Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEE9411 Case Number: DEE955 Section / Act: S21EE Parties: MONKSTOWN PARK CBC (APPELLANT) - and - JOYCE DUBERRY (CLAIMANT;THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY AGENCY |
Appeal by College against Equality Officer's Recommendation EE13/94 and an appeal by the claimant for a Determination that EE13/94 be implemented. It is alleged that the worker was discriminated against by the College because of her sex in terms of Section 3 of the Employment Equality Act, 1977 and contrary to Section 2(A) and 2(C) of the Act.
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of both
parties.
The appellant has claimed that the claimant was not considered for
the post in question as she had not applied for the post.
Given the lack of formal procedures within the school for applying
for posts, and the fact that the claimant did make known her
interest in the post to a board member, the Court is satisfied
that the claimant did apply for the post in question.
The Court is satisfied that the board member had passed this
information to the School Principal. The Court finds that there
were no reasonable grounds on which the Principal or the Board
could have formed the view that the claimant did not wish to
continue teaching.
In the circumstances in which temporary appointments were so
casually made, the Court is satisfied that it was reasonable for
the claimant to assume that she would be retained in the school,
and there were precedents to ground such an assumption.
In relation to the allegation that the Principal had informed her
that he had been under pressure to appoint staff who could coach
rugby, the Court accepted the evidence of the Union representative
who claimed that when she confronted the Principal with this
allegation, he did not refute it.
The Court is satisfied that had the claimant been considered for
the post, she would have been appointed, given her qualifications
which were better than those of the appointee. The Court
therefore concludes that the failure to consider the applicant for
the post related to her sex.
Taking into account all of the evidence before it the Court
endorses the Equality Officer's Recommendation and holds that the
School discriminated against the claimant within the meaning of
the Employment Equality Act, 1977. The Court recommends that the
claimant be appointed to a wholetime temporary post in the school
with effect from September, 1991. The Court further recommends
that this period of service be accumulated on behalf of the
claimant to facilitate her inclusion on the supplementary teaching
panel.
The Court further awards compensation to the claimant in the
amount of #4,000 (thus increasing the sum recommended by the
Equality Officer by #2,000).
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEE9411 DETERMINATION NO. DEE595
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
SECTION 21(1), EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
PARTIES:
MONKSTOWN PARK CBC (Appellant)
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
JOYCE DUBERRY (Claimant)
(REPRESENTED BY THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY AGENCY)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by College against Equality Officer's Recommendation
EE13/94 and an appeal by the claimant for a Determination
that EE13/94 be implemented. It is alleged that the worker
was discriminated against by the College because of her sex
in terms of Section 3 of the Employment Equality Act, 1977
and contrary to Section 2(A) and 2(C) 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 her
Recommendation which was issued on 8th September, 1994
found that the College discriminated against the worker
contrary to the terms of the Employment Equality Act,
1977.
2. The College appealed the Recommendation to the Labour
Court on 19th October, 1994 on the following grounds:-
(a) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in
concluding that the College had discriminated
against the claimant on the grounds of her sex, and
(b) Any other grounds of appeal that may arise during
the course of the investigation.
The claimant is appealing for a Determination that
EE13/94 be implemented.
The Court heard the appeal on the 21st March, 1995.
Both parties expanded orally on their submissions at the
hearing.
DETERMINATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of both
parties.
The appellant has claimed that the claimant was not considered for
the post in question as she had not applied for the post.
Given the lack of formal procedures within the school for applying
for posts, and the fact that the claimant did make known her
interest in the post to a board member, the Court is satisfied
that the claimant did apply for the post in question.
The Court is satisfied that the board member had passed this
information to the School Principal. The Court finds that there
were no reasonable grounds on which the Principal or the Board
could have formed the view that the claimant did not wish to
continue teaching.
In the circumstances in which temporary appointments were so
casually made, the Court is satisfied that it was reasonable for
the claimant to assume that she would be retained in the school,
and there were precedents to ground such an assumption.
In relation to the allegation that the Principal had informed her
that he had been under pressure to appoint staff who could coach
rugby, the Court accepted the evidence of the Union representative
who claimed that when she confronted the Principal with this
allegation, he did not refute it.
The Court is satisfied that had the claimant been considered for
the post, she would have been appointed, given her qualifications
which were better than those of the appointee. The Court
therefore concludes that the failure to consider the applicant for
the post related to her sex.
Taking into account all of the evidence before it the Court
endorses the Equality Officer's Recommendation and holds that the
School discriminated against the claimant within the meaning of
the Employment Equality Act, 1977. The Court recommends that the
claimant be appointed to a wholetime temporary post in the school
with effect from September, 1991. The Court further recommends
that this period of service be accumulated on behalf of the
claimant to facilitate her inclusion on the supplementary teaching
panel.
The Court further awards compensation to the claimant in the
amount of #4,000 (thus increasing the sum recommended by the
Equality Officer by #2,000).
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th September, 1995 Finbarr Flood
L.W./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman