DEE005

FULL RECOMMENDATION

AEE/99/13

DETERMINATIONNO.DEE005

SECTION 21, EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977

PARTIES :

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, EQUALITY & LAW REFORM

- AND -

MR. PATRICK JORDAN

DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu

SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Equality Officer's Recommendation EE44/1999

BACKGROUND:

2. The dispute concerns a claim by a worker, Mr. Patrick Jordan, that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform discriminated against him on the grounds of his sex, in relation to promotion. The worker, a prison officer, was one of 173 applicants for the post of Clerk grade II. Following a written examination and subsequent interview of those who passed the written examination, a promotional panel was formed comprising 18 males and 13 females. Following interview, the claimant was not placed on the panel. He claims that, based on the fact that 54% of female interviewees were placed on the panel, as against 28% of males, the outcome of the competition amounted to discrimination against him on the grounds of sex.

The dispute was investigated by an Equality Officer who recommended, on the 10th November, 1999, that the Department did not discriminate against the claimant. Mr Jordan appealed the Equality Officer's Recommendation, to the Labour Court, on the 7th December, 1999. The Court heard the appeal on the 18th April, 2000.

DETERMINATION:

This is a complaint by the male Prison Officer that he was discriminated against by the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform (“the Department”) in contravention of section 3(2) of the Employment Equality Act 1977. The complaint is grounded upon a claim that the Department treated the Prison Officer less favourably, by reason of his sex, than female applicants in a competition for promotion to the post of Clerk grade II, in the Prison Service.

The complaint was investigated by an Equality Officer who found that the Department had not discriminated against the Prison Officer. It is against that finding that the Prison Officer appealed to this Court.

The facts of the case are accurately recited in paragraph 2 of the Equality Officer’s Recommendation (EE 44/1999).

The Prison Officer based his claim of discrimination largely on statistical evidence as to the percentage of females who were successful in the competition relative to males. The male/female breakdown of candidates and those successful is as follows:

Male Female Total.
Applicants 132 (76%) 41(24%) 173

Interviewees 64 (73%) 24 (27%) 88

Successful 18 (58%) 13 (42%) 31.

These figures show of those called for interview 28% of males and 54% of females were promoted. On these figures the Prison Officer contended that discrimination against males should be inferred.

The Prison Officer also claimed:
- Thatin the course of his interview he was asked what he described as“discriminatory questions”. These questions related to his flexibility of movement between geographical locations and his views on civilian staff in the Prison Service;
  
  That the Interview Board was comprised entirely of men;
  
  That the Department pursued a policy of increasing the number of females in all grades;
  
  That he was unfairly marked by the interview board under some identified assessment headings;
  
  That some of the successful female candidates were job-sharers and this had economic advantages for the Department.
In summary, the Department’s response to the claimant's case was that all stages of the selection process were conducted fairly and objectively. They said that the higher percentage of female applicants who succeeded at interview reflected the relative merits of the candidates.

They further deny that the questions asked of the claimant were discriminatory in nature and that there is a policy of favouring female candidates. On the composition of the Interview Board, the Department told the Court that at the time in question no female at the grade from which interview boards are selected was available. They also pointed out that job-sharing does not result in any cost saving to the Department.
CONCLUSION.
Having reviewed all of the evidence presented, the Court finds that there is no substance in the Prison Officer’s claim of discrimination. The Court accepts as a fact that the competition was conducted fairly and that the result reflected the objective assessment of the candidates by the interview board. No evidence of any discriminatory policy on the part of the Department was adduced by the claimant and none can be inferred from the facts of the case. While the Court does not consider it desirable to constitute an interview board entirely of one gender, there is nothing to suggest that an all male board would be a source of discrimination against a male candidate.
DETERMINATION:

The Court finds that the Prison Officer was not discriminated against in terms of Section 2(a) of the Employment Equality Act 1977 and in contravention of Section 3(2) of the Act. The appeal is dismissed and the Recommendation of the Equality Officer is affirmed.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Kevin Duffy
30th May, 2000______________________
MK/MKDeputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.