EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
EQUALITY OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION NO. EE 04/1996
P A R T I E S
Ms. Mary Turley-McGrath
(Represented by the E.E.A.)
AND
Co. Donegal V.E.C.
(Represented by I.B.E.C.)
File No. EE 10/1995
1. Dispute
1.1 The Employment Equality Agency alleges that Ms Mary
Turley-McGrath was discriminated against by County
Donegal Vocational Educational Committee when she was
denied promotion to the position of Acting Vice
Principal in Letterkenny Vocational School in September
1994.
2 Background to the Dispute
2.1 The claimant, Ms. Turley-McGrath, is employed as a
teacher by Donegal V.E.C. since 1974 in Letterkenny
Vocational School where she teaches English and general
subjects.
2.2 The claimant was promoted to a "B" post of
responsibility in 1977 and to an "A" post of
responsibility in 1982. She applied for the position of
Vice Principal in 1982 but was unsuccessful. In April
1994 due to the illness of the Principal the position of
Acting Vice Principal became available. The claimant
sought to be appointed to this acting position and was
unsuccessful. A man was appointed and the claimant
alleges that this appointment was discrimination against
her on the basis of her sex. She referred this dispute
to the Labour Court under Section 19 of the Employment
Equality Act. The Employment Equality Agency
subsequently represented her in this dispute.
3 Summary of the Claimant's Submission
3.1 The agency says that the claimant has been employed as a
teacher in Letterkenny Vocational School since 1974 by
the Donegal V.E.C. where she teaches English and general
subjects. She was promoted to a "B" post of
responsibility in 1977 and subsequently to an "A" post
of responsibility in 1982.
3.2 The agency claims that in 1982 the claimant applied for
and was interviewed for the position of Vice Principal
in the school but she was unsuccessful. The successful
candidate was male and had only six months experience in
the school and the claimant considers she was more
suitable for the position. The agency says she
complained to the C.E.O. (Chief Executive Officer) then
as there is no formal complaints procedure regarding
appointments in the V.E.C.
3
3.3 The agency says that in April 1994 when the Principal of
the school was on sick leave, he told the claimant that
he was recommending to the C.E.O., the appointment of
the Vice Principal to Acting Principal and the
appointment of the claimant to the position of Acting
Vice Principal. She indicated to the Principal her
interest in this post. The agency says that while there
were two male "A" post holders more senior than her,
they had not expressed an interest in promotion in the
past and the Principal indicated to her that he did not
consider them for promotion.
3.4 The agency says that when this conversation took place
the C.E.O. was in the school. The Principal left the
staff room for a short while and on his return said to
her "ta se sin deanta". The agency says that the
claimant presumed that he had cleared her appointment
with the C.E.O. and further says that her husband (a
teacher in the school) witnessed both conversations.
3.5 The agency says that the Principal was on sick leave
from April, 1994 and that when the claimant did not hear
anything further about her appointment she presumed it
had been deferred until September, i.e. the start of the
4
new school year. However, the appointment to Acting
Principal of the Vice Principal was confirmed by the
C.E.O. during the week commencing the 25th April, 1994.
3.6 The agency says that in September, 1994 the position of
Acting Vice Principal was advertised in the school.
(Appendix 1) The agency says that the claimant was
surprised as she understood she had been appointed to
the position and also because interviews had not
previously been held for acting positions. She
understands that the normal procedure is to fill such
positions with the grade "A" post holders in the school
and further points out that the position of Acting
Principal had been filled without an interview. She
also claimed that five other acting posts within the
county had been filled without interviews.
3.7 The agency says there were five applicants for the post,
the claimant and her husband who are both "A" post
holders, two "B" post holders and a temporary "B" post
holder. It says there were five people on the interview
board with voting rights and the C.E.O. also attended
but while he could ask questions and had an input into
5
the decision he did not have a voting right. Of the
five people who formed the interview board, there were
four men and one woman. The agency says that following
the claimant's interview for the position she was
informed she was unsuccessful and that Mr. Charlie
Cannon was the successful applicant.
3.8 The agency argues that the claimant is well qualified
for the position as she has better qualifications and
experience for the post than the successful male
applicant, Mr. Cannon. She has been an "A" post holder
for twelve years which involved carrying out management
duties for a number of hours per week. Mr. Cannon was a
"B" post holder for five years but this post involved
very few duties of a managerial type.
