# where do i stand on sexual discrimination.



## alleycat41 (14 Jul 2009)

hi, just need some brief advice please. i have  recently been made redundant from my job of 6 years. the company i worked for  used a points system. which (having been agreed by the union but no consultation  was given to its members) that they would use hospitalization as non attendance  and so points deducted. i suffered with a condition called endimitriosis for 20  years and was advised because of my age to have a hysterectomy, which i did. i  now find that because of this operation and with the points deducted for my time  off due to the op, i was made redundant, basically if i hadnt of had the  operation i would of been more than safe. everything else was fine. i  appealed on the grounds of sexual discrimination, due to the fact  that the criteria was unfair, as a man cannot have the same operation ,the  company turned down my appeal saying they are not doing anything wrong.my union  are backing me on the grounds of sexual discrimination.  i i have taken some independant advise. I  would just  like to know where i stand and am i going down the right route ie sexual  discrimination. or should i be going down the route of unfair dismissal,and have i got a strong case? any advise would be more than helpfull,  thank you


----------



## Darthvadar (14 Jul 2009)

Hi Alleycat...

I think that this is one for the Equality Tribunal... This sounds very unfair.... I'd be more inclined to go down the Employment Equality route... I would say the same to a man who'd been treated the same if he'd had 'Men's ops'...

I suggest you take a look at their website 

Also contact the Equality Authority, too... If they deem your case to be in the general public interest (and I'd suggest that it is), they will take your case for you, and provide you with legal representation, etc... Their website's [broken link removed] 

Hope this helps, and please keep us informed...

God bless...

Darth...


----------



## alleycat41 (14 Jul 2009)

thank you for a quick reply...........have a meeting with the union official next wednesday, so will have this information on hand just incase........... everyone i have spoke to have said i have a case, except my employees!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (14 Jul 2009)

I don't see this as gender discrimination.  Presumably they would have applied the same criteria to a man who had a man-only illness such as prostate cancer? 

I would guess that there is case law or precedent on this issue. I would probably check that out first.

If they had recorded absence due to maternity leave or paternity leave, then it would be discrimination.


----------



## Darthvadar (14 Jul 2009)

Well to coin a phrase, Alley... 'They WOULD say that, wouldn't they???'...

Give the union officials what for... You need their support, and it's what you've been paying your 'Dues' for...

Would love to hear what happens... If you prefer, PM me...

God bless...

Darth...


----------



## alleycat41 (14 Jul 2009)

I don't see this as gender discrimination. Presumably they would have applied the same criteria to a man who had a man-only illness such as prostate cancer?

they used this as an example in my appeal, but wouldnt the mand have a case of sexual discrimination too? as a women would not have time off because of this? doesnt this then make it a unfair selective process? surely the field set has to be a level field and when men or women have major, life changing operations, doesnt it become unfair?


----------



## mathepac (14 Jul 2009)

I feel the union seem to be running with the fox and hunting with the hounds.
First of all they agree this 





alleycat41 said:


> ...  they would use hospitalization as non attendance  and so points deducted...



No qualification, no gender specific illness exclusions or inclusions, no indication as to whether the procedures were elective, life-threatening, or life-changing,  just "hospitalization".

Now, retrospectively, they want to move the goal-posts and take a discrimination case against your employer for using a simple criterion the union agreed to at the start of the process.

Sorry, I don't buy it; I see it as another "make-work" initiative by the union jobs-worths blinded by the aura of their own importance.

(No disrespect to you alleycat41; the issue here for me is I see the union stance as being two-faced.)


----------



## alleycat41 (14 Jul 2009)

i totally agree , we were never consulted about this by the union, and, the same union got "hospitalization" kicked out at a different depot owned by the same company. when using hospitalization as a criteria for redunadancies(non attendance) surely each case should of been looked at, especially for gender orientation operations and especially for major operations.........i did not want to have a hysterectomy, it wasnt something that i went in lightly and basically because of this operation i have lost my job.( my other points total for the other criterias was fine)


----------



## greenfield (15 Jul 2009)

Just a point to consider - using absenteeism due to illness as a criteria could be discriminatory on grounds of disability rather than gender.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 Jul 2009)

greenfield said:


> Just a point to consider - using absenteeism due to illness as a criteria could be discriminatory on grounds of disability rather than gender.



That is an excellent point and seems more likely to succeed.


----------



## alleycat41 (15 Jul 2009)

thank you for the help, meet with my union advisors next week, and will bring up all these points with them,


----------



## alleycat41 (15 Jul 2009)

so does anyone think i have a case for sexual discrimination, as different people have said different things.


----------



## NovaFlare77 (15 Jul 2009)

I have an opinion on the matter, as you've described it, but to be honest, it's not an expert opinion and I think you would fare better by talking to experts.

