Wakim -V- Franklins Limited [1997] NSWEOT

Equal Opportunity Tribunal of New South Wales

CITATION: Wakim -V- Franklins Limited [1997] NSWEOT

COMPLAINANT: Bridget Wakim

RESPONDENT: Franklins Limited

NUMBER: 131 of 1995

Mr Graham Ireland ( Judicial Member ) TRIBUNAL: Ms L Farmer OAM Mr M Luger

GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT: Discrimination on the grounds of race in the area of employment and unlawful victimisation

DATES OF HEARING: 08/19/1996; 08/20/1996; 08/23/1996; 10/04/1996; 10/10/1996; 10/11/1996; 12/13/1996 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/25/1997

Complainant: Mr B Hurley Steven Meyer Nazarian & Co (Solicitors)

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Respondent: Mr J Catanzariti Clayton Utz (Solicitors) Mr M Sweeney (Counsel)

JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF:

Formal Background of Complaints

The hearing of this complaint occupied seven hearing days which concluded on 13 December 1996. Written submissions were received from the Complainant's solicitor and the Respondent's counsel, with the submissions in reply being received from the Complainant on 2 April 1997.

The inquiry involved consideration of detailed evidence of allegations made by the Complainant arising out of her employment by the Respondent, with the complaints focused on events occurring between the commencement of her employment on 17 November 1994 to 12 April 1995, the date on which her solicitor lodged a second complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Board ("the Board").

The Complainant made two complaints to the Board. By letter dated 10 February 1995 the solicitor for Mrs Wakim lodged a complaint with the Board that the Respondent had discriminated against Mrs Wakim arising out of events relating to her employment between November 1994 and 7 December 1994. In the points of claim filed with the Tribunal it is claimed "In the circumstances such statements were based on the Complainant's race and contravene ss 7 and 8 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) "the Act"). No further elaboration is given to the Tribunal, nor do the submissions of the Complainant elaborate, on which of the alternative arms of section 7(1) of the Act is relied on by the Complainant, nor as to which of the subsections of section 8 of the Act the Complainant relies on to establish the unlawful nature of the alleged discriminatory conduct of the Respondent. By reason of the nature of the presentation of the case of the Complainant, the Tribunal has proceeded to examine the complaint as one of direct discrimination under section 7(1)(a) of the Act and, to the extent that it might become appropriate to do so, on the basis that any finding of direct discrimination was unlawful under section 8(2)(a) of the Act, that is, "In the terms or conditions of employment which the employer affords the employee" and section 8(2)(c) "By ... subjecting the employee to any other detriment."