Dr. Sheila McGree
vs
Athlone Institute of Technology
(Represented by Arthur Cox, Solicitors)
1. DISPUTE
1.1 The dispute concerns a claim by Dr. McGree that she has been subjected to discriminatory treatment by Athlone Institute of Technology on the grounds of gender within the meaning of Sections 6(1) and 6(2) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2007 and contrary to the provisions of Section 8 of those Acts.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The complainant alleges that the respondent has treated a Senior Lecturer 1 more favourably since he came to the respondent organisation. This favourable treatment she alleges was given to him so that he would not appear to be the same as other Lecturers in a female dominated profession. It is her contention that this favourable treatment manifested itself in the privileges he received in relation to research activity and involvement in a professional association. According to the complainant this Senior Lecturer 1 was treated more favourably in relation to the obtaining of his Senior Lecturer 1 post, his job title, his ability to conduct research, his teaching schedule, his attendance at meetings and his supervision of students' research. The respondent notes that a number of the allegations made by the complainant are outside the time limits imposed by the 1998-2007 Acts. In relation to all other allegations the respondent denies that there was any discrimination against the complainant on the grounds of her gender, as alleged.
2.2 Consequently the complainant referred her complaint of discriminatory treatment to the Director of Equality Investigations on 31st August, 2005 under the provisions of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2004. In accordance with her powers under Section 75 of those Acts the Director then delegated the claim to Gerardine Coyle, Equality Officer on 16th March, 2007 for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Act. Following receipt of submissions a joint hearing took place on 12th September, 2007. Further information was received from the parties and the final information was received on 16th October, 2007.
3. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANT'S SUBMISSION
3.1 The complainant is employed as a lecturer in the Social Care Division of the Department of Humanities at the respondent organisation. She is one of a number of lecturers in this Division all, but one, of who are female. In the Social Care Division there is one Senior Lecturer appointed (hereinafter to be referred to, as Mr. A). According to the complainant Mr. A came to the respondent organisation as Head of the Department of Humanities in 2001 and changed over to the Senior Lecturer position in October, 2003. It is the complainant's contention that management has treated him favourably since coming to the respondent organisation and in the complainant's view this favourable treatment is not justified by his senior lecturer status. The complainant states that it is her belief that this favourable treatment is given to him so that he does not appear to be the same as other lecturers in a female dominated profession. The privileges he receives relate mainly to research activity and involvement in a professional association. They also relate to the obtaining of the post of Senior Lecturer, his job title, the ability to conduct research, his teaching schedule, attendance at meetings, supervision of students' research, membership of the Research & Development committee and membership of a professional association (IASCE). According to the complainant this favourable treatment helps him to develop his research and to contribute to the development of social care education. It is the complainant's submission that this treatment is not afforded to other lecturers (including herself) and it is often at the expense of other lecturers (including herself).
3.2 The complainant says that the post of Senior Lecturer was advertised in Spring, 2003. In applying for this post Mr. A received favourable treatment because, the complainant says, that the Head of School had stated 8 months earlier that Mr. A would not be Head of Department the following year but would hold a different position the following year. The complainant further states that the presence of two of the four people on the interview board for the position of Senior Lecturer was an advantage to Mr. A. According to the complainant she applied for the position and came second on the panel with only one point difference between herself and Mr. A. The complainant submits that she was discriminated against in that Mr. A was given extra advantages to help him attain the post.
3.3 The complainant notes that when the Senior Lecturer post was advertised it was given the title of "Senior Lecturer (Teaching)" and the description for the post stated, inter alia, 'the focus of this role will be to develop research initiatives within the Institute with a view to establishing Athlone Institute of Technology as a center of excellence in the area of Social Care Research'. It is the complainant's contention that since Mr. A has taken up the post of Senior Lecturer he has received supports to help him conduct research on his own but not to develop research initiatives in Social Care within the Institute. According to the complainant Mr. A was given the title of Director of the Centre for Child and Youth Care Learning (CCYCL) but notes that the Centre does not exist. The nameplate for the Centre is outside Mr. A's office but it does not have any staff or any specific duties. The complainant says that research conducted at the Centre is conducted by Mr. A himself and Mr. A has a web page on the respondent's website dedicated to the Centre where he is listed as its Director. Mr. A publishes his research in publications that are published by the Centre and the complainant says that this gives the impression that a group of academics at the research centre reviewed the publication, but this is not the case. It is the complainant's further contention that the title of Director gives Mr. A a status that helps him to obtain research funds from external bodies and portrays him to students as being more capable of conducting research which is an advantage he has over other lecturers. The complainant states that it is her belief that the respondent has provided funding to the Centre and notes that Mr. A is able to attend conferences nationally and internationally and appears to do so more often than other lecturers who are confined to a maximum of 2 per year.
3.4 The complainant notes that when meetings are held in the respondent organisation at which academics and other professionals from outside attend Mr. A is put forward to represent the respondent organisation and he is described as a research expert which she submits results in less favourable treatment for herself. Both the Head of School and Mr. A describe his post as a 'dedicated research post' and the complainant submits that this is an incorrect description of his post which was advertised as Senior Lecturer (Teaching).
3.5 The complainant notes that Mr. A has less teaching hours than other lecturers and he has an agreement with the respondent that he attend work in the respondent organisation for 3 days per week (Monday to Wednesday) and he does research on the other 2 days. According to the complainant Mr. A is not required to come to the respondent organisation on those 2 days and he is not required to attend meetings if they are scheduled on those days. By comparison the complainant notes that other lecturers in the area of Social Care are given one day a week to focus on research and, unlike Mr. A, that day can change from year to year. Furthermore there is no reduction on the number of hours the lecturers have to teach and if meetings are scheduled on a research day then the lecturer must attend. The complainant notes that after she made her claim to the Equality Tribunal Mr. A was told by the Head of School that he must attend meetings but the complainant notes that meetings were rescheduled to suit him resulting in meetings taking place on the complainant's research day and she was required to attend. It is the complainant's submission that the reduction in Mr. A's teaching hours along with the 2 days off for research were advantages which Mr. A received to enable him do his research and this advantage was not given to other lecturers in the Social Care area.
3.6 The complainant states that, in his job description, it is stated that part of Mr. A's role is to help develop research in the School. It is the complainant's contention that his efforts in this regard are sexist and actually discriminate against lecturers rather than helping lecturers develop research in their own right. The complainant notes that Mr. A sends emails sporadically to Social Care lecturers inviting them to talk to him about research ideas or seeking assistance when he is writing a chapter. It is the complainant's submission that these efforts benefit Mr. A rather than helping lecturers to develop research in their own right. In terms of developing research in the School the complainant says that she was the one who was asked to do this and she was chair (from 2002-2005) of the research committee set up by the Head of School to develop research in the school.
3.7 The complainant says that Mr. A receives other advantages namely to do with supervision of student research, involvement in the R&D committee in the respondent organisation and in a professional association outside the respondent organisation. In terms of supervising a PhD student the complainant says that in 2004 a student requested to do a PhD under her supervision. She discussed this with the Head of Department and was told that the Department did not have the infrastructure to support doctoral level education. The complainant notes that then in 2005 Mr. A took on a PhD student and notes that the rule, which applied to her, was not applied to him. In relation to supervising undergraduate student dissertations the complainant says that because lecturers do not have time to do research on their own the only opportunity they get to do research is through supervision of undergraduate projects and she says that Mr. A is shown favouritism in this area. According to the complainant at the start of each year lecturers meet to examine the topics students have chosen for their dissertation and then select students who have chosen topics in their area of expertise. The complainant says that from 2003 to 2006 Mr. A was allowed to go through the list before the meeting and pick students he wanted to supervise. If for some reason he did not pick a student that he later wanted to supervise then that student was switched to him. The complainant says that in the academic year 2005-2006 she was allocated a number of students to supervise after Mr. A had selected the students he wanted. Then Mr. A decided that he wanted one of the complainant's students and she was told that that student would be switched to Mr. A because the student was doing a study on alcohol abuse among young people and Mr. A was an expert on that topic. The complainant says that she had to accept this even though she has conducted research on alcohol abuse among people whereas Mr. A has not conducted such research.
3.8 The complainant says that after taking up his post of Senior Lecturer Mr. A was given a position on the Research and Development committee. According to the complainant no other lecturer has a position on that committee reserved for them rather they have to be elected from their School. The complainant says that Mr. A was given this position without recourse to the nomination and election procedure presumably to help him develop research in the School. It is the complainant's contention that Mr. A's position on this committee gives him a status, improves his CV and enables him to be aware of strategic R & D initiatives within the respondent organisation and this is an advantage he receives over other lecturers.
3.9 The complainant notes that the Irish Association of Social Care Educators (IASCE) is a professional association, which claims to represent all social care educators in educational institutions in Ireland offering social care education. It was founded in 1998 by Mr. A and others and its aim is to guide the development of social care education across all the Institutes of Technology and to set standards for the Institutes. According to the complainant the membership includes all Institutes of Technology throughout Ireland. The form of membership is a 'corporate membership' meaning that social care lecturers in all Institutes are automatic members. The complainant says that one to three delegates from each Institute can attend the association meetings, which are held every few months and one vote from each Institute is allowed when voting is required. It is the complainant's submission that the respondent's representative is Mr. A and, on occasion, the Head of Department. The complainant says that Mr. A attends the meetings of association and receives information from the governing council. She notes that she and her colleagues were never asked if they wanted Mr. A to represent them. Having said that the complainant notes that Mr. A does not in fact represent them as he never consults them about what contribution they would like him to make on their behalf or how they would like him to vote. In fact the complainant says that they receive very little information about the association. The complainant notes that she and other lecturers received no information about the annual IASCE Conference in 2002 and 2003 and could therefore not attend. In 2005 a female lecturer asked to attend the conference but was not allowed - yet Mr. A and the Head of Department attended. The complainant notes that all the information about the association is on the website even though this is where she was directed when she sought information about it. In the year 2006-2007 the complainant says that the Head of Department invited her and another female lecturer to the conference i.e. after her complaint to the Equality Tribunal. The complainant notes that because Mr. A is the respondent's delegate he has the opportunity to attend the council meetings, cast votes in elections for council members, stand for election and use his experience to contribute to the development of Social Care Education in Ireland. According to the complainant Mr. A attends the annual conferences where he can meet other Social Care lecturers and researchers and can develop research partners. The complainant notes that these opportunities are not provided to the other lecturers.
