DEC-E2003-032 Full Case Report

Reynolds(Represented by Mr. Sheehan B.L.instructed by Connolly Sellors Geraghty, Solicitors) V Limerick City Council (Represented by the LGMSB)

1. DISPUTE

1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Mr. Gerard Reynolds that Limerick City Council discriminated against him in terms of Sections 6(1) and 6(2)(f) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and in contravention of Section 8 of that Act when he was not placed second on a panel for promotion to the position of Station Officer. At the time of the competition the complainant was 45 years of age while the person placed second on the panel was 37 years old.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The complainant alleges that he has been discriminated against on the grounds of his age in respect of a promotion competition in the respondent organisation. According to the complainant he is better qualified and has more experience for the position of Station Officer than the person who was successful in the competition. After the competition the complainant was informed in writing by the respondent that he was unsuccessful in his application. He subsequently learned that he had been placed third on a panel. It is the complainant's contention that he is better qualified and has more experience than the person placed second on the panel and who was subsequently appointed to a vacant position of Station Officer. The respondent denies the allegations.

2.2 Consequently the complainant referred a complaint to the Director of Equality Investigations on 14th November, 2001 under the Employment Equality Act, 1998. In accordance with her powers under Section 75 of that Act the Director then delegated the case to Gerardine Coyle, Equality Officer on 17th May, 2003 for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Act. A preliminary joint hearing took place on 26th November, 2002 to deal with the issue of admissibility of this claim for investigation. Following this hearing submissions were received from the parties and a further joint hearing took place on 5th June, 2003. Additional information was received from the respondent on 17th June, 2003.

2.3 In this claim the complainant alleges that he was discriminated against on the grounds of age by the respondent in respect of a competition for promotion to a position of Station Officer. The respondent advertised the post of Station Officer in November, 2000 and the closing date for receipt of applications was 23rd November, 2000. The complainant was one of eight applicants to apply for the position. Interviews for the position were held on 30th April, 2001. Two weeks after the interview the complainant received a letter from the respondent organisation informing him that he had been unsuccessful in the competition. The complainant was not told that he was placed third on a panel. At a preliminary hearing of this claim the Equality Officer held that the claim was out of time in relation to a complaint of alleged discrimination in respect of this competition as the referral was made outside the six months time limit as set out in Section 77(5) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and an application for an extension of time was not made to the Director of Equality Investigations in terms of Section 77(6) of the 1998 Act. In September, 2001 the complainant was informed in writing that he had been placed third on a panel. In December, 2001 it was confirmed to the complainant that a second Station Officer position which would fall vacant in January, 2002 would be filled by the person placed second on the panel. The Equality Officer is satisfied that the complainant was not aware that a panel would be formed as a result of this competition and that he had a reasonable expectation that he would be able to apply for any future vacancy which arose in the respondent organisation. Consequently the Equality Officer held that the complainant could pursue a claim of alleged discrimination in respect of the placing of the second person on the panel who would be appointed to the next vacant Station Officer position (January, 2002). Given that he was only aware, in writing, in September, 2001 that a panel had been formed from the November, 2000 competition his claim of alleged discrimination is within the six months time limit.

3. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANT'S SUBMISSIONS

3.1 According to the complainant the critical issue in determining whether or not he is allowed to rely on the appointment of the first successful candidate is at what stage does time begin to run in relation to the Act. The complainant says that the operative part of the relevant section of the Act is the "date of occurrence". It is the complainant's contention that the allegation in this case is that the interview board achieved a predetermined outcome, the object of which was to discriminate against him in favour of younger candidates and in the context of these allegations the entire process is under the spotlight. Most significant, the complainant states, is the extent to which the interview process itself was either designed or contrived in such a fashion as to stultify the ability of the best qualified candidate for the job from succeeding and he submits that any attempt to look at each part of the process in isolation is both artificial and arbitrary.

3.2 The complainant states that what must be determined is at what point in this process can discrimination be said to have occurred. It is his contention that it was the appointment of the first candidate to the job (at that stage the only available position known about) that gave rise to the discrimination. The complainant contends that this is a logical proposition for the following reasons:
- effectively the object and result of the process to which he was subjected was the favouring of younger candidates despite his superior experience and qualifications;
- the preliminary determination of the Equality Officer that he would be entitled to make a complaint based on the second appointment can only infer her acceptance of the argument that the appointment to the job is the trigger for a complaint of discrimination.
The complainant states that if the Equality Officer decides that the applicable date from which the discrimination occurred was the date of the interview, then he is entitled to a direction under the Act that the period in which the claim can be brought be extended to 12 months. The complainant states that the exceptional circumstances as required by the Act are satisfied by the fact that he operated on the logical understanding that the date of the formal appointment of the selected candidate to the post was the appropriate date from which the time under the act ought to run. It is the complainant's submission that this is further supported by the correspondence exhibited throughout the summer and autumn of 2001 which evidences his genuine dissatisfaction with the process and his protracted attempts to get any meaningful information from the respondents. The complainant states that the entire period post interview up to the eventual lodgement of the claim is punctuated with attempts to get to the bottom of what went on in the interview process. He argues that to refuse an extension of time in these exceptional circumstances would be to perpetrate a great injustice and allow the respondent to profit by their dilatory and furtive tactics.

3.3 The complainant cited a number of precedent decisions to advocate that the traditional approach to complaints of discrimination should be adopted in this claim (brought on the grounds of age) namely that once a complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination the onus then moves to the respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination². The complainant also considers the issue of a presumption of discrimination and states that the approach of the High Court in the case of Davis v DIT³ is echoed somewhat by the Labour Court in the case of Rotunda & Mater Hospitals v Gleeson⁴ where the Court had regard to the "lack of transparency in the selection process and the fact that the Plaintiff was more qualified and experienced than the successful candidate".

3.4 It is the complainant's case that the outcome of the interview process was preordained to discriminate against older candidates in the competition and to install the youngest candidate to the job. The complainant contends that the situation is further complicated by the fact that secretly the respondent decided that a panel was to be formed from the interview process and that subsequent vacancies would be filled from that panel. According to the complainant he only became aware of the existence of a panel following protracted questioning of the process when he was told that he was placed third on the panel. The complainant states that the person placed second on the panel was appointed to the position of Station Officer in January, 2002. It is the complainant's submission that not only had he been discriminated against in respect of the one job he thought he was applying for, but his chances of promotion to the next grade were effectively obliterated by the filling of the second vacancy on foot of this secret panel. Given the nature and seniority of the position the complainant notes that there will be no similar vacancy expected for approximately five years from January, 2002 when the first of the four Station Officers currently in place is due to retire.

3.5 The respondent states that there are essentially four components to his case as follows:
- the fact that, on the basis of his CV, he was clearly the most qualified and experienced person for the job;
- the lack of transparency in the marking criteria and implementation thereof in the context of the interview process;
- the conduct of the interview itself in such a deliberate fashion as to deprive him of reasonable opportunity to demonstrate on foot of his documented experience and qualifications his pre-eminent suitability for the position;
- the statistical evidence in relation to the age of the successful candidates when compared with the previous profile and qualifications of previous appointees.
The complainant states that the above grounds are not exhaustive and the interaction of each of these factors, allied to the conduct of the respondent throughout his enquiries are also relevant. It is the complainant's contention that, in establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, discrimination is patent when all of the above factors are considered. The complainant says that the primary finding of fact of a significant difference between the qualifications of the candidates together with a significant difference in the ages of the candidates may give rise to the requirement that the burden shifts to the respondent to establish that discrimination did not take place.

3.6 The complainant states that a basic comparative analysis of the candidates placed first, second and third on the panel for the position of Station Officer establishes that each candidate had a broadly similar background as regards formal education having each completed their group and intermediate certificates. The first successful candidate had pursued a career as a diesel fitter prior to embarking on a career in the fire service. The second successful candidate was educated in England and the complainant states that it is difficult to make any significant determination or comparison on this basis. However the complainant goes on to say that the proposition holds that all three candidates had a broadly similar educational background. According to the complainant the critical and relevant differences between himself and the successful candidates emerge when one considers the detail of experience, innovations and achievements which each candidate has attached to their C.V.s which clearly demonstrate that he has vastly more experience in the Fire Service from a technical viewpoint and a command perspective. The complainant notes that he was the only candidate of the three to have completed the Station Command Course and to have extensive experience as an instructor in the Service. Furthermore the complainant contends that he is vastly more experienced in the role of Sub Station Officer having 13 years experience as opposed to the five years of the
two successful candidates.

3.7 Set out in Appendix A is the scores given to the various candidates by the interview board. It is the complainant's submission that given the qualifications and experience of each candidate with reference to each C.V. the marks awarded cannot possible be objectively sustained. The complainant states that the marks allocated to the successful candidates for knowledge and experience are without foundation relative to his marks and he contends that the category "Knowledge and Experience" cannot be explained away by the performance of each of the candidates at interview. According to the complainant he was afforded no opportunity at interview to demonstrate knowledge or experience over and above what was documented and he considers that the difference of 15 marks favouring the successful candidate does not stand up. The complainant submits that the category "Leadership and Teamwork" is assessable by reference to the documentation furnished by each candidate along with their C.V.s. He says that only one question at interview could be considered to touch upon the exploration of qualities of Leadership and Teamwork. The complainant notes that he was the only one of the candidates to have undergone the Station Command Course wherein his leadership abilities were specifically assessed and graded and he had 8 years more experience as a sub station officer than the other successful candidates yet he obtained some 15 marks lower. It is the complainant's contention that discrimination is evident from the objective facts themselves in terms of the marks that were awarded in light of clear documentary evidence in the form of the C.V.s.

3.8 The complainant also states that the manner in which the interview was conducted did not afford any opportunity to him to enhance or improve upon the text of his C.V. It is the complainant's submission that the remaining categories by which he was marked namely "Communications, Adaptability and Personality" are by their nature subjective and reliant upon specific definition and interpretation in conjunction with their application to the role for which the interviews are taking place. The complainant notes that under all these headings he has scored lower than the successful candidates. The complainant considers it utterly unacceptable that the respondent has not or are unable to furnish any documentation detailing the process and decision of the interview board as to how it decided upon the marking scheme or indeed applied, interpreted its categories or implemented same.

3.9 According to the complainant no clear, open, objective marking system was used to calculate the collective marks awarded to the complainant by the interview board and he considers this astounding in the context of the clear documentary guidelines which are laid down. The complainant submits a respondent document entitled "Notes for Members of Interview Boards". It is the complainant's contention that, from the document, an interview board bears a heavy responsibility to adopt and agree a uniform method of assessment and marking of candidates. Furthermore they are obliged to assess each candidate independently by each board member. The complainant also submits another document entitled "Notes for Members of Interview Boards" which he considers may be more recent given that it contains references to the provisions of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and he considers was in force at the time of his interview. Having made repeated requests for the individual marks given by each member of the interview board and any notes or comments of the interview board the complainant states that the respondent stated by letter that such information could not be provided. Furthermore the complainant notes that in its letter the respondent states that the marks allocated were collectively agreed by the interview board and the complainant contends that this was clearly in breach of their own guidelines.

3.10 The complainant contends that it is his belief that the successful candidates were selected before the interview and consequently it was impossible to have a marking system which would stand up to scrutiny as to its fairness and accuracy in assessing the relative merits of the various candidates. Furthermore the complainant contends that the lack of any records in relation to the marking system or indeed any independent assessment as required of each member of the board is clear evidence of a predetermination of the outcome of the process, the objective of which was to appoint the two younger candidates as quickly as possible while creating little in the way of documentation which would ultimately permit scrutiny of the process. It is the complainant's contention that the collective marks awarded by the interview board do not make sense particularly when his C.V. is compared to the successful candidate. The lack of transparency and the extreme lengths to which he had to go to secure information leads the complainant to the belief that the process was conducted in such a fashion as to deliberately discriminate against him in favour of younger candidates.

3.11 According to the complainant the interview was conducted by a three person interview board comprising a Senior Fire Officer, a Chairperson and an ex-Chief Fire Officer now Director of Services. The complainant alleges that at the outset of the interview he was asked preliminary questions regarding previous employment, hobbies and how he had come to join the fire service. The Chairman of the interview board then complimented him on his comprehensive C.V. and stated that the interview board would not be going into it. The complainant states that he was surprised at this as it afforded him no opportunity to expand on his knowledge, experience, leadership skills and adaptability gained through 23 years of experience. According to the complainant he was asked the following questions at interview:
1. What system is in place in Limerick City Fire and Rescue for the purchase of fuel for appliances? (Fire engines)
2. How could I guarantee that a fire fighter would not bring his or her own container to the garage and fill it with petrol for their own use?
3. What would I say to the father of a road accident victim who had just died from the accident and he knew we had new cutting equipment sitting on the floor of the fire-station and we were unwilling to use it?
4. What action would I take if it was reported to me that a member of my crew was being bullied?
5. What did I think of the funding for the fire service i.e. how much it cost to run the fire service, also the charges imposed by the local authorities for the service of the brigades?6. Describe the signs and symptom of back-draught and what would be my options if faced with this problem?

According to the complainant the interview board did not ask the same questions of all candidates and most other candidates were questioned extensively about their C.V.s. He further states that the questions asked were not such as to examine or allow him to demonstrate his abilities to deal with operational situations and managerial skills that would be required as a Station Officer. The complainant contends that the questions asked of him were markedly different to those asked of other candidates and this he states demonstrates a marked inconsistency in the assessment of candidates. He further contends that the interview to which he was subjected was designed to clearly limit and deprive him of the opportunity to demonstrate his qualities and establish himself as the best candidate for the position.

3.12 Set out in paragraph 5.8 below are the age profiles of candidates interviewed for the position of Station Officer and set out in Appendix B are tables showing the age profiles of:
- Station Officers and Sub Station Officers before the interview process;
- Station Officers and Sub Station Officers after the interview process.
The complainant notes that the information contained in the tables above do not show the age profile of the firefighters and Sub Station Officers (SSO) who previously applied for vacancies in the past and who failed to qualify. According to the complainant the age profile of the Sub Station Officer stands out from the Station Officers (SO) in that the SSO's are getting older while the SO's are getting younger. The complainant states that the appointment of both candidates in their mid to late thirties is a clear departure from the established age profile and experience of previous appointments. He contends that this is evidence of a clear preference for younger candidates and thereby discrimination against the older candidates.
According to the complainant the motivation for this is clear in that significant savings accrue to the respondent by employing younger and less experienced personnel.

3.13 According to the complainant the post of Station Officer was advertised in November, 2000 and the closing date for receipt of applications was 23rd November, 2000. The vacancy arose as a result of the retirement of a Station Officer and no other vacancy would arise until January, 2002 when another Station Officer was due to resign. The complainant says that it was anticipated that the interviews would take place before Christmas but they did not take place until 30th April, 2001 and no explanation was forthcoming from the respondent as to the delay in the interview process.

3.14 The complainant states that the morning after the interview he met a fellow colleague who told him that he had received a telephone call to say that he was successful in his application for the post. According to the complainant he contacted the Personnel Department of the respondent organisation and queried the results of his interview and he received these verbally. He also requested a meeting to discuss the outcome of the interview. The complainant says that, on 11th May, 2001 he received a letter from the respondent dated 1st May, 2001 which informed him that he had been unsuccessful in his application and thanking him for his interest in the position. The complainant notes that this letter did not state that a panel had been formed and that he had been placed 3rd on that panel. It is the complainant's contention that this panel had been kept secret from all the applicants and that the respondent's intention to fill the next vacancy from this panel had also been kept secret. The complainant states that when he received his marks in writing from the respondent the marks required to qualify for the post were omitted whereas other colleagues in a subsequent competition for Sub Station Officer were informed as to the marks required to qualify for the post. It is the complainant's belief that the fact that he had qualified for the post was deliberately kept secret from him hence the conclusion that this was in order to protect the existence of a secret panel. The candidate placed 1st on the panel was appointed to the position of Station Officer in June, 2001.

3.15 The complainant states that over the next number of weeks he made numerous phone calls to the respondent seeking a meeting to discuss the interview process and this meeting was finally arranged on 18th July, 2001. According to the complainant he was not given the individual marks as awarded to him by each interviewer or details on the marking system. The representative from the respondent organisation outlined the duties and responsibilities of the interview board as outlined in the respondent's document entitled "Notes for Interview Boards". The complainant states that the representative from the respondent organisation stated that the City Manager would not question the integrity of the interview board. It is the complainant's submission that he was no wiser at the end of the meeting as to the marking system employed by the interview board. Following this meeting the complainant says that he again attempted to meet with this official from the respondent organisation but without success. He then wrote to this official and asked him to confirm his response in writing and a response was received dated 31st July, 2001. The complainant says that on 7th August, 2001 he requested all the information regarding his marks and any other notes or comments pertaining to his interview under the Freedom of Information Act. To this request the complainant received a response on 5th September, 2001 which included a copy of the recommendation to the City Manager which showed that the complainant had been placed in 3rd position on a panel. According to the complainant this was the first indication he received of the existence of a panel and he notes that this information contradicts the letter he received following the interview which stated that he was unsuccessful in his application for the position of Station Officer. It is the complainant's submission that the fact that all six candidates were informed that they were unsuccessful and not notified of the existence of a panel would indicate that the second post was to be advertised in January, 2002. Previously when panels were formed from an interview process candidates were notified of the existence of the panel and their place on it.

3.16 The complainant states that he raised the issue of the filling of the Station Officer vacancy in January, 2002 with his Union representative on 19th December, 2001.
The Union representative rang the respondent organisation and was informed that it was the intention to fill this post from the panel created by the interview process in April, 2001. According to the complainant this was the first admission by the respondent of the existence of a panel. The Union representative asked the respondent to defer the filling of the second appointment until a later date given that the complainant was disputing the first appointment. The complainant states that in mid January, 2002 he found that the second candidate had taken up the position of Station Officer which had become available on 6th January, 2002. According to the complainant this appointment came as a surprise to him as he had expected a response to his request to defer the appointment following receipt of legal advise.

3.17 The complainant set out the sequence of events in relation to the equality investigation as follows:
- At the request of the Equality Officer the complainant was asked to submit a sequence of events pertaining to the interview process and this was duly done.
- The Equality Officer sent this sequence of events to the respondent for information and the respondent amended the list on the basis that it was incorrect on a number of issues and returned it for the complainant's information. The respondent stated that the notification that he was unsuccessful in the competition was received by the complainant on 1st May, 2001 but, according to the complainant it was not received until 11th May, 2001.
- The complainant denies the respondent contention that he did not query the interview process in May and refers to a letter from the respondent dated 10th May setting out the complainant's marks in the competition.
- The complainant denies that a meeting took place between himself and the respondent in relation to his marks on 5th June, 2001.

3.18 The complainant is of the belief that he was discriminated against on the grounds of age by the respondent on the basis that the successful candidates were chosen solely on the grounds that they were the youngest candidates to apply. A comparison of the C.V.s of the three successful candidates show an inconsistency in the marks under the various headings according to the complainant and, therefore, one can only conclude that another reason must exist to account for these inconsistencies. The complainant states that it is his belief that it is the policy of the respondent to reduce the turnover of retiring Station Officers by appointing the youngest candidates possible. It is the complainant's contention that this would reduce the number of Station Officers retiring on Station Officer's pensions. The complainant is also of the belief that the respondent's policy is to reduce the cost of pensions to other ranks namely Sub Station Officers and Fire-fighters. According to the complainant this reduction in costs is being achieved by the removal of the maximum age at which candidates can apply for the position of Fire-fighter while maintaining mandatory retirement at 55. This means that candidates can now join the Fire Service in their mid-30s or early 40s and be forced to retire on their 55th birthday on a reduced pension. The complainant notes that candidates who apply for these posts and who have years of fire brigade experience in other jurisdictions in the EU do not have their past service recognised for pension purposes.

4. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION

4.1 It is the respondent's contention, having regard to the provisions of the Employment Equality Act 1998, that there is a requirement on the complainant to establish facts from which it may be presumed that the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to him. The respondent submits that the law relating to the presumption of discrimination or the drawing of an inference of discrimination as set out in the Davis case⁵ applies equally to cases of alleged age discrimination. It further submits that the fact that there may be an age difference between the successful candidate and the unsuccessful applicant for a promotion does not of itself require the Equality Officer to look to the respondent for an explanation. It is the respondent's contention that the respondent is only required to offer an explanation if the Equality Officer finds a significant difference between the qualifications of the complainant and the successful candidate together with an age difference. According to the respondent the complainant has offered no evidence whatsoever with regard to the suitability of the successful appointee nor has he offered any evidence whatsoever of any discrimination on age grounds.

4.2 The respondent notes that at the time of the interviews the complainant was 45 years of age and the candidate placed second on the panel was 37 years old, a difference of some 8 years. Unlike the case of McCormick v Dublin Port Company⁶ where the Equality Officer noted that 'the age and length of service disparity is obvious' the respondent contends that no such obvious disparity occurs in this case. It is the respondent's submission that it is not sufficient for the complainant to note a difference in age between himself and the second placed candidate. Rather he must be able to demonstrate a disparity of age that is sufficiently significant as to have influenced the decision of the interview board. The respondent does not consider that it is reasonable that an age gap of 8 years constitutes a disparity of age significant enough to have any bearing on the decision in this promotion competition. According to the respondent the decision to select the 2nd place candidate ahead of the complainant was not due to any discriminatory treatment on the grounds of age but resulted from the Interview Board's bona fide assessment of the relative merits of the complainant vis-à-vis the other candidates based on its consideration of the candidates' ability to meet the criteria set out in advance for the position in accordance with the job specification and essential requirements, their C.V.s, their performance at interview and overall potential to carry out the requirements of the post of Station Officer. The respondent notes that the age of the candidates was not requested on the application forms or at the interview and the members of the interview board did not request and were not supplied with the ages of any of the candidates.

4.3 The respondent, as a public sector organisation, is fully committed to the equality agenda and has issued to all staff its equal opportunities policy. All members of interview boards are given a copy of the respondent's "Notes for Members of Interview Boards". These notes advise interview boards that the respondent is committed to a policy of equality of opportunity in all employment practices. According to the respondent individuals will be selected, promoted and treated solely on the basis of their abilities and merits and according to the requirements of the job and will be given equal opportunity to demonstrate and develop their abilities and to progress within the respondent organisation. The respondent states that in order to ensure that the above policy is implemented the following points are relevant to the interviewers:
- there will be no express or implied discrimination against any candidate during any stage of the selection process;
- interviewers will not make assumptions about the suitability of individuals for certain types of work on the grounds of sex, marital or family status, sexual orientation, religious belief, age, disability, race or membership of the travelling community;
- all questions asked at interview will be directed solely towards assessing the suitability of candidates for the job and should be asked equally of all candidates. No questions of a personal nature should be asked;
- if a job potentially involves attendance at unsocial hours or extensive travel this should be included in the advertisement or in the job description. Accordingly questions at interview to assess whether personal circumstances are likely to affect performance of the job should be avoided. However, if it is important to clarify the matter, questions should be asked of all candidates.

4.4 The respondent states that the post of Station Officer was advertised on 7th November, 2000 and the closing date for receipt of applications was 23rd November, 2000. The closing date was subsequently extended to 29th November, 2000 due to an objection by the Union to the medical criteria attached to the qualifications and particulars. The position for which this competition was held was vacated when the person filling the position retired on 27th April, 2001.

4.5 According to the respondent the interview board consisted of very experienced interviewers and was an independent board set up by the City Manager to evaluate each candidate for the purpose of selecting the best person for the position. The respondent states that candidates are assessed solely on their performance at interview and on the written statements which they have furnished. It is a matter for the interview board to ascertain the candidates that are considered the most suitable for the position on the basis of their merit in relation to their respective capabilities, skills, competencies, aptitude, experience and qualifications. The respondent says that it is a matter for the interview board to determine what questions will be put to candidates to elicit the information being sought. In this regard the respondent states that two members of the interview board were Senior Officers of long standing in the Fire Services who would have been well aware of the competencies required of a Station Officer. The respondent notes that the advertisement and application form did not make any reference to age and, as none of the interviewers were employees of the respondent organisation, they were not aware of the age of any of the candidates. The respondent further states that the interview board made no reference to age during the interview process and no questions regarding age were posed of any of the candidates. It is the respondent's contention that the questions of the interviewers are only of reference to an investigation under the Employment Equality Act, 1998 where it can be demonstrated that they were discriminatory or have a discriminatory intent.

4.6 In relation to the complainant's contention that the Chairperson of the interview board said "I must compliment you on your comprehensive C.V. but we won't be going into it" the respondent states that the Chairperson is very clear that what she said was "I won't be going into it", but his C.V. would be dealt with by the other board members who were experts in the area of fire services. The respondent states that the Chairperson of the interview board is clear that she has never been formal in addressing a candidate and has always used their first name in an effort to assist candidates settle into an interview. Furthermore the respondent says that the Chairperson has clear recollection that she did not ask the complainant about his hobbies and there was no reference to his hobbies in his application or other documentation supplied by him. The respondent states that the interview board marked each candidate directly after each interview and not at the end of the interview process. According to the respondent it is not normal practice for interview board members to mark candidates separately. Rather they collectively agreed a mark for each candidate under each of the various headings and this was the case in relation to this interview.

4.7 The respondent states that notes by interview board members are retained by them for a period of time following the interview (approximately 9 months) and are then destroyed. It is the respondent's submission that from the date of interview (30th April, 2001) to the date that it was decided to allow the complainant's submission to the Equality Tribunal in November, 2002 a period of twenty months had elapsed and, therefore, the notes taken at the interview are not now available. The respondent does, however, note that the interview board was reassembled to brief it in relation to this claim. The respondent notes that the Equality Officer in the case of McNamee v Donegal County Council⁷ states that "while it is desirable that the respondent retains notes taken at interview by interview board members, the absence of such information does not automatically imply that discrimination has taken place. The interview board assessed each candidate on the basis of defined criteria unrelated to gender and on this basis selected the candidate deemed most suitable for the job". It is the respondent's contention that the interview board in this case acted in a similar manner.

4.8 The respondent notes that the complainant claims that, on the basis of his longer experience as outlined in his C.V., he was more suitable for the position. The respondent states that from the predetermined criteria for the post it is clear that experience is but one element of that criteria and suitability is the overriding factor particularly suitability to operate in a managerial capacity. It is the respondent's submission that the onus falls on it to decide the criteria it will employ to decide between candidates who all meet the minimum service and experience criteria. The Equality Officer in the case of McCormick V Dublin Port Company⁸ states "it (the respondent) is entitled to decide what criteria it considers best for its own promotional competitions, subject only to the stipulation that these may not be discriminatory criteria. The fact that seniority in itself is not the determining criterion for promotional competitions does not constitute discrimination on the grounds of age".

4.9 The respondent notes that the complainant refers only to six questions asked of him at interview by the interview board. According to the respondent the interview board contends that it would have asked all candidates approximately 16 questions overall during the interview and while each candidate was examined on the same predetermined competencies the actual questions would differ from candidate to candidate. The respondent denies the complainant's contention that the questions asked of him at interview did not afford him the opportunity of demonstrating his abilities to deal with operational situations and the managerial skills that would be required of him as a Station Officer and says that his inability to relate the questions to these competencies was reflected in his answering of them. In relation to each of the questions the complainant states he was asked the respondent makes the following points:
Qns 1 & 2 The complainant failed to see the significance of these questions. The interview board was seeking to establish if the complainant was aware if there was a system in place to ensure that fuel purchased was accounted for and that fuel could be misappropriated. This question was asked to allow the complainant to demonstrate his knowledge and experience. In the opinion of the interview board his answering of these questions was not the same standard as candidate placed 2nd on the panel. These questions were asked of all candidates.
Qn 3 The complainant failed to see the significance of this question. His response was that he would refer the matter "upstairs". This question was answered by the candidate placed 2nd on the panel more fully to the satisfaction of the interview board. This question was asked in order to allow the complainant to demonstrate his expertise under the headings of leadership, communication, adaptability and personality. This question was asked of all candidates.
Qns 4 & 5 While the interview board does not recall asking these questions, they are questions which would test the complainant's abilities in relation to staff issues and respondent policies and his overall perception of the fire service would be appropriate in assessing candidates for the post of Station Officer.
Qn 6 The complainant again failed to see the significance of this question. This question was not a trick question, it was an issue that was very much to the fore in the fire service at the time. The complainant feels that he answered this question comprehensively but this was for the interview board to determine.
The respondent notes that the complainant states that the same questions were not asked of all the candidates. According to the respondent this is never the situation. The interview board would have a number of specific questions that they would wish to ask and thereafter other questions arise as the interview develops. The respondent disagrees with the complainant's contention that question 6 was the only operational question asked of him and states that questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 also relate to operational matters. It is the respondent's submission that consistent and relevant questions were asked of all the candidates and the interview provided each candidate with an opportunity to answer and develop the question and to demonstrate their knowledge and skills. The respondent notes that this is a senior post in the fire service and the person selected must have satisfied the interview board that he/she has the necessary skills in the areas of managerial and organisational ability, ability to manage change and the ability to motivate staff. As the complainant clearly did not understand the reasoning behind the questions asked the respondent says that it does not mean that the questions were not relevant to the post and may also explain why he may not have performed at interview as well as he thought he might. The respondent states that the interview board is satisfied that, while the complainant performed well at interview, he failed to convince the interview board that he was as good or up to the same standard as the candidate placed 2nd on the panel.

4.10 The respondent states that it is normal practice that the successful candidates are notified by telephone as soon as possible after the City Manager has accepted the recommendation of the interview board. When the complainant requested a meeting to discuss the outcome of his interview the Personnel Officer met him at the earliest possible date on 5th June, 2001. At this meeting the respondent states that the Personnel Officer informed him that he had been placed 3rd on the panel to which the complainant responded "That's no good to me, I know that there will be a second position coming up in the near future but not a third". It was known in the organisation that another Station Officer would be retiring in January, 2002. The respondent states that the complainant was given the marks that he had obtained under the various headings and the Personnel Officer explained to him fully and clearly how the marking system worked and that the marking system highlighted his strengths and weaknesses. According to the respondent the complainant makes the unfounded assumption that there would be no further vacancies at Station Officer level before he is due to retire. The respondent says that it is extremely difficult to predict future vacancies with any degree of certainty. Furthermore the respondent says that there was no guarantee that the second post of Station Officer would be filled in the future as all positions to be filled are examined critically to determine if the organisation requires or can afford to fill them due to its difficult financial situation. The respondent notes that the complainant submits that the first admission by the respondent organisation of the existence of a panel was on 19th December, 2001 but the respondent points out that the complainant had been told about the panel at a meeting with the Personnel Officer on 5th June, 2001 and again on foot response to a Freedom of Information request dated 4th September, 2001. The respondent says that it received legal advice that it was obliged to appoint the second placed candidate to the vacant position.

