It has emerged that the Workplace Relations Commission sent two interpreters, one for Portuguese, the other for Spanish, after they were requested for an employment equality case where it transpired that everyone present spoke English.
It happened after the claimant, an English-speaking Australian national, sought language assistance ahead of the hearing - later explaining that she had been working with "foreign" colleagues at a shop and needed to understand what they were saying during the proceedings.
The adjudicator, Lefre de Burgh, told the claimant it had been "inappropriate" to look for interpretation in the circumstances, citing the "cost to public funds".
Ms de Burgh made a note of her remarks at hearing in her ruling on Nicole Reekie's claims under the Employment Equality Act 1998 and the Payment of Wages Act 1991 against Liani Ltd, the operator of a convenience store and deli in Cork City - all of which she rejected.
Ms Reekie had spent six weeks working as a deli assistant at the convenience store starting on 15 June 2022 before quitting, later filing statutory complaints alleging discrimination and harassment on civil status grounds, along with the pay claim, the WRC noted.
When the complainant said that her civil status was "homeless" she was told by the adjudicator that homelessness was not a protected status under the equality legislation.
Ms Reekie then "engaged in conjecture and stated she did not think she would have had the same experiences if she were male", Ms de Burgh noted.
The complainant then argued her discrimination claim related to the fact that she was a single woman, older, and foreign, being from Australia, the decision records.
Finally, the worker raised the matter of an allegation that someone else had been subject to racial discrimination and argued that this incident "was 'aimed’ at her on the basis that she was Australian", Ms de Burgh wrote.
Ms de Burgh wrote that she then she told the worker: "As a matter of fair procedure, the complainant’s case cannot keep changing as the respondent is attempting to respond to it."
A further complaint of harassment related to the "body language" of two colleagues, with the complainant stating that she was having problems with these workers and that her employer had undertaken to remedy matters but did not do so before she left.
The company’s position was that the only issues raised by the worker were with "the quality of other people’s work".
Ms Reekie then "advanced the argument that someone else doing poor work can constitute harassment", the tribunal noted.
Ms Reekie accepted she had been paid in full when questioned on her pay claim, but said that she had been paid ten days later than she expected and was dissatisfied with the speed of her ex-employer’s responses to her correspondence.
Ms de Burgh noted that when she told the complainant she had no jurisdiction on the pay complaint if the worker had been paid in full, Ms Reekie said "sought to row back on her previous acknowledgement" and stated that she "wasn’t sure" – but "advanced no evidence and provided no figure that was due and owing".
All the complaints were denied by the company, whose barrister, Justin Condon BL, appearing instructed by Eilean Duane of Vincent Togher & Co Solicitors, called the equality claims "misconceived" and called on the tribunal to strike them out.
"No facts, pertaining to anything which came within the definition of harassment in the legislation, and/or tied to any of the protected grounds, had been advanced," Mr Condon submitted.
Ms de Burgh recorded in her decision telling Ms Reekie that the interpreters were "there for the benefit of the WRC" and "don’t work for either side".
"In particular, [I] impressed upon the Complainant the cost to public funds. There was no requirement for any interpreter at the hearing," Ms de Burgh wrote.
She rejected all of Ms Reekie’s claims, finding the complainant had not made out any case for the company to rebut in the equality matters and that it was "common case… that the complainant had been paid in full".
