Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEE9213 Case Number: DEE934 Section / Act: S21EE Parties: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD - and - MS. NUALA MADIGAN |
Appeal by a worker against Equality Officer's Recommendation EE19/92 concerning a claim that the Eastern Health Board discriminated against her contrary to the provisions of the Employment Equality Act, 1977, by failing to appoint her as a Community Welfare Officer.
Recommendation:
3. The Court heard the parties and has considered their oral and
written statements. The claimant at the hearing agreed that the
only dispute for consideration by the Court related to her non
success in the competition for the permanent post of Community
Welfare Officer.
In support of her appeal the claimant put forward the following:
1. A remark made by the Community Welfare Officer that she
was "too lady like for the job".
2. That she had considerable experience and her duties as
an Inquiry Officer were very similar to the duties of
Community Welfare Officer.
3. An allegation that the Interview Board in its marking of
the interview showed bias in favour of the male
candidate.
In respect of these issues the Court is satisfied that the
Community Welfare Officer who made the remark was only involved in
the selection of the temporary officer. The Court finds no
grounds to show that he had any influence on or involvement with
the selection board for the permanent post. Accordingly the Court
finds no grounds to conclude that the remarks made could have
influenced the Interview Board for the permanent post of Community
Welfare Officer.
From the evidence of the parties the Court finds that, whilst
certain of the duties of the Inquiry Officer are common to those
of the Community Welfare Officer, there are no grounds to support
the contention that the two jobs are similar or interchangeable.
The claimant accepts that at the interview marks were awarded
under agreed criteria to each applicant after the interview and
before the next candidate was interviewed. The Court concurs with
the findings of the Equality Officer that the Interview Board
decided on the assessment criteria beforehand and that each
individual was assessed under the criteria after the conclusions
of each interview; there were no grounds on which to conclude that
the Interview Board discriminated against the claimant on the
basis of her sex.
In view of the above the Court holds that the Eastern Health Board
did not discriminate against the claimant contrary to the
provision of the Employment Equality Act, 1977 in not appointing
her to the position of Community Welfare Officer, and determines
that the Equality Officer's Recommendation be upheld.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEE9213 DETERMINATION NO. DEE493
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
SECTION 21
PARTIES: EASTERN HEALTH BOARD
AND
MS. NUALA MADIGAN
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by a worker against Equality Officer's Recommendation
EE19/92 concerning a claim that the Eastern Health Board
discriminated against her contrary to the provisions of the
Employment Equality Act, 1977, by failing to appoint her as a
Community Welfare Officer.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. 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 6th November, 1992 found that;
"the Eastern Health Board did not discriminate against
Ms. Madigan contrary to the provisions of the Employment
Equality Act, 1977."
2. The claimant appealed the Recommendation to the Labour
Court on the 16th December, 1992 on the following grounds:
(1) that the Equality Officer erred in law and in fact
in finding that the Eastern Health Board did not
discriminate against her contrary to the terms of
the 1977 Act in not appointing her to the position
of Community Welfare Officer,
(2) that the Equality Officer erred in law and in fact
in not awarding an appropriate remedy and/or
appropriate compensation to her for the
discrimination against her and the distress caused
and,
(3) such other grounds as may arise during the appeal
hearings."
The Court heard the appeal on the 6th May, 1993. The written
submissions to the Court are attached as appendices 2 and 3.
DETERMINATION:
3. The Court heard the parties and has considered their oral and
written statements. The claimant at the hearing agreed that the
only dispute for consideration by the Court related to her non
success in the competition for the permanent post of Community
Welfare Officer.
In support of her appeal the claimant put forward the following:
1. A remark made by the Community Welfare Officer that she
was "too lady like for the job".
2. That she had considerable experience and her duties as
an Inquiry Officer were very similar to the duties of
Community Welfare Officer.
3. An allegation that the Interview Board in its marking of
the interview showed bias in favour of the male
candidate.
In respect of these issues the Court is satisfied that the
Community Welfare Officer who made the remark was only involved in
the selection of the temporary officer. The Court finds no
grounds to show that he had any influence on or involvement with
the selection board for the permanent post. Accordingly the Court
finds no grounds to conclude that the remarks made could have
influenced the Interview Board for the permanent post of Community
Welfare Officer.
From the evidence of the parties the Court finds that, whilst
certain of the duties of the Inquiry Officer are common to those
of the Community Welfare Officer, there are no grounds to support
the contention that the two jobs are similar or interchangeable.
The claimant accepts that at the interview marks were awarded
under agreed criteria to each applicant after the interview and
before the next candidate was interviewed. The Court concurs with
the findings of the Equality Officer that the Interview Board
decided on the assessment criteria beforehand and that each
individual was assessed under the criteria after the conclusions
of each interview; there were no grounds on which to conclude that
the Interview Board discriminated against the claimant on the
basis of her sex.
In view of the above the Court holds that the Eastern Health Board
did not discriminate against the claimant contrary to the
provision of the Employment Equality Act, 1977 in not appointing
her to the position of Community Welfare Officer, and determines
that the Equality Officer's Recommendation be upheld.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th June, 1993 Tom McGrath
P.O.C../M.H. ------------------------------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.