Ms Josephine O'Halloran
vs
Galway City Partnership
1. DISPUTE
The dispute concerns a complaint that Galway City Partnership discriminated against the complainant on the age ground contrary to the provisions of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 and 2004 (referred to here as the Act) when she was unsuccessful in competitions for appointment as mediator.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The complainant, who has been employed as an Information Officer with the respondent since March, 1999, applied on two occasions for promotion to the position of Mediator but was unsuccessful on each occasion while younger candidates were appointed. The complainant, believing that she was discriminated against on the age ground, referred a complaint to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 26th April, 2004. The parties attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the matter at mediation and the complainant requested a resumption of the investigation on 4th February, 2005. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Act, the Director delegated the case to Raymund Walsh, Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision on 30th September, 2005 and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Act. A hearing of the complaint was held on 13th April, 2006. Arising from the hearing further correspondence ensued up until 15th May, 2006.
3. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANT'S CASE
3.1 The complainant is employed as an Information Officer with the respondent in Galway City. She applied for a temporary promotional post as Mediator with the respondent in March 2002. The complainant who was aged 57 at the time, had three years experience working with the respondent and holds third level qualifications in counselling and psychosexual therapy. She also has a private counselling practice. The complainant contends that she carried out mediator functions on occasions when the Mediator was absent. The complainant states that a candidate who was half her age and who had considerably less experience than her was successful. The complainant states that when she questioned the result afterwards she received contradictory accounts from the chairperson of the interview board and another member. A second Mediator competition was held in April 2004 at which the complainant was again unsuccessful while a younger candidate whom the complainant believes to be less suitable was appointed. Subsequent to the referral of the complaint a third Mediator vacancy arose, this time in the complainant's own office. The complainant states that the respondent departed from its established practice of appointing an Information Officer who was already serving in the office as Acting Mediator and instead held another competition at which the complainant was again unsuccessful and a younger candidate was appointed. The complainant in her submission and at the hearing set out reasons for her belief that she was more suited to the Mediator position than each of the successful candidates and refers also to manner in which the interviews were conducted.
4. SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT'S CASE
4.1 Galway City Partnership, through its Local Employment Services Network, provides support services in Galway City to unemployed people, particularly in disadvantaged groups, in their efforts to acquire gainful employment. It has four offices staffed by a Mediator and an Information Officer. The role of Mediator is that of an intermediary between unemployed clients of GCP and prospective employers, providing career guidance to clients and arranging job placements. The respondent rejects the allegation of discriminatory treatment of the complainant on the age ground and states that it exercises a policy of equality of opportunity in its management of staff. A copy of its staff handbook incorporating the equality policy was included in its submission. The respondent commissioned an independent equality audit and confidential staff survey in 2003 with funding from the Equality Authority and, with the exception of one complaint of age discrimination (assumed by the respondent to be that of the complainant), was found to be even stronger in its equality practices than that laid down in its written policy.
4.2 The respondent states that the complainant's failure to secure a Mediator position had nothing to do with her age but resulted from her failure to understand or accept the respondent's position in relation to the requirements for the position of Mediator. The respondent responded in detail to the arguments put forward by the complainant in relation to her qualifications and the conduct of the interviews and provided details of the composition of the various interview boards, copies of interview notes in respect of the complainant's three interviews and marking sheets for two of the interviews at the hearing. The respondent argued strenuously that while the complainant was regarded as a competent Information Officer, her qualification in counselling was not relevant to the role of Mediator and rejected the complainant's contention that she filled the role of Mediator from time to time on a relief basis. The respondent argued that the interview notes and marks confirmed that the complainant based her suitability for the Mediator position on her counselling skills and qualifications and that this was at variance with the respondent's position as to the skills required for the position. The respondent also referred to the complainant's performance at interview generally and in particular her recourse to notes when asked a question. Four of the five persons involved in the three interview boards, including an independent member from FÁS who participated in the last third board, were present at the hearing and gave evidence in relation to the complainant's performance at interview.
5. CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
5.1 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. In seeking to establish prima facie that she was discriminated against on the age ground it is for the complainant to establish evidence from which a presumption may be made that discriminatory treatment has taken place. It is undisputed that the successful candidates were on each occasion younger than the complainant and the complainant has sought to demonstrate that she was the more suited, relying for the most part on her qualification in counselling. While the complainant produced an advertisement from a Mediator competition in 1999 stating that a qualification in conselling/guidance/personnel would be an advantage, the respondent has made it clear that it regards the position of Mediator as very different from that of counselling and produced evidence from the three interview boards supporting its contention that the complainant failed to demonstrate an understanding of the Mediator role within the GCP. I note that the Labour Court in Walsh, Jackson and Acton v Board of Management, Ballinrobe Community School (EDA065) found 'The Court accepts the veracity of evidence that the successful candidate was appointed because the selection board considered that his qualities and attributes were the most suitable for what they regard as the requirements of the impugned post. It follows that the Court must also accept that the respondent has established, on the balance of probabilities, that the decision was in no sense related to the gender of the successful candidate or that of the complainants'. Having regard to the written submissions presented by the parties and the evidence presented at the hearing and in subsequent correspondence in relation to the complainant's performance at interview, I am satisfied that the complainant has failed to adduce evidence that her age was a factor in the respondent's decision not to offer her a Mediator position. I consider, having regard to Section 85A of the Act (burden of proof), that the complainant has failed to established facts from which a presumption may be made that discriminatory treatment on the age ground has taken place and that her complaint of discrimination on the age ground must fail.
6. DECISION
6.1 On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the respondent did not discriminate against the complainant on the age ground in terms of Section 6(2)(f) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 and 2004 contrary to the provisions of Section 8 of the Acts.
Raymund Walsh, Equality Officer
4 September, 2006