FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 21, EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977 PARTIES : COUNTY DONEGAL VOCATIONAL EDUCATIONAL COMMITTEE (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY AGENCY) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Appeal against the Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EE04/96.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns the worker who claims that the VEC discriminated against her on grounds of sex in not appointing her to the post of acting vice-principal in Letterkenny Vocational School.
The worker was employed as a teacher to Donegal VEC in 1974 and assigned to Letterkenny Vocational School. She was appointed a B-post holder in 1977 and an A-post holder in 1982. In 1994, the Principal of the school was absent from work due to illness and the vice-principal was asked to take over his duties. As a result, the post of acting vice-principal became vacant. The EEA claims that the principal told the claimant that he was recommending her for the post of acting vice-principal. In the event, the post was advertised in Letterkenny V. S. There were 5 applicants, 4 male and 1 female and interviews took place on 28th September, 1994. One of the male applicants was successful for the post.
The EEA's claim is that the worker concerned was better qualified for the post than the successful applicant (a full list of the worker's qualifications was supplied to the Court). Full details of the case are contained in the Equality Officer's Recommendation.
The worker referred her case to the Labour Court under the Employment Equality Act, 1977, and the Court referred it to an Equality Officer for investigation. The Equality Officer, in her recommendation, found that the VEC had not discriminated against the worker. The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 21 of the Employment Equality Act, 1977 on 7th March, 1997. The worker appealed on the following grounds:-
(i) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in finding that Donegal Vocational Educational Committee did not discriminate against the claimant contrary to Section 3 of the 1977 Act.
(ii) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in finding that the successful male appointee was better qualified and experienced than the claimant.
(iii) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in not awarding an appropriate remedy to the claimant for the discrimination experienced by her and the consequent distress to her.
(iv) On all grounds submitted during the Equality Officer's investigation and such grounds as may arise during the course of the appeal.
The Court heard the appeal in Letterkenny on 17th April, 1997. Both parties made written and oral submissions. The following is the Court's Determination:
DETERMINATION:
The Court has considered the detailed written submissions of the parties in this case and the Equality Officer's written recommendation, EEO4/1996. It has also taken into consideration the oral evidence which was given and the arguments which were advanced in the course of the hearing before the Court.
A number of members of the Board which had interviewed the candidates for the position of Vice-Principal attended the Court hearing. They gave evidence as to the criteria that had been set for the position, and of the marking system that had been applied in respect of the candidates. Regrettably, no documentary evidence of the interview process had been retained, a fact which was relied upon by the appellant to undermine the respondent's case.
The Court, however, having heard the evidence of those members of the Interview Board who were able to attend the hearing, was impressed with the clarity of that evidence, and was satisfied that the interviews were conducted in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. The Court was also satisfied that the criteria used by the Interview Board were free of sexual bias.
The relative suitability and experience of both the successful and the unsuccessful candidates were argued in detail during the appeal hearing. The appellant further argued that certain other factors, alleged to be relevant, had not been taken into consideration by the Equality Officer. These matters are listed at paragraph 3.3 of the appellant's submission. The Court finds that the matters listed at (i) to (iii) of the said paragraph are of no relevance to the issue of whether or not the appellant was the most suitable candidate. The matter listed at (iv) had to do with whether the appellant was more qualified and more experienced than the successful candidate. The Court, having considered the evidence, finds that the successful candidate was the better qualified and had the more relevant interests and experience.
While the task of both the Equality Officer and of the Court would have been made easier if written documentation had been retained, the lack of such documentation has not affected the outcome of the case. The Court has been able to satisfy itself on the evidence that Donegal VEC did not discriminate against the worker within the terms of the Employment Equality Act, 1977. The Court, therefore, holds that there was no discrimination, and rejects the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
7th July, 1997______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.