Photojournalist accuses body of gender discrimination
A photojournalist has accused the professional body for press photographers in Ireland of making it "disproportionately" hard for women to join and of harbouring a "jobs for the boys attitude".
At the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) claimant Norma Burke accused Press Photographers Ireland CLG (PPI) of acting as "de facto photo Freemasons" and said she was belittled and dismissed during correspondence with one of its male members.
In a complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000, Ms Burke, who told the tribunal she was working part-time as a photojournalist while enrolled as a full-time student, has accused Press Photographers Ireland CLG of directly and indirectly discriminating against her on the grounds of her gender.
Her case is that a membership rule requiring PPI members to be "full-time" press photographers earning 80% of their income from editorial work discriminates against women on the grounds they are more likely to be working part-time, in full-time education or to have childcare or caring responsibilities.
She further alleges that "belittling", "dismissive" and "gendered" remarks were made to her in reply to her inquiries about the membership process in August and September last year.
PPI, which was known as the Press Photographers Association of Ireland (PPAI) until earlier this year, denies any breach.
Its barrister urged the tribunal to dismiss the case on preliminary grounds, arguing Ms Burke did not submit a membership application, so had no standing to make a claim, and that the association did not provide a service to the public, so it was not covered by the equality legislation.
The tribunal reserved its position on the objections and heard the matter in full yesterday. PPI, having taken its stance, told the tribunal it would rely on its preliminary objections and present no witness testimony.
Ms Burke claimed the organisation, which she said was "90% male", had a "hegemony of male members" and a "massive gender imbalance".
The tribunal heard the association's membership secretary had replied to one of Ms Burke’s emails stating: 'If you are a full-time student, that makes you a part-time photographer?'
She said this was down to a membership process that made it "disproportionately hard for [women] to meet the required threshold of 80% of income".
Women were more likely to be working part-time, to have childcare or caring responsibilities, and to be in full-time education, she said.
Ms Burke contrasted this with 40% female membership in the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), of which she said she was a member.
"In the world of the [PPI], an award-winning female press photographer is a lesser-spotted creature on the brink of extinction," she said – describing photos from an awards dinner run by the association as "a sea of men in tuxedos".
She also accused the organisation of operating as "de facto photo Freemasons, with a jobs for the boys mentality".
The PPI's barrister, Elaine Davern-Wiseman BL, called Ms Burke’s comments "inflammatory and prejudicial statements" which were "completely irrelevant" and had "nothing to do with the complaint".
The organisation required its members to be full-time photographers to uphold "the standards and the standing the organisation has", she said.
"In this day and age, everyone with a camera and a laptop can try to put themselves out as being a photographer," she said.
Counsel said the issuing of a PPI membership card identifying the holder to gardaí as "bona fide" was "particularly pertinent in the current environment".
Ms Burke said she had "tried to get clarity" from the body on what it meant by "full-time" in her correspondence, but that they "simply wouldn’t tell me".
"What they were clear about was that my being a full-time student automatically made me ineligible, and I understood that to be on the basis of hours worked," she said.
The tribunal heard the association’s membership secretary had replied to one of Ms Burke’s emails stating: "If you are a full-time student, that makes you a part-time photographer?".
Its president had told her: "I can’t progress an application for you given your status as a full-time student. PPAI members are expected to be full-time photographers."
Ms Davern-Wiseman submitted that the association’s constitution did not define "full-time" status in terms of hours or income.
She said it was "completely self-determined and therefore could in no way be seen as discriminatory on a gender basis or on any other basis".
Ms Burke further claimed she was directly discriminated against in an exchange of correspondence with PPI in late August and early September 2023, in which she claimed "belittling", "dismissive" and "gendered" remarks were made to her to which she contended a male photographer would not have been subjected.
She claimed there had been a "refusal to give me proper information on what constituted full-time" and that the association was treating her "as though I was kind of like a child".
Ms Burke also took issue with emails suggesting she speak to her college tutor about her application, wishing her good luck with her studies, and stating: "I’m sure when you decide to take up photography as a full-time occupation your application will be received favourably".
Questioning Ms Burke, Ms Davern-Wiseman said: "The criteria for membership is clearly that 80% of your income is from journalism. There is no mention anywhere of a requirement for hours, and there also isn’t a requirement for an income threshold, isn’t that correct?"
Ms Burke replied: "I wasn’t aware that there wasn’t one," going on to say that she thought a requirement for a certain number of working hours was "implicit in 'full-time’".
Ms Davern-Wiseman put it to Ms Burke that she had never told the organisation that all of her income came from press work.
The complainant said she "wasn’t asked" and that her student status had "automatically disqualified me".
Quoting from the correspondence, Ms Davern-Wiseman put it to the complainant: "It’s clearly stated that to qualify for membership 80% of total income must be journalistic income. ‘If you’ve any queries, let me know.’ Is there anything – what was the word – ‘gendered’ in that?"
"To specify that you have to be full-time is indirectly discriminatory because it disproportionately prevents women from meeting the threshold," Ms Burke said.
Counsel asked Ms Burke how her application could have been "blocked", as had been alleged in the notice claim, given that the complainant did not return an application form sent to her.
"I was told I was ineligible to apply, that maybe on some future date I would become eligible and that was the end of the conversation. The suggestion that I would send this [form] with a full set of my accounts is ludicrous," she said. She accepted she could not point to the word "ineligible" being used by the respondent.
In a closing submission, Ms Burke said: "I still don’t know if I’m eligible. They’re very welcome to let me know, if they want to…I can only go on the basis my full-time student status excludes me."
Ms Davern-Wiseman said Ms Burke’s claim was "utterly misconceived" in respect of the membership criteria and that she had been unable to point to "any gendered language, any phrase, any specific wording, in any way, shape or form".
"The respondent to this day is a stranger as to whether or not the complainant qualifies to be a member. We don’t know, she never applied, therefore I say there is no case to answer," she concluded.
Adjudicator Kara Turner closed the hearing yesterday evening and is to issue her findings in writing to the parties at a future date.
Ms Burke previously attempted to secure the nomination of Dublin City Council to stand as a satirical candidate in the 2018 presidential election, appearing in costume as a fictional public relations executive named Bunty Twuntingdon-McFuff in a presentation to councillors.
She reprised the character in the 2019 British general election to stand against former British prime minister Boris Johnson in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency, where she secured 22 votes.
In a run for the Dáil the following year, Ms Burke campaigned under her own name as an independent in Dublin Bay South, but did not secure a seat.
