Facts: Mr. Onyemekeihia was employed as a prison officer in Mountjoy Prison. He was subjected to constant racial abuse by some prisoners. He complained to his employer, the Irish Prison Service (IPS), however, he felt that their response was inadequate. He submitted that the Prison Rules 2007 were inadequate to address the issue at hand and sanctions were never implemented or only briefly implemented He subsequently made two complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) and one of these decisions was appealed to the Labour Court. Witnesses on behalf of the appellant submitted that a focus on rules and sanctions was too narrow, and that education and a more visible policy was required.
The IPS argued that prisons are a unique environment and the prison rules have sanctions for prisoners for misconduct. The IPS sought to rely on the practicable defence requirements under section 14A of the Equality Act 1998, as amended. This provides a defence for the employer where, if the employer took reasonably practicable steps to prevent harassment or the victim from being treated differently, and if the harassment had already occurred, if the employer took steps to reverse its effects.
In the hearing in the Labour Court, it was found that the IPS consistently took a robust approach to deal with allegations of racist behaviour and the sanctions were meaningful and proportionate. It recognised that the IPS’s approach to equality and diversity was evolving and that it may not have been given an adequate level of attention to date. The Labour Court directed IPS to conduct a thorough review of its anti-racism strategy and policies with regard to international best practice. This decision was appealed by the applicant in the High Court.
Reasoning: In the High Court, O’Regan J. stated that it was difficult to reconcile the finding of the Labour Court, which found, on the one hand, that the IPS had a consistently robust approach, meaningful and proportionate sanctions and an active anti-harassment policy, and, on the other hand, that the IPS has not given racism and racial harassment sufficient attention, directing them to conduct a review of their anti-racism strategy and policies. This was held to be insufficiently explained and therefore irrational. It was also held that the Labour Court did not fulfil its obligation to give reasons for its decision.
As regards the claim of indirect discrimination made by the appellant, including with reference to the Race Equality Directive 2000/43/EC, O’Regan J. held that the Labour Court should have made some reference to indirect discrimination as opposed to ignoring the issue. The adequacy of the Prison Rules 2007 in providing adequate sanctions or an adequate policy was considered a matter for the Labour Court and not the instant proceedings.
Decision: The decision of the Labour Court was set aside.
