Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEE9211 Case Number: DEE938 Section / Act: S21EE Parties: CORRIB AIRPORT LIMITED - and - A WORKER;THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY AGENCY |
Appeal by the Company against Equality Officer's Recommendation EE14/1992 concerning a claim by the worker that the Company discriminated against her on the grounds of sex and marital status in terms of Section 2(a), and Section 2(b) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977 and contrary to Section 3 (1) and 3(3)(a) of the Act, by denying her access to employment.
Recommendation:
5. The claimant applied for a job at Corrib Airport in response
to a newspaper advertisement placed by Corrib Airport Ltd. She
was interviewed by the then General Manager on 20th June, 1990 and
was advised by letter on 22nd June, 1990 that her application was
unsuccessful. On 5th July, 1990 she had a further discussion with
the General Manager in an attempt to ascertain why she had failed
to get the job.
The claimant considered that her failure to gain employment at
Corrib Airport resulted from her interview on 20th June; she
alleged that the interview had been discriminatory on grounds of
sex and marital status. Through the Employment Equality Agency
she submitted a complaint to the Labour Court in December, 1990.
The Court referred the matter to an Equality Officer of the Labour
Relations Commission for investigation. The Equality Officer
found in the claimant's favour and recommended payment of #12,000
by way of compensation. The Company appealed to the Labour Court
against the recommendation on a number of grounds; the claimant
appealed for implementation of the recommendation. The Court
heard the appeals on 21st April, 1993.
Most of the of evidence concerning the interview was submitted by
the claimant; the Company was unable to make any direct rebuttal
because the General Manager, who alone had interviewed the
claimant, had since departed from the Company and was not
available for the hearing. Accordingly the Company had to rely on
notes written by the Managing Director at the time of the
interview and on statements made by the Managing Director in an
interview with an I.B.E.C. representative when the claim was first
made in late 1990. The claimant presented a detailed record of
the interview which she had compiled immediately afterwards. Such
elements of the record as were verifiable (from third parties or
through notes written by the Managing Director) were found by the
Court to be accurate and the Court formed the view that, on the
balance of probability, the claimant's record accurately reflected
the content, thrust and atmosphere of the interview.
The Company confirmed that the Managing Director had admitted
asking one clearly discriminatory question as to "who would mind
her two children while she was at work". While the claimant
states that she assured the Managing Director that the minding of
her children would not inhibit her availability for work in any
way, the issue was patently a matter of major concern to him.
This was confirmed by his persistent questioning in relation to
the issue at the interview, which was detailed in the claimant's
record, by his own interview notes on the matter, by his
requirement that the Baby-sitter phone him, and by the
interpretation he put on the conversation he had with the
baby-sitter. The Court consequently concludes that the Managing
Director's decision not to award the job to the claimant was
largely determined by his perception that her work - availability
had limitations because of her child-minding responsibilities.
The Court is satisfied that the child-minding factor would not
have arisen in the case of a male applicant, married or otherwise,
In view of this conclusion and having regard to the absence of
objective assessment criteria for candidates and to the respective
merits of the C.Vs of the claimant and of the successful
candidate, the Court is satisfied that the Managing Director's
decision not to offer the job to the claimant constituted
discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to Section 2(a) of the
Act.
The decision also offended Section 2(b) of the Act in so far as
other questions asked by the Managing Director concerning the
attitude of her husband regarding the claimant's decision to seek
a job and concerning his availability to share the child-minding
responsibilities while she worked, would not have been asked of a
female applicant of single-status.
In considering the question of compensation the Court is satisfied
that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the sum
of #4,000 is the appropriate and reasonable amount. The Court
therefore determines that the Company pay #4,000 to the claimant
by way of compensation.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEE9211 DEE893
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
SECTION 21 EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
PARTIES: CORRIB AIRPORT LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY AGENCY)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Equality Officer's
Recommendation EE14/1992 concerning a claim by the worker that the
Company discriminated against her on the grounds of sex and
marital status in terms of Section 2(a), and Section 2(b) of the
Employment Equality Act, 1977 and contrary to Section 3 (1) and
3(3)(a) of the Act, by denying her access to employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The background to this case is set out in the Equality
Officer's Recommendation which is Appendix 1 to this
Determination. The Equality Officer in his Recommendation which
was issued on the 24th July, 1992 awarded the claimant #12,000 by
way of compensation in respect of loss of employment opportunity,
lost earnings, distress and anxiety.
3. On the 31st August, 1992 the Employment Equality Agency
appealed to the Labour Court for a Determination that the Company
had not implemented the Equality Officer's recommendation.
4. On the 1st September, 1992 the Federation of Irish Employers
(now the Irish Business and Employers Confederation) appealed the
Recommendation to the Labour Court on various grounds.
The Court heard the appeal in Galway on the 21st April, 1993.
Both parties submitted additional information at the hearing which
was considered by the Court. The written submissions to the Court
are attached as appendices.
DETERMINATION:
5. The claimant applied for a job at Corrib Airport in response
to a newspaper advertisement placed by Corrib Airport Ltd. She
was interviewed by the then General Manager on 20th June, 1990 and
was advised by letter on 22nd June, 1990 that her application was
unsuccessful. On 5th July, 1990 she had a further discussion with
the General Manager in an attempt to ascertain why she had failed
to get the job.
The claimant considered that her failure to gain employment at
Corrib Airport resulted from her interview on 20th June; she
alleged that the interview had been discriminatory on grounds of
sex and marital status. Through the Employment Equality Agency
she submitted a complaint to the Labour Court in December, 1990.
The Court referred the matter to an Equality Officer of the Labour
Relations Commission for investigation. The Equality Officer
found in the claimant's favour and recommended payment of #12,000
by way of compensation. The Company appealed to the Labour Court
against the recommendation on a number of grounds; the claimant
appealed for implementation of the recommendation. The Court
heard the appeals on 21st April, 1993.
Most of the of evidence concerning the interview was submitted by
the claimant; the Company was unable to make any direct rebuttal
because the General Manager, who alone had interviewed the
claimant, had since departed from the Company and was not
available for the hearing. Accordingly the Company had to rely on
notes written by the Managing Director at the time of the
interview and on statements made by the Managing Director in an
interview with an I.B.E.C. representative when the claim was first
made in late 1990. The claimant presented a detailed record of
the interview which she had compiled immediately afterwards. Such
elements of the record as were verifiable (from third parties or
through notes written by the Managing Director) were found by the
Court to be accurate and the Court formed the view that, on the
balance of probability, the claimant's record accurately reflected
the content, thrust and atmosphere of the interview.
The Company confirmed that the Managing Director had admitted
asking one clearly discriminatory question as to "who would mind
her two children while she was at work". While the claimant
states that she assured the Managing Director that the minding of
her children would not inhibit her availability for work in any
way, the issue was patently a matter of major concern to him.
This was confirmed by his persistent questioning in relation to
the issue at the interview, which was detailed in the claimant's
record, by his own interview notes on the matter, by his
requirement that the Baby-sitter phone him, and by the
interpretation he put on the conversation he had with the
baby-sitter. The Court consequently concludes that the Managing
Director's decision not to award the job to the claimant was
largely determined by his perception that her work - availability
had limitations because of her child-minding responsibilities.
The Court is satisfied that the child-minding factor would not
have arisen in the case of a male applicant, married or otherwise,
In view of this conclusion and having regard to the absence of
objective assessment criteria for candidates and to the respective
merits of the C.Vs of the claimant and of the successful
candidate, the Court is satisfied that the Managing Director's
decision not to offer the job to the claimant constituted
discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to Section 2(a) of the
Act.
The decision also offended Section 2(b) of the Act in so far as
other questions asked by the Managing Director concerning the
attitude of her husband regarding the claimant's decision to seek
a job and concerning his availability to share the child-minding
responsibilities while she worked, would not have been asked of a
female applicant of single-status.
In considering the question of compensation the Court is satisfied
that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the sum
of #4,000 is the appropriate and reasonable amount. The Court
therefore determines that the Company pay #4,000 to the claimant
by way of compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
16th December, 1993 ---------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.
APPENDICES
1. APPENDIX I - EQUALITY OFFICERS' RECOMMENDATION.
2. APPENDIX 2 - WORKER'S SUBMISSION
3. APPENDIX 3 - COMPANY'S SUBMISSION.