Have you talked to the Equality Authority as Darthvadar suggested? I'd say they would be best placed to help you make a determiniation as to whether or not it qualifies as gender discrimination, or at least give you some informed guidance on the matter.

Perhaps the National Employment Rights Authority might have some informaton as well? Their website is [broken link removed]. I haven't looked at it, but there may be something that clarifies if time off for a major operation (be it gender specific or not) should or should not be used as part of the determination for redundancy?

The one piece of advice I would give is that when you are talking to your union next week, grill them on why they think it qualfies as gender discrimination. Don't just take what they say for granted, make sure they know what they're talking about. That way, if it goes further you know you have a robust arguement and it won't all fall apart. At the end of the day, it will be your case so you need to make sure it's solid.


----------



## sam h (15 Jul 2009)

While it is appalling to have such a personal & important operation taken into account for "absenteesim" - I wouldn't see it as gender discrimination, as said, men can have "men only" issues also.  

But I do agree it is incredible that they don't take into account the reasons for being in hospital ?  I would assume that normally elective surgery would come out of holidays?

But at the end of the day, you've been sold down the river by the UNION.

How on earth did your union ever agree to use hospitalisation as counting towards absenteesism?  All too often the unions seem to seek change for change sake and not really consider all the aspects of it - but I guess they have to appear to earn their money (which more often, than not is significantly higher than any of their members !!).  I reckon their contribution to the state the country is in, is completely overlooked.....we blame the bankers, the developers & obviously the government - but the unions were smack in the middle.  

I completely agree with Mathepac on his points (with the exception of elective hospitalisation) - the unions will dart whatever direction they can if it will make some noise & attract some attention.  I'd suggest you look to get some more independant advice as they really don't have your best interests at heart, some of the links posted below should be followed up to see if they can assist. 

Best of luck!!  Hope it works out for you


----------



## alleycat41 (16 Jul 2009)

thank you for all the responses, i agree the union are too blame too and i will be seekung independent advise too.


----------



## alleycat41 (20 Jul 2009)

got my meeting thurs with the union officials, cant come soon enough.


----------



## Doozie (20 Jul 2009)

Firstly, on a very minor point it may be better if the OP removed her name from the thread in order that there is no risk of the thread being cited in any future legal proceedings in her case!

As greenfield has said, it would be hard for you to demonstrate that you were singled out for redundancy purely on the basis of your gender in this case - the fact that your ailment is gender-specific is incidental to the fact that you were ill in the first instance. The correct basis for your position would be that you would/may not have been made redundant had you not suffered from a disability which required hospitalisation. 

Agreements between unions and mangement are entirely secondary to statue in discrimination cases - I would suspect from what you have said that the agreement as it applies to sick leave is in breach of the Employment Equality Act. It would be an interesting test case if a precedent does not already exist. In any event, the agreement is essentially a structure for work practices and your dismissal may not be enforceable unless the terms are specified in the T&Cs of your contract.

In my own observations of unfair dismissal cases, I would feel strongly that the issues often become far more complicated after unions become involved - depending on the personalities involved, there seems to be a tendency to pursue broader agendas to some extent, and many reps have an dictatorial and inflexible negotiating style that may increase the polarisation between the sides. As you have noted, the union are in fact jointly culpable in your own case, and its reps are now in an awkward situation of their own making - they will seek to avoid further embarrassment. Speak to your Union by all means, but please contact the Equality Authority first and take their advice rather than Union Rep advice before proceeding with any legal action.


----------



## alleycat41 (20 Jul 2009)

hi, how do i edit to remove my name please?

Hi Alleycat - I have updated the first post with removal of sig. elcato


----------



## alleycat41 (20 Jul 2009)

thank you to the mods for removing my name.


----------



## JoeRoberts (22 Jul 2009)

Before running down the road of tribunals it is worth considering the maximum award you can get awarded, versus what you will get as part of a redundancy package. Often it is not much extra and not worth the hassle, especially if company is paying above statutory redundancy.

Unless of course you try for a reinstatement which is often not feasible or granted, as there may be a bad feeling in the workplace after a reinstatement.

Decide what your desired outcome is first.


----------



## alleycat41 (23 Jul 2009)

well met up with the union official this morning and found out that the union didnt agree to hopsitalization or absentism but that the company went ahead with it anyway. the union advised that there would be comebacks and and that it was unfair but the company decided with it anyway without proper consultation. and he does think i have a good case for sexual discriminition, so that was the road i was advised to take, will keep everyone informed.


----------



## Darthvadar (23 Jul 2009)

Thanks Alleycat...

Yes please, keep us informed...

Darth...


----------