3.9 The agency also submits that the claimant has twenty
years teaching experience in Letterkenny school while
Mr. Cannon has ten years experience in the school. She
holds a Primary Teacher Qualification, a B.A. degree,
Higher Diploma in Education, two courses in Education
Management from Marino Institute and she is currently
taking an M.Sc in Education Management in Magee college
in Derry. Her teaching experience is mainly in English
6
and Maths. The agency claims that her record in
teaching English in the school is very good and submits
that she has raised the standard and has promoted
honours English at both Junior and Leaving Certificate
level.
3.10 The agency further submits that the claimant's work as a
co-ordinator of VPT/PLC courses and organiser of
Pre-Employment and Secretarial courses helped to raise
the profile of the school and to attract an increase in
student numbers. The agency says that she has built up
strong links between the school and the local business
community by organising work experience for the students
and as a result many students have been successful in
obtaining their first jobs.
3.11 The agency alleges that there is a prejudice towards the
promotion of women to top management posts in the
Donegal V.E.C. In support of this it says that in this
area where there are eleven schools and a total of 22
posts there are only two female Principals of small
schools and two female Vice Principals.
3.12 The agency further alleges a sex bias prejudice on the
7
part of the C.E.O. It argues that when the claimant
applied for the position of Vice Principal in 1982, a
male applicant with only six months experience in the
school was appointed. She queried the appointment at
that time with the C.E.O. because she felt she was more
suitable for the position given her experience in the
school.
3.13 The claimant alleges that she was discriminated against
by Donegal V.E.C. contrary to Section 3(1) of the
Employment Equality Act, 1977 in terms of Section 2(a)
of the Act with regard to the selection process for
promotion. The claimant says that she was recommended by
the Principal to the C.E.O. for the promotional position
in April, 1994 and in fact he offered her the position.
The claimant says it is clear that she was favoured by
the Principal for the position and that he was the best
person to determine which person was most suitable as he
had worked with all the applicants.
3.14 The agency says that a male was selected for the Acting
Vice Principal position without an interview. It argues
that it would appear therefore that when a man was the
most suitable person for a particular position, no
8
interview was required, but when a woman was the most
suitable person for the position the selection procedure
was changed and interviews were held. It would be
reasonable to infer that the reason the recommendation
of the claimant for the position was not endorsed and
the selection procedure was changed was because she was
a woman.
3.15 The agency submits that the claimant had more relevant
managerial experience than the successful male
applicant. It says that his experience was in metalwork
and computers and while he had held a "B" post for five
years the claimant had held a higher management "A" post
for twelve years, a job which she had carried out to the
obvious satisfaction of the Principal. She had
therefore obtained relevant experience and
qualifications at management level.
3.16 The agency argues that the claimant has better
educational qualifications as she holds a degree and
other third level qualifications. It says that the
successful candidate has a metalwork teaching
qualification and has done some courses on computers. He
runs Department of Education computer training courses
for teachers but computers are not an examination
9
subject at either Junior or Leaving Certificate level in
the school.
3.17 The agency says that it must be inferred from the
recommendation of the Principal together with her
relevant experience and qualifications that the claimant
was the most suitable applicant for the position. It
submits that given the superior relevant qualifications
and experience of the claimant she was a more suitable
candidate for the position than the appointee.
3.18 The agency referred to the case of Wallace - vs - South
Eastern Education and Library Board (1980, IRLR, 193)
where the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal stated that
once less favourable treatment is proved
"the fact that the successful candidate was a man
and the unsuccessful but better candidate was a
woman is itself sufficient evidence of
discrimination on the grounds of sex"
3.19 The agency contends that this rationale should be
applied to the present case. It submits that the
claimant has been treated less favourably for promotion
that the successful male applicant despite her greater
10
suitability for the position. It infers that the less
favourable treatment was on the grounds of sex and says
that this inference is supported by reference to the
statistical sex imbalance in the V.E.C. schools in
Donegal at senior management level.
3.20 The agency also referred to the case of O'Donoghue - vs
- Guardian Royal Exchange Ass Plc (EE7/94). The
Equality Officer in considering the criteria used for
selection in that case stated that
"I consider that as the unsuccessful candidate was
as well qualified for the vacancy as the appointee,
the onus is on the employer to demonstrate that
there was no discrimination on the grounds of sex"
The agency says that the selection criteria in this case
seems to be based on the requirements as set out in the
advertisement i.e. "to have an aptitude for and
experience in administration/educational development".
It argues that the claimant fulfilled this requirement
and therefore the rationale applied in the above case is
relevant here also.
3.21 The agency asks the Equality Officer to find that the
claimant was discriminated against on the grounds of her
11
sex in relation to promotion and to recommend that she
be appointed to the position of Acting Vice-Principal of
Letterkenny Vocational School. Further, it seeks an
award of compensation for loss of earnings as a
consequence of this discriminatory denial of promotion
and an award of compensation for the distress suffered
by her.
4 Summary of the Employer's Submission
4.1 The V.E.C. says that in April 1994 the Principal of
Letterkenny Vocational school was absent from work due
to illness and the Vice Principal was requested to take
on the post of Acting Principal. The Principal returned
to work in June 1994 but in September 1994 he informed
the C.E.O. that due to continuing illness it was likely
he would be absent for most of the first term. As a
result the Vice Principal was again requested to take on
the post of Acting Principal. The employer says as a
result a vacancy existed for an acting Vice Principal in
the school and on the request of the C.E.O. the Acting
Principal advertised the post. The employer says that
this advertisement states clearly that the only
requirement in order to be considered for the job was
12
that one have a minimum of five years full time teaching
experience. There was no requirement to be the holder
of a post of responsibility. The advertisement also
states that one should have an aptitude for and
experience in administration/educational development.
The closing date for receipt of applications was
September 15th, 1994. The employer says there were five
applicants, four male and one female and all were
interviewed on September 28th, 1994, in alphabetical
order, each interview scheduled to last 30 minutes, and
it said that this time was exceeded in most cases.
4.2 The employer says that prior to the interviews taking
place the members of the interview board discussed what
factors they would consider when evaluating applicants.
It decided to consider the following five factors;
"(1) Contribution in subject and classroom.
(2) Post graduate qualifications/relevant professional
development courses attended.
(3) Contribution to life of school outside the
classroom.
(4) Quality of service as distinct from duration of
service beyond the specified minimum period of five
13
years.
(5) Vision for the future of the school."
It further argues that these criteria are sex-neutral
and do not give any advantage to a male compared to a
female.
4.3 The employer says that in comparing the claimant and the
appointee in relation to contribution in subjects and
the classroom it said that both were excellent under
this heading and there was no difference between them.
4.4 In comparing the claimant and the appointee in relation
to post graduate qualifications/relevant professional
development courses attended the employer says that they
had roughly the same post graduate qualifications. It
said that the appointee had a post graduate diploma in
micro-computers and micro-electronics whereas the
claimant had a Higher Diploma in Education.
However, in relation to professional development it says
that the appointee had undertaken more training/study.
He had undertaken a two year course in Education
Management at the University of Ulster. On the other
hand the claimant was only proposing to commence an M.Sc
in Education Management in the University of Ulster
14
which was due to commence in October, 1994. Further the
employer said that in relation to short duration
courses, the appointee had attended/lectured/organised
26 courses. On the other hand, the claimant had only
attended three courses. These courses were different
management training courses which in total lasted 8
days. She had not lectured/organised or presented any
professional development courses.
4.5 The employer says that in relation to life outside the
classroom it considered that while both had contributed
substantially to this factor it was felt that the
appointee had made the superior contribution. It says
that the claimant with an "A" post of responsibility has
18 hours class contact a week, on the other hand the
appointee as a "B" post holder has 22 hours class
contact work per week. It claims that the appointee has
displayed a high level of aptitude for administration
and education development over a period of five years
whereas the claimant's interest in
administration/educational development commenced in
recent times. It claims that Mr. Cannon was involved in
the following:
"1 Responsible for setting up Technology/Information
15
Technology programmes and facilities within the
school.
2 Involved in the school being selected by the
Department of Education as an inservice training
centre for the training of teachers.
3 Development of school administration system for
school reports, student records, teacher records,
October returns and school accounts.
4 Involved in extra-curricular activities/council.
5 Involved in fund raising.
6 Development of an in-career programme within the
school for teachers in the school.
7 Ran computer awareness programmes for school staff.
8 Established computer facilities/computer club for
students."
On the other hand, it says that the contribution of the
claimant outside the classroom consisted of:
"1 Commentary for school promotion video.
2 Organisation of presentation of certificates for
VPT courses.
3 Establishing strong links with local industry and
thus assisting students in finding employment as a
result of this.
4 Involvement in mock-interviews, disco supervisions,
16
sports days, school tours.
5 Involved in the implementation of a series of
student/school magazines."
The employer argued that while both claimant and
appointee had contributed significantly to the life of
the school outside the classroom that the appointee had
contributed more and in addition teaches for longer
hours.
4.6 The employer made the point that each candidate had in
excess of ten years teaching experience, so in relation
to quality of service as distinct from duration beyond
the specified minimum period of five years, it
considered that the quality of service was of more
relevance than the duration. It says that this quality
of service relates to the willingness of someone to
identify the needs of the school and undertake these
irrespective of one's post of responsibility. It claims
that the appointee had shown a greater willingness to do
this and this is exemplified by the hours devoted by the
appointee to the development of the Letterkenny
Vocational School in addition to his class hours as
detailed in his application. The employer also argued
17
that if length of service were the only factor in
determining who to appoint to the position of Acting
Vice Principal the post would not have been offered to
the claimant as she was not the most senior member of
staff.
4.7 The employer said in relation to vision for the future
of the school that the enrolment of student numbers is
under pressure at present. It says there has been a
drop off in student numbers and therefore it is very
important that an applicant for a position like this
would have ideas for developing the school and making it
more attractive for students to enrol there. It says
that the appointee has demonstrated a greater commitment
in undertaking the additional work involved. He
developed the area of Technology/Information Technology
as he saw it as an important area for development. It
says that the claimant on the other hand focused very
much on what was already in place or had been done in
the past.
4.8 The employer says that of the five factors taken into
account the appointee was evaluated as having achieved
more than the claimant in relation to four of them.
18
There was no difference in the achievement of both in
relation to the other factor. The employer makes the
point that the interview board concluded that the
successful applicant had more relevant experience,
qualifications, aptitude and potential for the post than
the claimant. As a result, it was decided to appoint Mr.
Cannon as it was felt he was the most suitable
applicant.
4.9 The employer said in relation to the claimant's
submission that the C.E.O. has no recollection of any
complaint being made by the claimant in respect of a
position of Vice Principal applied for in 1982, and it
argues that this is not part of this claim.
4.10 The employer says further in relation to the claimant's
submission that basic academic qualifications and the
length of teaching experience are not relevant to the
post. It says that any teacher of English or any other
subject would be expected as the norm to improve and
enhance performance in his/her subject. It says that
the administration and educational development aspect of
the job is not addressed by the claimant.
19
4.11 The employer says that it is not relevant to compare how
the Acting Principal and the Acting Vice Principal posts
were filled. The employer also says that there is only
one Vice Principal in each second level school within
the state. As the title Vice Principal clearly indicates
it is an implied term of his/her contract of employment
that s/he act in place of the Principal in his/her
absence including taking over as Acting Principal in the
period of the Principal's absence on certified medical
leave. This position is clearly established and
confirmed by custom and practice in the second level
education sector in Ireland. No such practice or clause
exists in the case of any other teacher concerning the
filling of an Acting Vice Principal post. The Vice
Principal's entitlement and obligation to take over as
Acting Principal in the absence of the Principal is not
dependent on the Principal's recommendation that the
existing Vice Principal be appointed as Acting Principal
in the Principal's absence.
4.12 The employer says that the other four "A" post holders,
inclusive of two senior "A" post holders mentioned by
the claimant, never indicated to Donegal V.E.C. that
they were not interested in the position of Acting Vice
20
Principal. These individuals were and are entitled to
be afforded an opportunity to apply for such positions
in the same way as the claimant. The employer argues
that the Principal was merely recommending the claimant
as a candidate and not for the post in question. In
support of this it attached a copy of a letter from the
Principal. (Appendix 2 refers).
4.13 The employer says that while the claimant alleges she
presumed that she had been appointed to Acting Vice
Principal in April, she did not question this until
September and says that surely if she had believed she
had been offered the post of Acting Vice Principal she
would have contacted Donegal V.E.C. to confirm what
precisely the position was concerning the post. It says
that the claimant responded to the advertisement for
Acting Vice Principal post early in September in the
same manner as the other applicants. It says that the
claimant obviously misunderstood the position in
relation to filling this post. It said that the
requirements in relation to the job are set out in the
advertisement i.e. to have a minimum of five years full
time teaching experience.
