Adresse https://gelex.eu/eli/DK/decision/retsinfo/2017/10317@2017-12-22/da

Indhold

1. Indledning

Ligebehandlingsnævnets afgørelse om alder - afskedigelse - ej medhold

J. nr. 2017-6810-25530 En tjener mente sig afskediget på grund af alder. Tjeneren havde optaget en samtale med sin leder. Samtalen fandt sted efter afskedigelsen. Lederen sagde på et tidspunkt: “ I said we are old for this request, for this kind of speed high season” . Lederen havde dog under hele samtalen fastholdt, at afskedigelsen skyldtes, at tjeneren ikke var effektiv nok til at arbejde i højsæsonen. Nævnet vurderede, at samtalen ikke underbyggede, at tjeneren var blevet afskediget på grund af alder. Hun fik derfor ikke medhold.

Klagen drejer sig om påstået forskelsbehandling på grund af alder i forbindelse med, at klager blev afskediget fra sin stilling som tjener. Ligebehandlingsnævnets afgørelse Det var ikke i strid med forskelsbehandlingsloven, at klager blev afskediget fra sin stilling som tjener. Sagsfremstilling Klager, der er født i 1965, blev pr. 1. september 2016 ansat som tjener i restauranten på det indklagede hotel. Klager blev mundligt afskediget i slutningen af april 2017. Klager har fremsendt lydfiler fra en samtale den 2. maj 2017 mellem klager og klagers leder. Det fremgår blandt andet heraf: “(…) Klager: No, I actually wanted to hear what you had to say again because I think I was a little bit in shock, and so I just I wanted to hear it again and I actually, you know, wanted to say something as well, so… Leder: What I said last night is that we are renovating the staff for the high season, for the speed moment of the season, and I am afraid that what I have seen until now, that the high season is not your moment, is not what we need, and I said that the same is for me, is not that I am as good as I should but of course we can’t say to me to go home or you can’t do anything here because I am here and I said that for what I do like welcoming the people, showing the menu, keeping the social interaction, one person is more than enough because otherwise I would love to have you doing this and myself sit in (utydelig), but it is not what I want to do, I want to do this, at least during the high season. So what we need is strong people, bringing the trays up and down, running to the garden, running quite a lot and neither you or I are good enough for that, this is what I said last night . Klager: Cause what I heard you say that I am too old and to slow. Leder: I said we are old for this request, for this kind of speed high season. Klager: I don’t think it is fair that you said those things to me cause I have been here since September and I work hard. Leder: I know I know, I never said that. Klager: I never take a break, I never take a smoke break, because I don’t smoke, I take a break when I think about it, I just want to have my say, that’s all. I am not here to ask for my job back cause I don’t want it, I feel as if the words were not professional, it is also not right. You can’t say that to me in twenty seventeen that I am to old, it’s not right. Leder: [Klager], I didn’t say you are old, I said for the high season we both are not strong and quick enough, and you know that, because you are not able, as well as I am not… Klager: But we are talking about me Leder: Okay, you are not able to bring the trays with the drinks or to take away more than two or three dishes. Klager: But you did say I was too old and too slow and if I was to slow… Leder: No, I didn’t say that, I am sorry I didn’t say you are too old or too slow, I didn’t say that. Klager: Yeah, that’s what I heard. You might have said we, but you meant me, because we are talking about me and this is the job we are talking about, but you also spoke to my colleague about why you are letting me go before you spoke to me which is also unprofessional. Leder: Your colleague? Klager: Yes, [kollega], he knew about it before I did… Leder: No, not at all, not at all, I am sorry, no, if he said so maybe he might have said “I guessed”, not that, I never said to anybody rather than [navn], I didn’t talk about that to [navn] neither, to [navn] neither. I mean, I do not know why [kollega] did say something like that, because no, not at all. Klager: I am sorry, but I believe [kollega]. After what you said to me and the way that is was said and after how hard I have worked here all this time, and I feel very unappreciated, I am just telling you my piece, because I have had two days to think about it and I think it’s very unfair what you said to me, how you said it, and it is not right, it’s not right what you said to me. I am not old and I am not slow. I can work circles around people and it’s fine, I don’t need to stay here, I don’t need to be in an environment where I am not appreciated, so it’s fine. Leder: So you are forgetting what I said. Klager: No, I am not. Leder: I also said you did an excellent job during the whole winter. If you would consider to work during the low season I would be happy, do you remember that? Klager: Yeah, I heard that. Leder: Okay okay. Klager: But, you asked me twice this year, and [navn] also asked me, what were my plans for the year, you asked me in the fall, what were my plans for the year, if I intended to look for other work or if I was happy here and I said I was happy and last time we had a meeting, just in that room, you both asked me, what were my plans for the summer and we would like for you to be a part of our team. Leder: Yes. Klager: You both said those things to me, yes? Leder: You are right. Klager: Am I correct? Leder: Yes, you are absolutely right. Klager: I just wanted to know if I heard that correctly or not. And you know it’s fine, things change and that’s your decision, it’s your business, but what you said to me was not right, I am not slow and I am not old, and you cannot say those things to me, because it is not right. Leder: I am sorry, if I have used expression, those expression, if you are focusing only on that, because that, if that was said with this words, that was said in a picture, in a big picture, it wasn’t you are old, you go home, it wasn’t that. It was… Klager: But you cannot say those to me, you just cannot. Leder: [Klager], but it is a fact. (…) Leder: The fact is that it became a little bit more evident that we and I repeat we, because I am the same, we are not good enough for this, If we are not able to memorize the pizza still, and we need the pizza maker say to us, this is this, this is that, this is that, we are not good enough for the summer period. And if I used the wrong expressions, the wrong way to say it, but the fact remains that we have to invest on people that can manage this. You agree with me, with that, I know that you have been good and have tried to improve yourself as much a human being can do, I know that, but the fact remains, can you memorize and recognize the pizza? No, neither did I. Can you… Klager: I think that I have done a very good job, with getting to know the pizzas. Leder: You have done, you have done. And for the low season is absolutely perfect. Klager: I did fine when I was brought in in September and it was crazy. Leder: For the low season it is absolutely perfect, but for the high season, it’s not enough, we are going to be in trouble. Klager: No, I understand what you are saying, [leder], you are not hearing what I heard from you and from [navn]. You asked me what my plans are, will you stay, so you asked me those things, you already knew how I worked. You asked me those things. If you knew that I was slow and that I couldn’t learn the menu, then you wouldn’t have asked me, are you planning to stay for the summer. I wouldn’t have thought that that was an option. You didn’t have to ask me. (…) Leder: I am saying this that the meeting was absolutely honest, and this is what we were planning to. But I really could see and [navn] could see that when it is more people you stressed out yourself. You panic a little bit, [klager], and then some things become worse. What is absolutely possible to manage during the low season and I repeat myself you have done a fantastic job, I don’t know how could I manage without you during the low, but when it comes to full rooms, you go a little bit on confusion. (…) Klager: Then you need to tell me those specific things. But I’m not slow. I work my ass off here. When we are busy I am running and when I worked in the back, I can see other people they are not running, now and when I’m out here I am running, when I’m back there I am running. I was always working. Leder: But they are not here. If they are not running, is because they cannot run. Klager: Half the time they are out smoking. I never smoke, I don’t smoke. So I didn’t take breaks except to go to the bathroom or if I asked you to take a five minute break. Leder: I am not complaining about that, [klager]. I am not saying you are not professional. I am not saying you are not professional. Klager: It is okay [leder]. I understand who you are, now it’s really clear, very clear. Leder: Oh, This is not fair to (utydelig). This is not fair, because I never treated people unhonestly, or I never treated (utydelig)… Klager: I feel that you did the other night. (…) Klager: Yes, but you also asked me twice this year, this past year, I can’t tell you exactly, once was in a meeting in there, another time was just you and me, you know what were my long term plans and you asked me to (utydelig) so you know I have a hard time with accepting that you didn’t say those things the other night and it’s like black and white. Leder: It was one month ago and you weren’t under this rhythm of work. I am so sorry, [klager], but is not me changing towards you. It’s the work that has changed. Klager: And one week of having being busy after not being busy is not, I think, a reflection of how the whole team would do. I don’t believe that either. It’s fine. I don’t want to be here because I can’t work under those conditions anyway but under the conditions that, you know, you see me a certain way, but one week of being so busy after not being busy to me is not an indication of how someone is going to perform, because I think that it will take a little while to get used to that rhythm again. Because I remember it from last fall when I first started and I was working every day and we were so busy, you remember, we were busy until October and I remember being that busy. And that’s when I started and we were busy again for Easter season and I think it takes a while. I am not saying, you know, it should take very long, but maybe if that work continued and we were still busy it would be fine. I don’t think it is a problem. But that’s okay, because I don’t think… Leder: I don’t think you would change your mind about me at this point. Klager: No, I am not. Leder: You have a very negative opinion about me and I am very sorry about that. That wasn’t my meaning, absolutely. I do believe you have done a fantastic job, but what I said yesterday or two days ago that’s not the right competence is now for (utydelig) I do believe that too. Otherwise I wouldn’t have said that. I am very sorry, it wasn’t my meaning to hurt you any way but I think there is nothing I can say now to have you feeling better or to have you understanding maybe better what my thoughts are. I’m very sorry. If it has been a matter of language barrier, I don’t know, but never in my mind or in my heart was the desire or the idea that you are not a good worker, a good person, a good… simply is not the right job, this. I don’t need to repeat what I have already said, and. . . (…)” Klagen blev modtaget den 5. maj 2017. Parternes bemærkninger Klager gør gældende, at hun er blevet forskelsbehandlet på grund af sin alder. Efter sin vagt den 30. april 2017 blev klager afskediget af sin leder. Lederen oplyste klager om, at klager var for gammel og for langsom til at være tjener i indklagedes restaurant i sommersæsonen. Afskedigelsen skete i restauranten, hvor alle, der gik forbi, kunne overhøre samtalen. Det er ikke korrekt, at restauranten var lukket. En anden tjener serverede drikkevarer for et par gæster. Pizzakokken lavede en pizza til klager som take away. Pizzaovnen bliver altid lukket ned, så snart restauranten lukker for aftenen, men ovnen var stadig opvarmet. Klager underskrev sin timeseddel efter, at hendes vagt var overstået, hvilket var efter afskedigelsessamtalen. Restauranten var således fortsat åben. Det vil kunne dokumenteres, at restauranten ikke var lukket ved fremvisning af klagers underskrevne timesedler i forhold til, hvornår klager stoppede sin vagt, ved kreditoverførelser fra kunder, som betalte efter, at klager afsluttede sin vagt, eller ved indklagedes kasseudskrift, hvis der er slået beløb ind, efter at klagers vagt sluttede. Klager talte efterfølgende med en kollega, der oplyste, at han vidste, at klager ville blive afskediget, fordi hun var for gammel, før klager fik det at vide. Den 2. maj 2017 havde klager en samtale med lederen. Klager tog selv initiativ til samtalen, hvorunder lederen oplyste, at hun kunne stole helt og holdent på klager, og at hun var tilfreds med klagers arbejdsindsats. Lederen oplyste, at hun håbede, at klager ville komme tilbage og arbejde i lavsæsonen, hvilket klager afslog. Lederen indrømmede indirekte, at de var for gamle. Da der kun var lederen og klager til stede ved samtalen, kan dette efter klagers opfattelse direkte overføres til, at lederen mente, at klager var for gammel. Den optagne lydfil af samtalen er ægte. Det er ikke korrekt, at klager var ineffektiv og forvirret i vinterferien og påskeferien. Klager arbejdede ikke i vinterferien, hvor hun var i USA, og hun fik ros for sin arbejdsindsats i påskeferien. Lederen oplyste klager om, at hun havde en fremragende performance. Klager har aldrig modtaget kritik eller advarsler. Derimod fik klager gentagne gange ros for sin indsats. Klager blev også opfordret til fortsat at arbejde for indklagede. På et medarbejdermøde i foråret blev klager og en anden tjener spurgt, om de ville arbejde for indklagede i højsæsonen. Klager modtog ikke en skriftlig opsigelse den 10. maj 2017. Klager har pr. 