FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 21, EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977 PARTIES : DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (REPRESENTED BY LUAN O'BRAONAIN B.L.) THE ADMINISTRATOR REDEPLOYMENT SCHEME FOR CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS (REPRESENTED BY FRANK CALLANAN B.L. AND INSTRUCTED BY BCM HANBY WALLACE SOLICITORS) AND MS. MARIE CAFFREY-HANRAHAN (REPRESENTED BY MS. SILE O'KELLY B.L. INSTRUCTED BY THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY AGENCY) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Appeal by Ms. Marie Caffrey - Hanrahan against Equality Officer's Recommendations No. EE10/1996 and EE11/ 1996 concerning an allegation that the Department of Education and the Administrator, Redeployment Scheme for Secondary Schools discriminated against her because of her sex and contrary to the provisions of Section 3 of the Employment Equality Act 1977 ( ' the Act ' ).
BACKGROUND:
2. The background to this case is set out in the Equality Officer's Recommendations (details with the Court). The Equality Officer in her Recommendations which issued on the 15th May, 1996 found that the claimant was not discriminated against contrary to the terms of the Act.
Ms. Marie Caffrey - Hanrahan appealed the Recommendations to the Labour Court on the 25th June, 1996 on the following grounds:-
(i) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in finding that the Department of Education and the Administrator of the Redeployment Scheme did not discriminate against her contrary to Section 3 of the Act.
(ii) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in finding that she had not got the required subject for the post and that Section 17 of the Act was not the reason for the decision to reject her.
(iii) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in not awarding an appropriate remedy to her for the discrimination experienced by her.
(iv) On all grounds submitted during the Equality Officer's investigation and such grounds as might arise during the course of the appeal.
The Court heard the appeal on the 28th January, 1997. The parties expanded orally on their submissions at the hearing.
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal from Recommendations EE10/1996 and EE11/1996 of an Equality Officer. The first of these cases was taken against the Principal/Board of Governors of St. Vincent’s College, Castleknock. The second case was taken against the Department of Education and the Administrator of the Redeployment Scheme for Catholic Secondary Schools (‘the Administrator’). In both cases the Equality Officer had recommended that the claimant had not suffered discrimination within the meaning of the Employment Equality Act 1977 (‘the Act’).
The claimant appealed both Recommendations to the Labour Court.
Before the hearing of the appeals, the claimant settled her case against the Principal/Board of Governors of St. Vincent’s College. The hearing before the Labour Court therefore only proceeded in relation to the case against the Administrator and that against the Department of Education (‘the Respondents’).
It is alleged against the Respondents that they denied the claimant access to employment, imposed discriminatory conditions and classified a post by reference to sex, contrary to the provisions of the Act.
The Department of Education rejects the claim on the basis that it is not the employer or the potential employer of the claimant and is not a party to the Redeployment Scheme the operation of which gave rise to the present claim.
The Administrator likewise claims that he is not the employer or potential employer of the claimant and is not liable for the discrimination (if any) suffered by the claimant.
The Court finds as a matter of fact that the Department of Education is not the employer or potential employer of the claimant. The Court also finds as a matter of fact that the Department of Education is not a party to the Redeployment Scheme. Consequently, the Department is not a proper party to this claim. The Court holds that the Department of Education did not discriminate against the claimant either under Section 19 or 20 of the Act, and dismisses the appeal by the claimant.
In relation to the Administrator, the Court finds that his position is that of an agent who acts in an introductory capacity both on behalf of teachers and on behalf of a school employer or potential employer. The Administrator, as agent for the claimant, informs the claimant of vacancies in schools for which she is eligible, and as agent for the schools, informs them of suitable candidates to fill their vacancies. The Administrator’s authority does not, however, extend to the offering of a contract of employment on behalf of a potential employer, nor to the accepting of a contract of employment on behalf of a teacher. He has no legal authority to bind either of his ‘principals’ (the teacher or the school) to a contractual arrangement. He simply applies the rules which have been agreed on behalf of school administrations and on behalf of teachers by their respective representative bodies in a voluntary industrial relations arrangement which was designed to protect the employment of permanent teachers in an area of shrinking employment opportunities.
In relation to the case against the Administrator, it is alleged that he relied on Section 17 of the Act to deny the claimant the position she sought. Section 17 of the Act excludes certain posts from the ambit of the Act where sex is an occupational qualification. The Court is satisfied that even if the Administrator had been misled into the opinion that Section 17 was relevant to the post in question, that fact has no bearing on the claim in this case. The Administrator was not the employer or the potential employer of the claimant, and had no authority to bind the employer. Whether his reference in correspondence to Section 17 was justifiable or not is therefore irrelevant.
As a result of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Administrator is not a proper party to this claim. The Court holds that he did not discriminate against the claimant either under Section 19 or Section 20 of the Act, and dismisses the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
15th October, 1997______________________
L.W./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.