also been appointed to various committees in the Marketing Institute of Ireland (MII) and other professional organisations. She told the tribunal she was making “steady progress in her career” until her return in January 2003 from a career break, when it subsequently took a nosedive. Among the allegations made by Ms Murphy to the tribunal were:

* She was discouraged by her supervisor to take part in interviews for posts which would have been a promotion as they were on an ungraded salary scale compared to her graded scale.

* She was told the role of marketing communications manager was being created for her, but the post was never formally announced within the company, she had no official title and no budget.

* Although the post was sold to her as a promotion, she received no additional pay as promised.

* Her supervisor asked her in a meeting what age she was, when she intended retiring and where her husband worked.

* When she refused a voluntary severance package her supervisor remarked “Maybe you’re not as good as you think you are” and “Maybe you don’t see yourself as others see you”.

* Iarnród Eireann subsequently tried to “freeze” her out by cancelling her membership subscriptions to various professional institutes while continuing to pay the fees of her male colleagues.

Ms Murphy also alleged efforts to apply for other jobs within the company had been deliberately stymied, including a post for which interviews were not held and which was given to a young man who was subsequently sent to Harvard University at a cost of €10,000 to Iarnród Eireann for a Leaders for Tomorrow course. Ms Murphy had hoped to get the job and “break the glass ceiling” and become the first woman to have worked her way through the ranks in the commercial department of Iarnród Éireann and report directly to the chief executive.

Iarnród Éireann denied all allegations of discrimination. However Ms Murphy’s supervisor told the tribunal “One of Monica’s problems is her ambition”.

The tribunal found in Ms Murphy’s favour and she was awarded €126,000 (the equivalent of two years salary) in compensation for discrimination in relation to her conditions of employment and access to promotion and €63,000 (the equivalent of a year’s salary) in compensation for the distress caused by victimisation.

Yesterday a spokesperson for Iarnród Éireann said the company has not yet decided whether to appeal the award.

This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Tuesday, December 15, 2009


Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/recor...#ixzz0Zk03rJLJ

And if you think that is bad, what will emerge in the high court today and tomorrow will be even more shocking

[karlr42]

Originally Posted by Mark Gleeson

And if you think that is bad, what will emerge in the high court today and tomorrow will be even more shocking

Can't wait

[dowlingm]

wow...

[Park Royal]

Ms Murphy came back in 2003 according to the article, query....was Dick Fearn and xxxxxxxxxx her senior Managers during that time also? . There is no mention of who her Supervisor was , why not, in other cases all names are given , why not in this case?.

That girl could have done good work in one of the offices in Dublin or down the country rather than being sent to the basement of Connolly Station, cant understand why the senior managers in Irish Rail let that happen, does not make sense?.

If I remember correctly Irish Rail has a special " Equality Officer" what was happening there in relation to this case? Also the independent surveys of staff attitude and issues by outside agencies what did they do in relation to this girls survey form if she was given one. Could be a case of systems in place but not working for some reason....

[Mark Gleeson]

The full ruling will be published in the next week or so. Both high court and equality tribunal rulings are published online. An appeal has been indicated by Irish Rail which may hold things

The member of staff was not in the operations side of the house so it has nothing to do with any of the general managers. It was a head office position, based at Connolly station from information I have received .

The direct manager responsible would be John Kennan as head of HR / Business Development who would be in the chain between this member of staff and the top level managers assuming that marketing is a business development function. Mr Kennan is also the manager responsible for HR.

It is clear from this and several other cases that there is a systematic failure within Irish Rail to implement procedures and processes to protect staff from various issues and deal with HR problems quickly and in a manner which staff have confidence in. There was yet another case in the high court yesterday. 300k so far in payouts which the passenger will be paying for

Given the legal situation now is not a good time to make assumptions, once the ruling is published then the full details will be in public.

[Mark Gleeson]

Judgement http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index...164&docID=2181

For legal reasons names of certain people are not shown in the judgement, so no speculation on who they might be.

[markpb]

Presumably the managers responsible will be fired? I can't understand how they or their union could have any defence for this.

[Mark Gleeson]

A high court battle has already started ....

[Mark Gleeson]

Irish Rail to seek judicial review of record €189,000 award to woman
Sunday December 20 2009
IRISH Rail is expected to seek leave in the High Court tomorrow for a judicial review of an Equality Tribunal ruling that awarded a female employee a record €189,000 for victimisation and discrimination.

The semi-state giant is also expected to appeal the ruling to the Labour Court. The employee's solicitor, John Kealy, said he found it "extraordinary that Iarnrod Eireann will go to such lengths to fight gender equality".

http://www.independent.ie/national-n...m-1982493.html

End of the day in the unlikely event of a successful appeal the legal costs will be such that it cost more than the payout

[Oisin88]

Originally Posted by Mark Gleeson

End of the day in the unlikely event of a successful appeal the legal costs will be such that it cost more than the payout

More of our taxpayers/ farepayers money diverted away from giving us a better service.

[Colm Moore]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...275616771.html

Bid to quash Irish Rail bias ruling fails

A CHALLENGE by Iarnród Éireann to an equality officer’s decision to award one of its employees €189,000 over gender discrimination of her by the company was dismissed by a High Court judge yesterday as “devoid of merit”.

Mr Justice John Hedigan ruled that the company’s application to quash equality officer Orlaith Mannion’s award to Iarnród Éireann’s senior marketing department officer, Monica Murphy, was “devoid of merit either in law or on the facts.”

He also refused an application from Iarnród Éireann to stay his decision to award legal costs against the company. It was “about time some reality dawned on Irish Rail in the way this case was conducted ,” he said.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Hedigan criticised the company’s failure to produce documentation which Ms Mannion had sought before she made her decision last November that Ms Murphy had been discriminated against.

Iarnród Éireann had argued Ms Mannion should not have drawn inferences from its failure to supply certain documents relating to Ms Murphy’s case.

The documents related mainly to the failure to provide Ms Murphy with a budget for her marketing role when two male colleagues did have budgets. The company had claimed the equality officer should, if necessary, have gone to the Circuit Court to get the information she had sought from it before she made her decision.

Mr Justice Hedigan said the inference drawn by the equality officer over budgets was “inevitable and beyond criticism” and that finding, on its own, disposed of Iarnród Éireann’s case.

The drawing of inferences is “a legitimate part of any decision making process”, he said.

Although there were limits to this, there was an obligation on the party complaining about the inferences to show they were not properly made and were clearly wrong. Iarnród Éireann had failed to do this, he said. The documentation involved had never been produced although it was central to the matter.