19. juni 2017 endnu ikke modtaget en skriftlig opsigelse. Klager har kontaktet indklagede flere gange men fik at vide, at den eksterne bogholder ville udfærdige afskedigelsen. Klager kontaktede bogholderen, der oplyste, at hun havde givet afskedigelsesbrevet til lederens datter, som skulle give det videre til klager, når klager og lederens datter mødtes til danskundervisning. Klager har aldrig modtaget dette brev. Det er vel heller ikke den korrekte måde at fremsende et afskedigelsesbrev på. Klager blev syg på grund af afskedigelsen og blev sygemeldt. Klager kunne ikke arbejde i opsigelsesperioden. Det er ikke den sygemeldtes ansvar at fremvise en læge- eller frigørelsesattest, når den sygemeldte ikke er blevet anmodet derom, ligesom arbejdsgiveren skal betale for attesten. Indklagede anmodede ikke klager om en sådan attest. Klager ønsker godtgørelse for de 30 dage, hvor hun ikke kunne arbejde efter afskedigelsen. Klagers indtjening i sommersæsonen, som klager som følge af afskedigelsen er afskåret fra at få, ville være væsentligt højere end klagers indtjening i de seneste tre måneder op til afskedigelsen. Indklagede gør gældende, at klager ikke blev afskediget på grund af sin alder. Indklagede bestrider klagers beskrivelse af hændelsesforløbet. Det er korrekt, at klager var ansat som tjener frem til udgangen af april, og at hun ikke mødte på arbejde i opsigelsesperioden. Klager fremviste ikke læge- eller frigørelsesattest. Det er også korrekt, at afskedigelsessamtalen foregik i restauranten, men det var efter, at de sidste gæster var gået, og restauranten var lukket. Klager var knap 52 år, da hun blev afskediget. Afskedigelsen var begrundet med manglende effektivitet, når der var travlt i restauranten. Klager blev let forvirret, når der var travlt, hvilket hun gav udtryk for over for ledelsen. Dette blev meget tydeligt for ledelsen i de perioder, hvor der var mest travlt henover vinter og forår, dvs. i vinter- og påskeferien. Klager var ineffektiv, glemte kunder og ordrer mv. Dette medførte utilfredse kunder og tab for restauranten. Det fremgår også optagelsen af samtalen mellem klager og lederen, at afskedigelsen var begrundet i manglende effektivitet i den travle periode. Der er ikke noget i lydfilerne, der understøtter, at afskedigelsen var begrundet i klagers alder. Ifølge lydfilerne forsøgte klager at lokke indklagede til at fremkomme med bemærkninger, som hun kunne bruge, og indklagede tager kraftigt afstand fra denne form for indhentelse af beviser. Lydfilerne, der ikke dokumenterer selve afskedigelsen, kan ikke tillægges bevismæssig værdi. Indklagede har afgivet en skriftlig afskedigelse den 10. maj 2017. Afskedigelsesbrevet blev sendt med posten to gange og afleveret direkte i klagers postkasse. Det kan konstateres, at klager og indklagede har forskellige opfattelser af hændelsesforløbet. Indklagede fastholder sin udlægning af sagen. Ligebehandlingsnævnets bemærkninger og konklusion Ligebehandlingsnævnet behandler klager over forskelsbehandling på grund af alder efter lov om forbud mod forskelsbehandling på arbejdsmarkedet mv. (forskelsbehandlingsloven). Det fremgår af forskelsbehandlingsloven, at en arbejdsgiver ikke må forskelsbehandle lønmodtagere eller ansøgere til ledige stillinger ved ansættelse, afskedigelse, forflyttelse, forfremmelse eller med hensyn til løn- og arbejdsvilkår på grund af alder. Hvis en person, der anser sig for krænket, påviser faktiske omstændigheder, som giver anledning til at formode, at der udøves direkte eller indirekte forskelsbehandling, påhviler det modparten at bevise, at ligebehandlingsprincippet ikke er blevet krænket. Klager har fremlagt en optagelse af en samtale med sin leder. Samtalen fandt sted efter afskedigelsen. Det fremgår af optagelsen, at afskedigelsen var begrundet i, at klager ikke var tilstrækkelig effektiv til at varetage arbejdet som tjener ved indklagede i højsæsonen. Nævnet vurderer, at der ikke er noget i lydfilen, der underbygger, at klager blev afskediget på grund af sin alder. Nævnet har i den forbindelse lagt vægt på, at uanset, at lederen under samtalen udtalte ”I said we are old for this request, for this kind of speed high season” , fastholdt hun gennem hele samtalen, at afskedigelsen var begrundet i, at klager ikke var effektiv nok til at arbejde i højsæsonen. Klager får derfor ikke medhold i klagen. Retsregler Afgørelsen er truffet efter følgende bestemmelser: Lov om Ligebehandlingsnævnet - § 1, stk. 1, og stk. 3, om nævnets kompetence - § 9, stk. 1, om klagebehandling - § 12, stk. 1, om klagebehandling Forskelsbehandlingsloven - § 1, stk. 1-3, om lovens anvendelsesområde - § 2 om forbud mod forskelsbehandling - § 7a om delt bevisbyrde <2017-6810-25530>

Versioner

1. 2017-12-22