4.11 The respondent states the following in relation to the interview process:
- It is normal procedure to advertise a post and not multiple posts. At the time of the advertisement there was only one definite vacancy in the immediate future (April, 2001).
- Five months delay between the advertisement and the interviews was not deliberate. No reasons were given for the delay and no request was ever received from any of the candidates for an explanation for the delay.
- The second post was not filled in secret in January, 2002. It is normal practice to fill vacancies that arise during the lifetime of a panel from the panel. Candidates were not generally advised at that time that they have been placed on a panel. The respondent's current policy is to advise candidates that they have been placed on a panel.
- All of the other candidates were unsuccessful in relation to the one post that was advertised.
- It was decided to fill the second post after full consideration of its financial situation.
- The complainant received his marks as requested. Other staff received their marks as requested in relation to the posts for which they has applied. They had requested and received a detailed explanation of their marks but the complainant did not request this detailed explanation at that time.
- The successful candidates were not required to carry out a medical examination. This has been the policy in the respondent organisation since 2001.

4.12 In relation to the marking system and criteria the respondent notes as follows:
- the interview board determined in advance of the interviews what marks would be awarded for educational and other qualifications. The complainant held all passes on the Group Certificate while the candidate placed 2nd on the panel held A and O levels on the Junior and Leaving Certificate equivalent. The higher marks given to the candidate placed 2nd on the panel reflected his superior educational qualifications.
- in terms of Knowledge and Experience the interview board were of the opinion that the complainant demonstrated that he was qualified under this heading and awarded him the same marks to those awarded to the candidate placed 2nd on the panel.
- in relation to Leadership and Teamwork the interview board formed the opinion that the complainant had not demonstrated to their satisfaction that he had displayed appropriate skills compared to the candidate placed 2nd on the panel.
- as regards Communications the interview board formed the opinion that the complainant has failed to convince them that he had the same level of communication skills compared to the candidate placed 2nd on the panel. An essential ingredient of good communication skills is the ability to listen as well as deliver. This is particularly important in the fire service where instructions must be delivered and received clearly and quickly. The interview board considered that the complainant failed to appreciate the significance of the questions put to him. The complainant has stated that the questions were not of a type which would give him an opportunity to demonstrate his ability to deal with operational situations and managerial skills. The interviewboard feels that the questions were posed precisely to give candidates the opportunity to demonstrate their potential leadership and
managerial skills. The complainant's lack of understanding of the significance of the questions may explain his poor responses to the questions and explains his being placed 3rd on the panel.
- in relation to Adaptability the interview board formed the opinion that the complainant did not demonstrate to their satisfaction that he was as adaptable as the candidate placed 2nd on the panel and this is evidenced by his response to question 3.
- in terms of Personality the interview board confirms that the complainant has a good personality. This criteria relates to the candidates' ability to relate to customers and to interface with others. The complainant's response to question 3 convinced the interview
board of his weakness in this area and so in the opinion of the interview board he did not demonstrate that he has as suitable a personality as the candidate placed second on the panel.

4.13 In relation to the sequence of events in the Equality Investigation as set out by the complainant in his submission (paragraph 3.17 above) the respondent states that the complainant was notified by letter dated 1st May, 2001 that he was unsuccessful in his application (not that he received notification that he was unsuccessful on 1st May, 2001). The respondent accepts that the complainant did query the interview process in May, 2001. It is the respondent's contention that the meeting of 5th June, 2001 between the complainant and the Personnel Officer took place. According to the respondent the complainant received his marks by letter dated 10th May, 2001 following a telephone request. He did not seek an explanation of how his marks were achieved and this was explained to him at the meeting on 5th June, 2001. The respondent says that the complainant was told that marks relating to other candidates were confidential, not that the whole interview process was confidential. It is the respondent's submission that its letter to the complainant dated 19th September, 2001 was in response to his letter dated 7th August, 2001 (not 7th September, 2001 as stated by the complainant) in which he requested his individual marks as given by each individual member of the interview board and any other notes or comments as written by the interview board pertaining to his interview. The respondent states that the information provided by it to the complainant on 5th June, 2001 was an explanation of how his marks were achieved.

4.14 The respondent notes that the complainant continuously refers to his C.V. to justify his case and says that comparison between the C.V.s is not material on the basis that if the C.V.s were the only criteria for selection of candidates to fill vacancies then interviews would not be required. The respondent states that the purpose of the interview is so that the interview board can evaluate each candidate for the purpose of selecting the best candidate for the position based on his or her performance at interview under all of the predetermined and written material supplied. The respondent denies that it has a policy to reduce the turnover of retiring Station Officers by appointing the youngest candidates possible. According to the respondent the candidate placed 2nd on the panel was 37 years old at the time of the interview while the complainant was 45 years old. The respondent notes that a candidate, not placed on the panel, was 39 years old some six years younger than the complainant. It is the respondent's contention that an eight year difference between the complainant and the candidate placed 2nd on the panel does not constitute a significant difference in age between these two candidates.

4.15 In relation to the submission by the complainant at paragraph 3.18 above the respondent states that the removal of the maximum age by which candidates can apply for the position of firefighter was a legislative decision. In relation to candidates who apply for the post of firefighter and who have years of experience with other fire brigades in other countries within the E.U. and who do not have their past experience recognised for pension purposes the respondent notes that this is governed by the Employment Contract and Conditions of Employment Local Authority Non-Officer Grades which states that the usual practice for all non-officer grades is to start at the minimum of their payscales. The respondent says that this is a national issue which is presently being considered by the Department of Environment and Local Government. According to the respondent the firefighters retiring age is set out in the qualifications and conditions for the post to which the complainant signed up in accepting the position of firefighter in July, 1978. The respondent rejects the unsupported accusations by the complainant that its objective is to reduce the cost of pensions in the years to come. The respondent also denies the complainant's allegation that age is a barrier to promotion within the organisation. It is the respondent's submission that it would never jeopardise the quality of service delivered by the fire services by appointing people to positions for which they were not considered entirely suitable. Furthermore the respondent states that the Chief Fire Officer has indicated that the candidates appointed following the interviews held on 30th April, 2001 are performing their duties in an excellent manner and he is entirely satisfied with their performance.

5. CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER

5.1 The issue for decision in this claim is whether the respondent discriminated against the complainant on the grounds of his age in terms of Sections 6(1) and 6(2)(f) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and in contravention of Section 8 of that Act in failing to place him at a higher place on the panel for the position of Station Officer. In making my decision in this claim I have taken into account all of the submissions, both written and oral, made to me by the parties.

5.2 In November, 2000 the complainant applied for the position of Staff Officer. Interviews were held on 30th April, 2001. By letter dated 1st May, 2001 the complainant was informed by the respondent that he was unsuccessful in his application. According to the complainant he received this letter on 11th May, 2001 and the successful candidate was appointed to the position in July, 2001. The complainant referred a complaint of alleged discrimination on the grounds of age on 14th November, 2001. Section 77(5) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 states that:
"a claim for redress in respect of discrimination .... may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of the occurrence or, as the case may require, the most recent occurrence of the act of discrimination ... to which the case
relates".
In this case one must look at what is the date of occurrence of the act of discrimination. It could be argued that it could be any one of the following dates:
- Date of interview when the interview board decided on who should be offered the position (i.e. 30th April, 2001)
- Date of the letter to the complainant informing him that he was unsuccessful in his application (i.e. 1st May, 2001)
- Date of receipt of the letter by the complainant informing him that he was unsuccessful in his application (i.e. 11th May, 2001)
- Date of appointment of the successful candidate which the respondent has confirmed was 10th May, 2001.
If one takes the latest date of the above four dates (i.e. 11th May, 2001) then a valid referral within the six months time-limit would need to have been made by 10th November, 2001. In this case the referral was dated 14th November, 2001 hence it was outside all of the above dates and, therefore, outside the time limit specified in Section 77(5) of the 1998 Act.

5.3 At the time of the preliminary hearing of this claim on 26th November, 2002 the complainant had not made an application for an extension of time in terms of Section 77(6) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. Section 77(6) of the Act states:
"If on an application made by the complainant the Director .... is satisfied that exceptional circumstances prevented the complainant's case .... being referred within the time limit ....
(a) the Director .... may direct that, in relation to that case, sub-section (5) shall have effect as if for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period as not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction ....".
However in his submission, subsequent to the preliminary hearing, the complainant argued that his claim was in time in accordance with the provisions of Section 77(5) but that if the Equality Officer found otherwise he requested a direction for an extension of time in accordance with Section 77(6) of the 1998 Act. A Direction has issued to the complainant and in it the Equality Officer held that the complainant had failed to establish to her satisfaction that he was prevented by exceptional circumstances from referring a complaint within six months of the alleged incident of discrimination.

5.4 At a preliminary hearing of this claim the Equality Officer held that the complainant could pursue a claim of alleged discrimination on the grounds of age in relation to the fact that another candidate was placed second on a panel as a result of this competition. In the letter the complainant received after the competition he was told that he had been unsuccessful in his application. It later emerged that he had been placed third on a panel in this competition. There is a conflict between the parties as to when the complainant was told this information. According to the respondent he was told at a meeting on 5th June, 2001 whereas the complainant says that he first became aware of the existence of a panel on 4th September, 2001 when he was informed of this fact in writing. As I have stated in paragraph 2.3 above the fact that the complainant was not aware that a panel was going to be formed as a result of this competition meant that he had every reasonable expectation that he could compete for future vacancies and he was aware that a vacancy would arise in January, 2002. Therefore, in the interests of natural justice and fairness, I am satisfied that the complainant can pursue his claim of alleged discrimination on the grounds of age in respect of the placing of the second person on the panel for appointment to the next vacancy in January, 2002.

5.5 The traditional approach taken to complaints of discrimination on the original ground of sex in the caselaw of the European Court of Justice, and sex and marital status in the caselaw of Equality Officers and the Labour Court has been that once a complainant establishes a prima facie claim of discrimination the onus then moves to the respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination. The common law approach has become the statutory requirement in complaints of gender discrimination in employment following the transposition of Council Directive 97/80/EC into Irish Law on 18th July, 2001 by means of the European Communities (Burden of Proof in Gender Discrimination Cases) Regulations, 2001⁹. The Regulations provide that:
"[w]here in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a person from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination in relation to him or her, it shall be for the other party concerned to prove the contrary".

5.6 The Employment Equality Act, 1998 introduced seven new grounds of discrimination (including age) not drawn directly from European Union Directives or European Court of Justice caselaw. The Council Directive and Regulations mentioned above are not applicable to grounds other than gender, but this approach appears to me to be fully consistent with the development of discrimination caselaw. It has become the standard approach of Equality Officers in deciding cases under the 1998 Act such as on the disability ground¹⁰, on the race ground¹¹, on the age ground¹² .

5.7 The Labour Court in the case of the Revenue Commissioners -and- Liam O'Mahony, Terence Smith, Michael Lovett and Tomás Ó'Tuama13 addressed the issue of the burden of proof on the age ground. It stated that the appropriate test for determining if and when the burden of proof should shift to the respondent is formulated in the case of the Southern Health Board v Dr. Theresa Mitchell¹⁴ in which it was held that:

"A claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise the presumption of unlawful discrimination.
It is only if those primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court that they are regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination that the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment".
The Labour Court in applying this test held that:
"the Court must consider if the complainants have established the primary facts on which they place reliance in furtherance of the complaint of discrimination. If those facts are established the Court must then consider if they are of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination. If that evidential burden is not discharged the complainants cannot succeed. If that burden is discharged it then becomes a matter for the respondent to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the complainant's age was not a factor that influenced their exclusion from the panel".
It is my intention to follow the approach adopted by the Labour Court in this case and to apply it to the facts of the case before me for investigation.

5.8 It is the complainant's contention that he was discriminated against on the grounds of his age when he was not placed second on a panel for appointment to the position of Station Officer. According to the complainant the person placed second on the panel was younger than him as was the person placed first on the panel. There were seven candidates interviewed for the position of Station Officer in the November, 2000 competition. The age profile of these seven candidates at the time of interview was as follows:

I note that, while the candidates placed 1st and 2nd on the panel were younger than
the complainant, one of the unsuccessful candidates was also younger than him.

5.9 The complainant has argued that, by placing him third on the panel, it was a token gesture as the interview board knew that there was no third vacancy for Station Officer. The respondent denies this and says that one cannot always anticipate how a vacancy may arise. By being placed on the panel the complainant was deemed qualified for an appointment should a vacancy arise during the lifetime of the panel.

5.10 The respondent has argued that the 8 year age difference between the complainant and the person placed second on the panel is too small a gap to sustain a claim of age discrimination. In the case of Superquinn v Freeman¹⁵ the Labour Court held that a gap of 3 years was too small to sustain a claim of age discrimination. However, in this case the gap is more significant especially when the gap between the youngest and the oldest candidate was a total of 12 years. Hence I find that a difference of 8 years between the complainant and the candidate placed second on the panel is sufficiently significant to sustain a claim of age discrimination.

5.11 The respondent was unable to provide the notes taken by interview board members at interview. The Labour Court address this issue in the case of the National Museum of Ireland -and- Dr. Anne O'Dowd¹⁶ as follows:
"The Court notes that it was the policy of the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commission at the time, that the notes and records of the interview board would be destroyed and that only the markings would be retained. Only the comments of the chairman of the board were retained. This failure to retain notes and records of the other interviewers is a matter of concern as the keeping of notes and records are of great assistance to the Court when investigating allegations such as the complainant's. The Court has commented on this practice of destroying interview notes in the past and expects that if it has not already ceased, it will cease in the future".
The individual marks awarded to each candidate under the criteria by the interview board members was provided. In assessing candidates the interview board adopted the following criteria:
Education - 100 marks
Knowledge and Experience - 200 marks
Leadership and Teamwork - 150 marks
Communications - 50 marks
Adaptability - 50 marks
Personality - 150 marks

According to the respondent the interview board did not breakdown the marks awarded under any of the headings above with the exception of Education. This lack of transparency and the failure to retain the interview notes (especially when the respondent was aware of this claim before the expiration of the period of nine months during which interview notes are retained) is in my view sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination warranting careful investigation.

5.12 In order to rebut the inference of discrimination the respondent must offer a credible explanation for the marks awarded to the complainant and to the candidate placed second on the panel. I note that the interview board, with one exception, did not provide a breakdown of the total marks awarded to each criteria as set out in paragraph 5.11 above. The exception was educational qualifications where a breakdown of marks was provided see Appendix C. In relation to educational qualifications I have examined the marks awarded to the complainant, to the persons placed 1st and 2nd on the panel and the person who was younger than the complainant but who failed to qualify. I am satisfied, from this examination, that the marks awarded to each of these candidates correctly reflected their educational achievements. I am satisfied that the interview board assessed the candidates in terms of educational qualifications in an objective manner and I find that the person placed second on the panel was better qualified than the complainant. On this basis I find that the burden of proof does not shift to the respondent in this case.

5.13 I note that the respondent now informs candidates in promotion competitions if they have been placed on a panel. I welcome this change of procedure and recommend that, in all future cases, candidates be informed if they have been placed on a panel. At the hearing of this claim the respondent stated that, while it kept copies of candidates' applications and C.V.s for competition, it did not retain notes of interviews. Rather notes taken at interview by interview board members were retained by these board members. There is an onus on board members to retain these notes for a period of nine months after which they could dispose of them. I consider that this is too great an onus to place on individual board members and recommend that, in all future competitions, the respondent should retain the notes made by interview board members during the course of an interview so that in the event of an allegation of discrimination these notes can be produced. I recommend that the respondent should draw up the criteria to be adopted by the interview board at the same time as the competition is being advertised. This means that the criteria is drawn up in advance of the respondent or the interview board having sight of applications for the post advertised. I consider that this provides greater openness and transparency in the interview process.

6. DECISION

6.1 In view of the foregoing I find that Limerick City Council did not discriminate against Mr. Gerard Reynolds on the grounds of his age in terms of Section 6(1) and 6(2)(f) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and in contravention of Section 8 of that Act.

___________________
Gerardine Coyle
Equality Officer
7th August, 2003

Appendix A

Scores awarded to candidates placed on panel by the interview board

Appendix B

Age Profiles

STATION OFFICERS and SUB STATION OFFICERS APPOINTMENTS PROFILE BEFORE INTERVIEW PROCESS

STATION OFFICERS and SUB STATION OFFICERS APPOINTMENTS PROFILE AFTER INTERVIEW PROCESS

Appendix C

Breakdown of the marks awarded for Educational Qualifications

Educational Criteria

Junior / Group Certificate: 60 marks

Leaving Certificate: + 10 marks

Additional Educational Qualifications: + 20 marks
(Certificate/Diploma - 10 marks)
(Degree - 10 marks)

Relevant Fire Safety Courses: + 5 marks

Trade: + 5 marks
________
TOTAL 100 Marks

2 Equality Tribunal - Sheehan v DPP - DEC-E2002-047; Harrington v East Coast Area Health Board - DEC-E2002-001; Eng v St. James Hospital - DEC-E2001-041; Hughes v Aer Lingus - DEC-E2002-049 Labour Court - Teresa Mitchell v Southern Health Board - DEE011

3 High Court Unreported 2000

4 Labour Court DEE003

5 High Court Helen Davis v DIT Unreported

6 Equality Officer Decision DEC-E2002-046

7 Equality Officer Decision - DEC-E2002-048

8 Equality Officer Decision - DEC-E2002-046 dated 4th October, 2002

9 S.I. 337 of 2001

10Equality Tribunal - Harrington v East Coast Area Health Board - DEC-E2002-001

11Equality Tribunal - Eng v St. James Hospital - DEC-E2002-041

12Equality Tribunal - McCormick v Dublin Port Company - DEC-E2002-046

13Labour Court - EDA033

14Labour Court - DEE011

15Labour Court - DEE0211

16Labour Court - DEE033