Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEE9413 Case Number: DEE952 Section / Act: S21EE Parties: MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE UNION (M.S.F.) - and - A WORKER;THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY AGENCY |
Appeal by the Employment Equality Agency against Equality Officer's Recommendation EE15/94 concerning the filling of a post as Regional Officer with the Union. It is alleged that the worker was discriminated against by the interview board because of her sex in terms of Section 3 of the Employment Equality Act, 1977 and contrary to Section 2(a) of the Act.
Recommendation:
In considering this appeal the Court has examined in detail the
written and oral submissions made by the parties. In particular
the Court has analysed the interviewer notes in relation to the
appointee and the complainant.
The Court also noted that the interview board had been set up in a
careful and exemplary manner and that training had been provided.
Despite this, the Court had some concern that certain of the notes
of the interviewers did indicate a possible discriminatory
attitude based on gender.
The Court is however satisfied that the interview board as a whole
did not discriminate on grounds of sex, and that the final
selection was not the result of gender bias.
Taking into account all the evidence the Court concludes that it
must uphold the Equality Officers recommendation that the claimant
was not discriminated against within the terms of the Employment
Equality Act, 1977.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEE9413 DETERMINATION NO. DEE295
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
SECTION 21(1), EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
PARTIES:
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE UNION (M.S.F.)
(REPRESENTED BY GERALD DURCAN S.C.
INSTRUCTED BY SPRING MURRAY AND COMPANY SOLICITORS)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY AGENCY)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Employment Equality Agency against Equality
Officer's Recommendation EE15/94 concerning the filling of a
post as Regional Officer with the Union. It is alleged that
the worker was discriminated against by the interview board
because of her sex in terms of Section 3 of the Employment
Equality Act, 1977 and contrary to Section 2(a) of the Act.
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 13th October,
1994 found that the Union (M.S.F.) did not discriminate
against the worker contrary to the terms of the
Employment Equality Act, 1977.
2. The Employment Equality Agency appealed the
Recommendation to the Labour Court on 23rd November,
1994 on the following grounds:
(a) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in
finding that the Union did not unlawfully
discriminate against the worker regarding (i) the
selection procedure for the regional officer post,
and (ii) appointment to the regional officer post.
(b) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in
finding that there was sufficient evidence to show
that the selection process and appointment were
non-discriminatory.
(c) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in
not recommending an appropriate remedy to the
worker.
(d) On all grounds that have been submitted during the
Equality Officer's investigation and such other
grounds as may arise during the course of appeal.
The Court heard the appeal on the 7th March, 1995. Both
parties expanded orally on their submissions at the
hearing. The written submissions to the Court are
attached as appendices.
DETERMINATION:
In considering this appeal the Court has examined in detail the
written and oral submissions made by the parties. In particular
the Court has analysed the interviewer notes in relation to the
appointee and the complainant.
The Court also noted that the interview board had been set up in a
careful and exemplary manner and that training had been provided.
Despite this, the Court had some concern that certain of the notes
of the interviewers did indicate a possible discriminatory
attitude based on gender.
The Court is however satisfied that the interview board as a whole
did not discriminate on grounds of sex, and that the final
selection was not the result of gender bias.
Taking into account all the evidence the Court concludes that it
must uphold the Equality Officers recommendation that the claimant
was not discriminated against within the terms of the Employment
Equality Act, 1977.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour
15th May, 1995 Evelyn Owens
L.W./M.M. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Mr.
Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.
APPENDICES
1. Equality Officer's Recommendation.
2. Union's submission.
3. Company's submission.