Sr Mary Loye
(Represented by Daniel Spring & Co., Solicitors)
vs
Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick
(Represented by IBEC)
1. DISPUTE
The dispute concerns a complaint that Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick discriminated (the College) against the complainant on the grounds of her age contrary to the provisions of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 in the filling of permanent Lecturer posts at the College.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The complainant has been employed on fixed term contracts as an Assistant Lecturer at the College since 1995. The dispute concerns the conversion of part time Lecturer contracts to permanent contracts following competitive interviews. The complainant attended for interview but failed to be appointed to a permanent position. The complainant believes that she was discriminated against on the grounds of her age. The complainant also alleged discrimination on the gender and religious belief grounds in her initial complaint however these grounds were withdrawn at the hearing.
2.2 The complainant referred a complaint to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 21st December, 2001. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of the 1998 Act, the Director delegated the case to an Equality Officer for investigation, hearing and decision on 26th March, 2002 and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Act. The complainant requested on 10th April, 2002 that the investigation be suspended as her union were intervening with the College on her behalf. The Equality Officer subsequently wrote to the complainant on a number of occasions in order to establish if the investigation was to proceed and finally on 27th September, 2004 informed the complainant that if no submission was received by 1st November, 2004 she would proceed to strike out the complaint in accordance with section 102 of the 1998 Act. The complainant's submission was received on 2nd November, 2004 and the respondent's submission was received on 14th February, 2005. The Equality Officer to whom the complaint had been delegated requested for personal reasons that the case be delegated to another Equality Officer and the Director delegated the case to Raymund Walsh on 27th May, 2005. A hearing of the complaint was held on 12 October, 2005. Additional material was provided by both
sides to the dispute subsequent to the hearing resulting in further correspondence up until 5th October, 2006.
3. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANT'S CASE
3.1 The complainant has been employed on fixed term 'back to back' contracts as an Assistant Lecturer at the College since 1995. The College issued an e-mail to Heads of Departments on 20th April, 2000 stating that there would be a competition to convert a number of fixed term lecturers to permanent contracts. The complainant states that she was one of six temporary Lecturers who were eligible to compete. The complainant attended for interview but was unsuccessful while her five colleagues, all of whom are younger than her, were made permanent. Her three year contract was renewed the following year and subsequently extended to cover the academic year 2006-2007 when she would reach retirement age.
3.2 The complainant states that her performance at work was never in question. She obtained from the College a copy of the Interview Guidelines, Evaluation Criteria and her Assessment Matrix. She also received, with the consent of the successful candidates, copies of their Assessment Matrices. The complainant states that the very low marks awarded to her in each category, including a zero from the Head of Department in one instance, beg the question of a fair hearing and professional criteria of objectivity. The complainant refers to the professional stigma of being kept on fixed term contracts and the loss of eligibility for professional leave, research grants and College funding towards finishing doctrinal studies. She also states that she has a lower salary than her five colleagues and has reduced superannuation entitlements.
4. SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT'S CASE
4.1 The respondent states that Mary Immaculate College, founded in 1898, is a third level Catholic college of education and the liberal arts. The respondent states that following discussions with various parties during 2000 and 2001, the College ran a contract conversion process whereby academic staff who had been on 'back to back' fixed term contracts of more than one year's duration could apply to become permanent members of staff. The selection process would be by way of 'confined assessment'. Six positions were advertised in six different subject areas including
Theology and Religious Studies (TRS) where the complainant worked. The College states that as the complainant was the only person in her department who met the eligibility requirements it was essentially a process in which she was the only applicant. In a letter to the Irish Federation of University Teachers (IFUT) prior to the competition in which the Personnel Manager of the College outlined the process, he stated 'it is important that this process is not viewed by anybody as a rubber stamp exercise'. Different interview boards were constituted for each position. The complainant's interview board comprised three College nominees and two members nominated by the University of Limerick and comprised three men and two women.
