Iarnrod Éireann has been granted permission to challenge a ruling by the Equality Tribunal that awarded an employee €189,000 in compensation for victimisation and discrimination.
The tribunal ruled earlier this month that the company discriminated against Monica Murphy, who has worked for the company since 1971, on the basis of her gender by not providing her with promotional opportunities. The company had rejected all allegations of discrimination in its evidence to the tribunal.
In its proceedings Iarnrod Éireann are seeking orders that the Tribunal’s decision should be quashed on grounds including that the equality officer who ruled on the matter had made presumptions that she was not entitled to do.
The company claims that the presumptions were made in respect of the companies failure to provide certain material during the hearing. That material included details of professional fees paid by the company on behalf of Ms Murphy, and details of the budget available to Ms Murphy.
Leave was granted by Mr Justice Michael Peart, who made the matter returnable for early next month. Ms Murphy was made a notice party to the proceedings.
Counsel for Ms Murphy Patrick Kean SC said the his client was concerned about the proceedings. The court heard that while she was at work, and being paid her full salary she had not been given any meaningful work to do.
In her ruling equality officer Orlaith Mannion found the State company victimised her by accessing her work e-mail, excluding her from social events and refusing to sign off on expenses and leave requests.
Ms Murphy had also claimed she was unfairly passed over for promotion and after returning from a career break was given a dummy job located in a basement office with rising damp.
The tribunal awarded Ms Murphy €126,000 – the equivalent of two years’ salary – for discrimination in relation to her conditions of employment and access to promotion. It awarded her €63,000 to compensate for the distress caused by the victimisation.
The tribunal accepted Ms Murphy’s evidence and noted in its judgment that the company had not fully co-operated by withholding information from its investigators.