FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 21, EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977 PARTIES : A CREDIT UNION (REPRESENTED BY MURPHY & CONDON SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EE31/97.
BACKGROUND:
2. In April, 1994 the claimant was secretary of the Board of Directors ('the Board') of the Credit Union in a voluntary capacity. Following the unexpected resignation of the manager she was asked by the Board to take on the responsibility of running the office on an interim basis. The claimant subsequently was put on a weekly wage and acted as manager. She was employed on this basis for the period April, 1994 to June,1995. During that time her contract was extended several times.
In early 1995 the Credit Union decided to hold a competition for the post of manager. On the 10th of May, 1995 five applicants were interviewed and a male candidate was successful. The claimant claimed that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of her sex, amounting to discrimination under the Employment Equality Act, 1977 when she was not appointed to the position. The claimant lodged her complaint with the Labour Court ('the Court') in late 1995 and the Court referred the complaint to an Equality Officer for investigation and recommendation. Following her investigation the Equality Officer found that the Credit Union did not discriminate against the claimant contrary to the terms of the Employment Equality Act, 1977.
On the 29th of January, 1998 the claimant appealed the Equality Officer's Recommendation to the Court on the following grounds:-
1. That the Equality Officer erred in fact in her assertions in relation to the questioning at interview;
2. That the Equality Officer erred in fact in her assertion as to the requirements for the position, particularly the issue of compliance with the model job description suggested by the Irish League of Credit Unions;
3. That the Equality officer erred in fact in determining that the qualifications of the candidate recommended by the Selection Board were broader than the claimant;
4. That the Equality Officer erred in fact and in law by only considering some of the questions posed to the claimant by the interview board;
5. That the Equality Officer erred in fact in considering whether or not the claimant had withdrawn form the competition; and
6. Such other grounds as may be raised at the hearing.
The Court heard the appeal in Cork on the 14th of May, 1998 and the 1st of July, 1998.
DETERMINATION:
In the course of the hearing of this appeal significant differences in recollection emerged between the claimant and witnesses who gave evidence on her behalf and witnesses who gave evidence on behalf of the respondent, as to the events surrounding the filling of the post which gave rise to this claim. Having carefully evaluated all of the sworn testimony adduced, the Court is satisfied that the conclusions of fact reached by the Equality Officer and set out in her Recommendation are supported by the evidence as a whole.
As this case turns entirely on questions of fact, the Court upholds the Recommendation of the Equality Officer and determines that the claimant was not discriminated against by the respondent on the basis of her sex and marital status.
The appeal is dismissed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th August, 1998______________________
F.B./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.