4.2 The College set out five equally rated criteria which were used to assess the complainant's suitability for a permanent post as follows :
- qualifications and experience
- research output and scholarship
- service to date and envisaged service to the Department, College, University, wider academic community and to the theological/scriptural community
- interpersonal skills
- teaching, curriculum development and pedagogy.
It was decided that an overall mark of 45% was required to be considered suitable for appointment however the complainant only received an overall mark of 25%. The College furnished a copy of the complainant's 'Assessment Matrix' which showed the marks awarded to her under each criterion by each of the five members of the interview board. The College points out that the complainant did not reach the qualifying mark under any of the five criteria. In relation to qualifications, the College states that the complainant's qualifications were the minimum for a third level post and she did not hold a doctorate and did not appear to be close to achieving one . There was no evidence of independent research by the complainant and she had no examples of presentation of papers at academic conferences. The College states that she had no vision for the department and had not been asked to guest lecture or to work as an extern examiner. The College states that the complainant failed to demonstrate an ability to relate to students and did not appear to see third level students as adults.
4.3 The College states that there is no evidence of age discrimination in the awarding of the marks and states that the fact that the complainant was the oldest candidate and also the only unsuccessful candidate is not in itself evidence of age discrimination. The College states that in response to representations from the IFUT it offered to re-run the complainant's interview and to change three members of the interview board while retaining the Head of the TRS Department and the Coordinating Head of the Arts Department on the board. However this was not acceptable to the complainant or the IFUT who wanted a completely new board. This issue was referred to the Labour Court by the IFUT under the Industrial Relations Act 1946 and 2004 and the Labour Court upheld the College's position (1) . The College states that this offer remains open but has not been taken up by the complainant.
5. CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
5.1 The matter for consideration is whether or not the respondent discriminated against the complainant on the age ground in terms of Section 6(2)(f) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and contrary to Section 8 of that Act. In making my decision I have taken into account all of the evidence, both written and oral, made to me by the parties to the case.
5.2 I am satisfied, having considered the nature of the competition and its background, that the complainant was not in competition with other candidates who had applied for positions in other departments and who were interviewed by different interview boards. This was a process where the complainant alone was assessed by an academic panel for suitability to be appointed to a permanent position in her own department. She was the only person qualified for the position in the TRS department. There was no evidence that the College operated a general policy favouring younger candidates or that the interview boards were being influenced in a particular direction. Arising from the hearing and arguments advanced for the complainant, the respondent provided details of the qualifications and academic backgrounds of other candidates who were made permanent however as I have concluded that the complainant was not in competition with those candidates I do not consider the conduct of the other interviews to be particularly relevant. The respondent has provided a table of the marks awarded to the complainant under each of the five criteria. As the complainant points out, there is some variation in the marks awarded by the various panel members who assessed the complainant and limited interview notes were retained. However the five interview panel members were present at the hearing and answered questions in relation to the award of marks under the various headings. Their conclusions are reflected in the summary at 4.2 above. Having considered this evidence I found no evidence that the complainant's age was a factor in the award of marks.
5.3 While I consider it anomalous that a lecturer could be deemed a suitable lecturer from 1995 to the time of the complaint, be given an extended contract to her retirement in 2007 and yet perform so poorly in a competition which would make her permanent for the same period, I nevertheless consider that the complainant has adduced no evidence that panel members were influenced by her age. On balance, I must conclude that the complainant has failed to adduce prima facie evidence on which a presumption of discriminatory treatment on the age ground could be based.
6. DECISION
6.1 On the basis of the foregoing, I find that Mary Immaculate College did not discriminate against the complainant on the age ground in terms of Section 6(2)(f) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 contrary to the provisions of Section 8 of that Act in the appointment of part-time Lecturers to full time positions.
Raymund Walsh
Equality Officer
5 December, 2006
Notes
(1) Mary Immaculate College and A Worker, LCR17842 Labour Court, 14th May, 2004