Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEE9412 Case Number: DEE956 Section / Act: S21EE Parties: MONKSTOWN PARK CBC (APPELLANT) - and - MARGARET KEARNEY (CLAIMANT;THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY AGENCY |
Appeal by College against Equality Officer's Recommendation EE14/94 and an appeal by the claimant for a Determination that EE14/94 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 submissions of both parties and
the arguments made during the Court hearing.
The appellant claimed that the reason the claimant was not
successful in her application was because "she had a history of
severe class disciplinary problems in the senior school".
On this issue the Court finds the evidence submitted by the school
unsatisfactory and is of the view that the claimant was no worse
than other teachers in this matter.
The Court is also satisfied that the claimant was more highly
qualified for the advertised posts than the male teacher who was
appointed.
The fact that the formal assessment and weightings of the
candidates' suitability was carried out by the Principal
subsequent to his decision on the appointment has inclined the
Court to disregard such weightings.
The Court is satisfied that the decision of the school to appoint
a less qualified male teacher to the post in question was related
to the sex of the applicants for the post and discriminated
against the claimant on the grounds of her sex.
Taking into account all the evidence before it, the Court finds no
basis for allowing the appeal.
The Court therefore endorses the Equality Officer's findings and
holds that the school discriminated against the claimant within
the meaning of the Equality Employment Act, 1977.
The Court further determines to award the sum of #4,000
compensation to the claimant, thus increasing the amount
recommended by the Equality Officer. The Court is satisfied that
having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the sum of
#4,000 is reasonable compensation.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEE9412 DETERMINATION NO. DEE695
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
MARGARET KEARNEY (Claimant)
(REPRESENTED BY THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY AGENCY)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by College against Equality Officer's Recommendation
EE14/94 and an appeal by the claimant for a Determination
that EE14/94 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
EE14/94 be implemented.
The Court heard the appeal on the 28th March, 1995.
Both parties expanded orally on their submissions at the
hearing. The written submissions to the Court are
attached as appendices (1,2,3.).
DETERMINATION:
The Court considered the written submissions of both parties and
the arguments made during the Court hearing.
The appellant claimed that the reason the claimant was not
successful in her application was because "she had a history of
severe class disciplinary problems in the senior school".
On this issue the Court finds the evidence submitted by the school
unsatisfactory and is of the view that the claimant was no worse
than other teachers in this matter.
The Court is also satisfied that the claimant was more highly
qualified for the advertised posts than the male teacher who was
appointed.
The fact that the formal assessment and weightings of the
candidates' suitability was carried out by the Principal
subsequent to his decision on the appointment has inclined the
Court to disregard such weightings.
The Court is satisfied that the decision of the school to appoint
a less qualified male teacher to the post in question was related
to the sex of the applicants for the post and discriminated
against the claimant on the grounds of her sex.
Taking into account all the evidence before it, the Court finds no
basis for allowing the appeal.
The Court therefore endorses the Equality Officer's findings and
holds that the school discriminated against the claimant within
the meaning of the Equality Employment Act, 1977.
The Court further determines to award the sum of #4,000
compensation to the claimant, thus increasing the amount
recommended by the Equality Officer. The Court is satisfied that
having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the sum of
#4,000 is reasonable compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th September, 1995 Finbarr Flood
L.W./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman