A workforce manager with Intel Ireland has urged the High Court not to give the company a "second bite at the cherry" by allowing it call more evidence and re-examine her at a Labour Court hearing into alleged harassment and gender discrimination.
Marie Cunningham said granting the company's application would mean further delay when more than five years had passed since she first brought her case alleging the Kildare-based firm discriminated against her in failing to restore her to the same position she held prior to going on maternity leave in 2007.
She also alleged she was bullied and harassed on her return to work before going out on stress-related sick leave in December 2008.
Intel denies her claims and says she was restored to an equivalent position at the same grade and rate of pay.
After an Equality Tribunal rejected her claim, she appealed to the Labour Court which heard evidence and was almost due to give its determination when Intel brought High Court proceedings over the way the appeal was being conducted. Re-examine Intel claimed the Labour Court was wrong in law in refusing to allow it re-examine Ms Cunningham and bring in new evidence in relation to her health concerning the harassment claim.
The Labour Court had said it would permit introduction of new evidence not available when witnesses were giving evidence but this would be limited and would not involve re-examination of witnesses. Ms Cunningham, a notice party in the proceedings, had opposed Intel’s application.
Yesterday, having heard submissions from Intel, the Labour Court and Ms Cunningham, Ms Justice Marie Baker said she hoped to give her decision as soon as possible. Delays Earlier, Ms Cunningham, representing herself, said, if the High Court permitted Intel reopen the Labour Court hearing, the firm would be able to "kick the can further down the road" in a case that has gone on for 5½ years. "Justice is being delayed to a point where is almost being denied," she said. The evidence had been completed and it would be an abuse of process if Intel were allowed reopen the case, she said.
She disputed claims by Intel’s lawyers the information it sought to test in new evidence was not available when evidence was being given to the Labour Court. The issues addressed at that hearing were narrowed on consent of the sides, she said.
Intel had already tried to delay, “muddy the waters” and claim it was not being afforded fair procedures during the Labour Court hearing, she said. She agreed with Dermot Gleeson SC, for the Labour Court, that Intel was “looking for a second bite at the cherry”.
Mr Gleeson, in his submissions, argued the Labour Court was entitled to make a decision which did not require it to “go over old ground”.