21
4.14 The employer argues that there are currently two female
Principals and two female Vice Principals in the
V.E.C.'s schools in Donegal. In addition, a current
Vice Principal was Principal of the Tourism College in
Killybegs from September 1973 to September 1986. It also
says that Gartan Outdoor Education Centre and estate are
under the control of a female Director. The employer
argues that the statistics attached in Appendix 3 for
the period 1989 to 1994 do not show prejudice towards
the promotion of women to promotional posts in Donegal
V.E.C. The employer also says that the claimant has not
provided data to support her allegation that there is
statistical evidence to support her argument that there
is an imbalance between males and females in V.E.C.
schools in Donegal at senior management level.
4.15 The employer further says that it is incorrect for the
claimant to state she was recommended by the Principal
and that in fact he offered her the position. As the
letter from the Principal at Appendix 2 states, he
merely recommended the claimant as a candidate for the
post. The Principal does not have the authority to make
such an appointment on behalf of the V.E.C. An
interview board is established for this purpose and this
22
interview board considered all the candidates on the
same basis and thus reached a conclusion as to who it
believed was the most suitable for the post in question.
The employer says that contrary to what the claimant
argues it is not correct to say that the Principal is
the best person to determine whether a particular
individual should be appointed to a post or not. If
this was the case then there would be no need to hold
interviews and those not given the opportunity to apply
and be interviewed could claim discrimination under the
1977 Act.
4.16 The employer considers that the claimant presumes she
was the most suitable applicant for the post in
question. The assessment of the suitability of
qualified applicants is a function proper to the Central
Teachers Selection Board acting on behalf of the
Committee and based on the merit of the applicants.
This, however, is something which the claimant must
prove under the law. The employer says that the
procedure used in this case was the norm followed in
filling such vacancies and the onus is on the claimant
to provide evidence that the normal procedures were not
used.
23
4.17 The employer says that while the claimant claims she has
managerial experience, it points out that the
advertisement for the post made no reference to
managerial experience but sought an aptitude for and
experience in administrative/educational development.
4.18 The employer says that as each applicant was required to
have a minimum five years whole time experience no
reference was made to academic qualifications in the
advertisement for the post. The qualifications for
appointment for each of the disciplines involved are of
equal validity and status and is not relevant as each of
the candidates possessed the basic qualifications for
appointment as a teacher in a permanent full time
capacity.
4.19 The employer says, in relation to two cases referred to
by the agency on behalf of the claimant i.e. Wallace vs
Eastern Education and Library Board and O'Donoghue vs
Guardian Royal Exchange, that in both of these cases the
fact that the unsuccessful candidate was as well
qualified for the vacancy as the appointee was referred
to. The employer claims that this was not the case in
24
this instance. It says that the appointee is regarded
as having greater aptitude for and more experience in
the administration/educational development area. It
argues that there is a presumption by the claimant that
she was as well qualified for the vacancy as the
appointee. This has not been proven by the claimant.
4.20 In summary the employer said that there is no evidence
to show that the claimant was discriminated against
because of her sex in relation to her failure to be
appointed to the post of Acting Vice Principal in
Letterkenny Vocational School. It maintains that each
applicant was considered under the same set of criteria
and that the appointee was deemed to be the most
suitable applicant under the criteria used. It says
that the claimant makes the presumption that she was the
best candidate and thus when she was not appointed the
onus of proof now lies with Donegal V.E.C. to prove that
no discrimination under the Act took place. However,
the employer says that the claimant has produced no
evidence to show she was the best candidate. The
allegation that she was recommended for appointment to
the advertised post by the Principal is rejected. The
claimant's behaviour subsequent to her April 1994
25
meeting with the Principal supports the Principal's
contention that he did not recommend the claimant for
the advertised vacancy but merely recommended as a
suitable candidate. The employer further says that the
onus of proof lies with the claimant to show she was the
most suitable applicant under the criteria set out in
the advertisement for the post which it claims that she
has failed to do.
5 Equality Officer's Conclusions
5.1 In investigating this case I have taken into account the
total evidence available to me i.e. written submissions
and further oral submissions made in the course of a
hearing attended by both parties.
5.2 I note that the agency claims that the claimant was
discriminated against by Co Donegal V.E.C. when it did
not appoint her and appointed a male to an Acting Vice
Principal vacancy in Letterkenny Technical School,
caused by the illness of the Principal of the School. I
note that the employer argues that the appointment was
made following interviews of all applicants for the post
and that the criteria used were sex-neutral and do not
26
give any advantage to a male compared to a female.
5.3 I note that because the school Principal was on sick
leave two temporary vacancies arose in the school in
April 1994. The Vice Principal was appointed Principal
on an acting basis in April 1994 and as a result there
was a vacancy for an acting Vice Principal. It was not
until September 1994 that the position of acting Vice
Principal was advertised, interviewed for and filled.
The claimant had understood on foot of a conversation
with the Principal in April 1994 that she had been
appointed to the acting Vice Principal post as a result
of his recommendation and it was not until the post was
advertised in September that she became aware this was
not so. She applied for the post and was unsuccessful.
A male was appointed. She maintains that because she
has higher qualifications and greater experience she was
the more suitable candidate. She alleges that she was
not appointed because of her sex.
5.4 The agency has alleged that the claimant was
discriminated against and claims that she was the most
suitable applicant for the post; that she had better
qualifications and experience for the post; that she
27
carried out management duties as an "A" post holder;
that other acting positions had been filled without an
interview; that the Principal recommended her for
appointment; that there is a pattern of bias towards the
promotion of women in Donegal V.E.C. It also referred to
two recommendations made by Equality Officers that it
considers are relevant to this case.
5.5 The employer has refuted the arguments made on behalf of
the claimant and claims that the criteria used to select
the appointee was unbiased; that of the five criteria
used (paragraph 4.2 above) the appointee was evaluated
as having achieved more than the claimant in relation to
four of them; that it is the function of the Central
Committee to determine suitability and qualifications;
that as the title Vice Principal implies s/he acts in
the absence of the Principal and so there was no need to
hold a competition to fill that vacancy; that while the
Principal of the school recommended the claimant for the
vacancy as a suitable candidate, he did not have the
authority to appoint; that others were eligible to
apply; that while the claimant alleges that she was
appointed in April 1994 she did not follow up this
appointment; that there is no bias against female staff
28
and the claimant has not supported this allegation by
furnishing relevant statistics; that different
circumstances applied in the recommendations referred to
by the agency.
5.6 The agency claims that the V.E.C having filled other
acting positions without interviews should have filled
this one likewise, particularly as the acting Principal
vacancy which caused this vacancy was filled without a
competition. I note that the Vice Principal has filled
it in an acting capacity. I consider in relation to this
acting Principal vacancy in Letterkenny Vocational
School, that as the employer has argued, the title "Vice
Principal" implies s/he acts in the absence of the
Principal, there is no need to hold a competition to
fill such a vacancy. I consider that if the V.E.C. had
filled the acting Vice Principal vacancy without holding
a competition that either the appointment would have
been made on the basis of seniority thereby excluding
the claimant, or on the basis of the Principal's
recommendation thereby possibly giving rise to
complaints by other members of staff. I consider that
the Committee did not discriminate against the claimant
when it held a competition to fill this vacancy.
29
5.7 In relation to her allegation of bias against the
appointment of women to promotional posts within Donegal
V.E.C the claimant claimed that the V.E.C. had made at
least five appointments to acting posts without holding
interviews. I have dealt with the position of Vice
Principals acting for Principals at Paragraph 5.6 above.
In relation to filling acting posts of responsibility, I
note that according to the figures supplied by the
V.E.C. since this legislation came into effect, it has
filled three out of six such vacancies by interview and
three otherwise. In the latter case two men and one
female have been appointed and two females and one man
were appointed when it held interviews (see appendix 4,
page 4 of letter dated 20th December 1995). From these
figures I do not consider that the V.E.C. has acted in a
discriminatory manner in this regard.
The claimant has also alleged that there is a pattern of
bias towards the promotion of women in the V.E.C. In
relation to the overall numbers of male and female
teachers and the numbers employed at senior level I note
that the V.E.C. employs (appendix 5)
124 male teachers, 98 female teachers,
At senior level [Principal, Vice Principal, "A" post] it
30
employs
41 male (33 1/3 %) 13 female (13% approx)
and in "B" posts
40 male (30%) 23 female (23%)
I note that in total 43 (35%) male and 62 (63%) female
teachers are unpromoted. I have examined these figures
and I consider that to sustain an allegation that there
was discrimination on the part of the employer, it would
be necessary to examine how each vacancy was filled as
it arose in relation to the applicants for each
particular vacancy and the numbers, sex and teaching
experience of the teaching cadre employed by the V.E.C.
at the time of each appointment. I also note that over
the years 1989 to 1994, 145 people applied for
promotion, 63 women and 82 men. One third of the women
and one fifth of the men were promoted. (19 women and
16 men) Consequently I do not consider that it is
possible to sustain this allegation based on these
figures.
5.8 I note the agency claims that the Principal recommended
the claimant for appointment and as he worked closely
with all the teaching staff, that he was in the best
position to judge who should be appointed to fill the
31
acting position. However I consider that if the claimant
were appointed in this manner others who were eligible
to apply might not have been given the opportunity to do
so. Further I note that it is the function of the
Central Teachers Selection Board acting on behalf of the
V.E.C. to determine suitability and qualifications for
vacancies at "A" post of responsibility level and above.
5.9 The agency argues that the claimant is the most suitable
person for the post and that her experience and
qualifications are superior to the appointee. I note
that the employer said that of the five candidates for
the post she was placed second, ahead of three other
males. I note that both the claimant and appointee had
in excess of the basic service requirement as the post
was advertised (appendix 1) as open to staff with a
minimum of five years full time teaching experience. The
claimant has twenty years teaching experience and the
appointee ten years teaching experience in the school.
In relation to qualifications I note that both have the
basic academic qualifications required for initial
appointment to the school. In relation to further
qualifications I note that both have post graduate
32
diplomas and have attended further inservice training
courses. From 1989 to the time of the interviews the
claimant had undertaken five training courses including
three management courses. The appointee had
taken/organised/presented 26 courses. The majority of
the latter involved information technology. Additionally
he had attended a course in Education Management at the
University of Ulster. I note that the claimant has
organised (as part of her "A" post of responsibility
duties) work experience programs which has involved work
outside the school, in the community. However I note
that the claimant has not organised courses/classes
other than for the students of Letterkenny Vocational
School while the appointee has organised/presented
courses for other teachers in the general area. I
consider that the appointee had obviously attended more
courses and had a greater involvement in development and
training.
5.10 I note that the interview board argued at the hearing
that it was up to the candidates to sell themselves to
the board via the interview and their application form.
No references were used or consulted by the board when
reaching its decision and the results of the interview
33
were determined on the basis of performance. It refutes
the allegation that there was any discrimination in the
selection made.
I note that the interview board agreed prior to the
interviews to use the following criteria to select the
successful applicant;
"(1) Contribution in subject and classroom.
(2) Post graduate qualifications/relevant professional
development courses attended.
(3) Contribution to life of school outside the
classroom.
(4) Quality of service as distinct from duration of
service beyond the specified minimum period of five
years.
(5) Vision for the future of the school."
I have examined these criteria and I consider that they
were free of a sexual bias, as they can be applied
equally to all members of the profession.
5.11 I note that the board sought an "aptitude for and
experience in Administration/Educational development".
It argues that the claimant did not address this
requirement in her application form or at the interview
and it further argued, that she said at the interview,
34
that as she had seen no opportunity to advance in this
field she had not taken any related courses. I note that
subsequent to this vacancy arising and to the interview,
the claimant started a course in Educational Management
in October 1994, while the appointee had already
participated in this course.
Having considered the submissions of the parties I am
satisfied that the appointee was selected on the basis
of his qualifications, the fact that he had identified
needs in the school administration and had set up
procedures to address these and on his performance at
interview.
5.12 In a situation where a successful candidate is selected
on the basis of his/her performance at an interview the
questions which must be considered by an Equality
Officer are whether the interview was conducted in a
non-discriminatory manner, whether there are significant
reasons why the claimant should have been selected and
whether the Board had credible and non-discriminatory
reasons for not selecting the claimant. I have already
concluded at paragraph 5.10 above that the criteria used
in the selection process was non-discriminatory and free
of sexual bias and I am satisfied that there were
35
sufficient reasons in relation to the appointee's
qualifications and experience for his appointment
instead of the claimant.
5.13 The agency referred to two previous findings (Wallace vs
Eastern Education and Library Board; O'Donoghue vs
Guardian Royal Exchange), that it considers are relevant
to this claim. In these cases it was found that the
claimant as a candidate was "better" or "as well
qualified" as the person appointed. This is not the
situation in this case and consequently I consider that
these findings have no relevance to this claim.
6 RECOMMENDATION
6.1 In view of my conclusions as set out above, I find that
Donegal V.E.C. did not discriminate against Ms
Turley-McGrath contrary to the terms of the Employment
Equality Act, 1977.
36
___________________
Mary Solan Avison,
Equality Officer.
5 February 1996
37