Labour Court overturns WRC ruling against direct provision operator

Mon, 30 Sep, 2024 - 20:14

Seán McCárthaigh

The Labour Court has overturned a finding that the operator of a direct provision centre had discriminated against an employee who had been mocked by work colleagues over his English accent.

Coolebridge, a company which operates a number of direct provision centres, appealed a ruling by the Workplace Relations Commission that it should pay compensation of €3,500 to general assistant, Chris Murray, for discriminating against him on grounds of race.

The Labour Court upheld the appeal by Coolebridge after Mr Murray confirmed that he could not identify a comparator and could not identify acts of discrimination based on his race over the relevant period.

Consultants for Coolebridge successfully argued that Mr Murray had failed to establish a prima facie case that he had suffered discrimination.

The company had not attended and was not legally represented at the original WRC hearing in November 2023.

Mr Murray had told the WRC that he enjoyed the work at one of the company’s direct provision centres based in Inchicore and felt rewarded by his interactions with service users who were international refugees seeking protection and asylum.

The WRC heard that he began work in the centre in July 2022, where he worked 12-hour shifts at the rate of €12 per hour.

Mr Murray explained that he is an Irish national but, because of his upbringing, speaks with an English accent.

He claimed his work colleagues took pleasure in teasing him about his accent and would refer to him as “the Protestant". Mr Murray said the name-calling was a continuous running joke amongst staff members.

He claimed the mocking continued until his employment was terminated in May 2023.

The WRC ruled that he had been treated less favourably than his co-workers on the grounds of race and had been further victimised by his employer’s failure to address the issue when Mr Murray had complained about it.

However, the finding has been reversed following Coolebridge’s appeal to the Labour Court.