Woman who was told job is ‘for men only’ gets €7,500

A FEMALE worker at a logistics firm who was told a job involving lifting heavy boxes was only for male employees has been awarded €7,500 compensation.

The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that a Galway firm, Source & Supply Logistics, has discriminated against Jess Quinn on grounds of gender.

Ms Quinn claimed the company breached the Employment Equality Act by restricting the job to male staff – a claim denied by the firm.

Ms Quinn told the WRC that her three-month contract had been due to expire with the company but she was told a new job was coming up with the HSE in Merlin Park, Galway. She claimed she was informed that it was a manual handling job that required lifting boxes weighing 7kg-15kg around the premises, including up and down stairs.

Ms Quinn gave evidence that she was told the job was open to males only because of the physical nature of the task. She told the WRC that she regarded such a restriction as ‘sexist.’

The WRC heard that the company referred to guidelines issued by the Health and Safety Authority.

Ms Quinn said she applied for the job anyway but was not called for interview, while two men whom she had trained were appointed.

She also pointed out that she had previously driven a heavy goods vehicle for the firm which involved lifting much heavier items than boxes. Ms Quinn said the issue affected her confidence and she had felt humiliated.

A manager with Source & Supply Logistics, Pearse O’Donohue, gave evidence that Ms Quinn was an excellent employee and described the matter as ‘unfortunate’.

Mr O’Donohue said there was some understanding as to why the claimant felt the way she did but he denied that the job was available only to men.

Although her contract was coming to an end, he said there was other work available in a different area but a risk assessment had advised it needed to be done by two people who were able-bodied and stronger.

Mr O’Donohue claimed the person for the job needed to be stronger but ‘not necessarily male’. He told the WRC that lifting aids were considered for people in the job but that was not possible because of its location in a customer’s premises.

Mr O’Donohue said the decision was made in the interests of health and safety. He acknowledged that no assessment had been carried out to see if Ms Quinn was able to lift the boxes without risk of injury.

The WRC heard that Ms Quinn handed in her notice and said she did not want to stay after the company asked her to stay on so a new job could be found for her.

WRC adjudication officer Niamh O’Carroll said the company had not asked Ms Quinn if she was physically capable of lifting the boxes and had not given her a trial run. ‘They simply said she would not be suitable,’ said Ms Quinn. She said the claimant had done a similar job before and was well trained in manual handling.

She ruled that Ms Quinn had established a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of gender, while the company had failed to show there had been no infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

‘She had felt humiliated’