Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEE9410 Case Number: DEE954 Section / Act: S21EE Parties: CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE - and - A WORKER;IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION |
Appeal by Union against Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EE12/1994.
Recommendation:
The Court has carefully considered the appeal by the Union against
the Recommendation of the Equality Officer in this case.
The Court is satisfied that the Equality Officer's conclusions on
the question of direct discrimination are correct. There was no
evidence that the appellant was refused promotion by reason of her
sex or marital status.
The Court is also satisfied that the Appellant did not suffer
indirect discrimination by reason of her sex or marital status.
The requirement with which the Appellant was obliged to comply in
order to be eligible for promotion was to be a "serving"
statistician on 23rd December 1992. The Appellant was on a career
break on 23rd December 1992 and consequently was not in service as
a statistician.
The Court does not agree with the Equality Officer that "serving"
meant "not to be on a career break", but finds that it meant "to
be in service as a statistician". The purpose of the condition
was clearly to find persons suitable for senior positions in an
area of technical expertise and specialisation, namely statistics,
and that suitability could only be properly assessed if the person
was actually serving as a statistician at the time.
The proportion of male statisticians able to comply with the
requirement may well have been far higher than the proportion of
female statisticians. However, the Court is satisfied that the
requirement was not related to the sex or marital status of the
potential applicants. The Court finds that the requirement
related strictly to the exigencies of the posts in question, in
the context of the establishment of a new office and the
reorganisation which stemmed from a change in location.
In any event, given the circumstances of the situation in which
the posts became available, it appears to the Court that the
requirement could reasonably be said to be an essential
requirement. The C.S.O. was relocating its centre of operations;
it required senior and experienced personnel to fill the vacancies
which would ensure a smooth transition to the new location and the
continuation of the work of the Office in an effective manner. It
was therefore essential that the personnel be already acting in a
capacity which was capable of being assessed for suitability for
the new positions.
The Court determines that neither the Central Statistics Office,
nor the Department of the Taoiseach not the Department of Finance
discriminated against the Appellant.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEE9410 DETERMINATION NO. DEE495
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
SECTION 21
PARTIES:
CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by Union against Equality Officer's Recommendation No.
EE12/1994.
BACKGROUND:
2. The background of this case is outlined in the Equality
Officer's Recommendation No. EE12/1994, which is attached at
Appendix 1.
On 13th September, 1994 the Union appealed against the above
recommendation to the Labour Court on the following grounds:-
1. The Equality Officer erred in Law and in fact in finding
that the Appellant had not been directly discriminated
against by the respondents.
2. The Equality Officer erred in Law and in fact in finding
that the Appellant had not been indirectly discriminated
against by the respondents.
3. All grounds that may have been argued at the Equality
Officer's Hearing and such other grounds as may be
submitted during the Labour Court Hearing.
The Court heard the appeal on 17th February, 1995. The
Company's submission is attached at Appendix 2. The Union's
submission is attached at Appendix 3. The Court also
considered the oral submissions made by both parties at the
hearing.
DETERMINATION:
The Court has carefully considered the appeal by the Union against
the Recommendation of the Equality Officer in this case.
The Court is satisfied that the Equality Officer's conclusions on
the question of direct discrimination are correct. There was no
evidence that the appellant was refused promotion by reason of her
sex or marital status.
The Court is also satisfied that the Appellant did not suffer
indirect discrimination by reason of her sex or marital status.
The requirement with which the Appellant was obliged to comply in
order to be eligible for promotion was to be a "serving"
statistician on 23rd December 1992. The Appellant was on a career
break on 23rd December 1992 and consequently was not in service as
a statistician.
The Court does not agree with the Equality Officer that "serving"
meant "not to be on a career break", but finds that it meant "to
be in service as a statistician". The purpose of the condition
was clearly to find persons suitable for senior positions in an
area of technical expertise and specialisation, namely statistics,
and that suitability could only be properly assessed if the person
was actually serving as a statistician at the time.
The proportion of male statisticians able to comply with the
requirement may well have been far higher than the proportion of
female statisticians. However, the Court is satisfied that the
requirement was not related to the sex or marital status of the
potential applicants. The Court finds that the requirement
related strictly to the exigencies of the posts in question, in
the context of the establishment of a new office and the
reorganisation which stemmed from a change in location.
In any event, given the circumstances of the situation in which
the posts became available, it appears to the Court that the
requirement could reasonably be said to be an essential
requirement. The C.S.O. was relocating its centre of operations;
it required senior and experienced personnel to fill the vacancies
which would ensure a smooth transition to the new location and the
continuation of the work of the Office in an effective manner. It
was therefore essential that the personnel be already acting in a
capacity which was capable of being assessed for suitability for
the new positions.
The Court determines that neither the Central Statistics Office,
nor the Department of the Taoiseach not the Department of Finance
discriminated against the Appellant.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st July, 1995 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman