[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> A v B (Sex Discrimination) [2002] NIIT 3880_99 (8 February 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2002/12.html Cite as: [2002] NIIT 3880_99

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 


A v B (Sex Discrimination) [2002] NIIT 3880_99 (8 February 2002)

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF NO: 03880/99SD

APPLICANT: 'A'

RESPONDENT: 'B'

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the respondent unlawfully discriminated against the applicant by sexually harassing her whilst she was employed by him in July 1999. The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of £7,253.26 which includes interest under the Industrial Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Sex and Disability Discrimination Cases) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996.

Appearances:

The applicant was represented by Mr B McKee, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Tony Bergin, Solicitor.

The respondent appeared without representation.

1. On the evidence the tribunal was unanimously satisfied of the following facts –

(a) the applicant worked for the respondent from 2 July 1999 until 13 July 1999.

(b) at the time the applicant was 15 years of age, a school-girl and working with the respondent to earn some money for clothes.

(c) she went to work with the respondent because he was friendly with her father and mother and the employment was arranged through her mother.

(d) on the afternoon of her first day of employment with the respondent, the respondent kissed her, indecently assaulted her and forced her to commit an indecent act on him.

(e) the applicant was shocked, scared, ashamed, felt used and dirty but did not inform anyone because her parents were friendly with this man and his partner. She had no interest in the respondent and told him not to touch her.

(f) on 6 July, the respondent again kissed the applicant, touched her breasts, put his hand into her trousers and touched her intimately. He committed a serious assault upon her and once again forced her to commit an indecent act upon him.

(g) the respondent made it clear that he wanted to have sexual intercourse with the applicant. She was very scared and felt abused, dirty and traumatised.

(h) as a result of this abuse the applicant suffered pain and distress and an infection caused by the assault on her. She worked for a few more days, told her boyfriend who made her tell her parents.

2. The respondent denied that any of these events ever happened during the applicant's employment. He suggested that she was fantasising, seeking notice and looking for money. Where the applicant's evidence conflicted with the respondent's evidence, we unanimously preferred the evidence of the applicant. We found her to be a credible witness and we have no hesitation in accepting her account of the event which occurred during her employment.
3. We are not a criminal court. We cannot punish. We must compensate the applicant for the treatment which she suffered in the course of her employment. The applicant, on her own and on expert testimony, did suffer seriously in the aftermath of these offences but it is unlikely that the long term consequences for her will be severe. We believe that she did suffer shock, trauma, fear, shame, lack of trust and difficulties in her relationships and at school. It could scarcely have been otherwise in the face of such grossly indecent and forceful attacks upon her by her employer. It is beyond our comprehension how any employer in 1999 could feel that he was entitled to treat an employee in such fashion. When one takes into account the absolute vulnerability of the victim in this case, we pay tribute to her courage and resilience of this brutish behaviour. We do appreciate that the bringing of this application imposed its own strains upon her as did clearly the defence posed by the respondent. In all the circumstances, we feel that the injury to the applicant could not be measured in a lesser sum than £6,000 and we so order.
4. This award is subject to the Industrial Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Sex and Disability Discrimination Cases) Regulations (NI) 1996. The applicant is entitled to interest on this sum from the date of the unlawful conduct until today, ie. 2/7/1999 to 8 February 2002 at 8% pa. We calculate this interest to be £1,253.26. The total sum payable therefore is £7,253.26.
5. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (NI) 1990.

________________________________

J E MAGUIRE

President

Date and place of hearing: 19 December 2001, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: 8 February 2002