3.10 The complainant notes that the IASCE has developed a manual of procedures for Social Care students on work placement. According to the complainant the Head of Department decided that this manual would be adopted for the respondent organisation even though the lecturers had no involvement in it. The complainant notes that this occurred even though the lecturers had specifically asked to be able to develop their own procedures and had been promised by the Head of School that they would be given that opportunity. It is the complainant's belief that giving IASCE the ability to develop the respondent's placement procedures constituted discrimination against the female lecturers in the respondent organisation. The complainant says that the IASCE is an association that the lecturers cannot be involved in as only Mr. A and the Head of Department attend their meetings and have the opportunity to be involved in it. Furthermore the complainant notes that their manual was adopted without consulting the lecturers and the adoption of the manual did not occur in all other Institutes of Technology.
3.11 For the complainant the most damaging aspect of the discrimination is the manner in which the privileges are defended by management and Mr. A himself with the support of management. She submits that the privileges given to Mr. A have given him a sense of superiority and entitlement. The complainant says that Mr. A has made a claim that he was the only lecturer in all Institutes of Technology doing research in the area of Social Care, the only person with a relevant PhD in the area, a nationally and internationally recognised expert in child and youth care. The complainant feels that Mr. A's opinion of himself and the privileges he receives gives him a sense of superiority and entitlement over other lecturers including herself. She says that he has an expectation that other lecturers will conduct research with him and if this does not happen he will complain about it. The complainant outlines complaints of bullying/harassment she has made against Mr. A and he against her and states that in her opinion the management of the respondent organisation is prepared to go to any lengths including using intimidation to protect Mr. A's privileges.
3.12 In conclusion the complainant states that Mr. A is treated with favouritism to enable him to conduct research and to be involved in an external association having an input into the development of Social Care Education in Ireland. She contends that other lecturers (most of whom are female, including herself) in the respondent organisation are not given these opportunities. The complainant says that Mr.A's position is stubbornly defended by management and by Mr. A himself to the extent of victimising a person who has raised issues.
4. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION
4.1 The respondent states that its School of Humanities which is headed by the Head of School has within it three Departments namely Humanities; Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure and Adult and Continuing Education. Within the Department of Humanities there are three streams namely Languages, Graphic Design and Social Care. According to the respondent this case arises in the Social Care stream of the Department of Humanities which has a staffing structure as follows:
- Head of Department of Humanities /Senior Lecturer 2 (one person)
- Senior Lecturer 1 (one person) - Mr. A with the title of Director of the Centre of Child and Youth Care Learning
- Lecturer (5 people) - the complainant and four others one of whom is male
- Assistant Lecturer (8 people) - 7 female and 1 male
4.2 The respondent states that the complainant, who previously worked in the Waterford Institute of Technology, was initially appointed as a Temporary Whole-time Assistant Lecturer in Applied Social Studies for the academic year 1st September, 1999 to 31st August, 2000. She was appointed to the permanent post of Assistant Lecturer in Applied Social Studies with effect from 1st September, 2001. With effect from 1st October, 2003 the complainant progressed to the position of Lecturer in Social Care. It is the respondent's submission that the differences, in terms of duties, obligations and treatment between Mr. A and the complainant arise from the fact that he is the holder of a post at a more senior grade namely Senior Lecturer 1 and, therefore, has a different contract of employment. As Senior Lecturer 1 and as the Director of one of the designated Research Centres of the respondent organisation the respondent says that Mr. A operates under terms and conditions of employment determined and agreed at Institute level that are observed by the School and the Department. According to the respondent the complainant seems to perceive these as privileges that are within the gift of the School rather than terms ordained by contract. The respondent points out that the complainant does not seem to understand that the benefits enjoyed by Mr. A as a result of his position and title are also to the reputational benefit of the respondent. Furthermore the respondent states that the complainant has chosen not to outline the privileges she has enjoyed in order to assist her in pursuing her research agenda and such privileges include:
- significant remission of teaching time in 2005/2006;
- a research day every week during which she is not timetabled for student contact;
- considerable respondent support - including full funding - for the publication of a recent report by the complainant (December, 2006);
- undertakings to provide her with research supports including conference attendance, networking resources, etc.
4.3 The respondent notes that Mr. A, who previously worked for the Waterford Institute of Technology, was first employed by it as a Senior Lecturer 2/Head of Department of Humanities with effect from 1st September, 2001. He subsequently applied for and was appointed in June, 2003 to the more junior position of Senior Lecturer 1 in the Department of Humanities and he took up that post with effect from October, 2003 and at that time he stepped down as Head of Department. Following his appointment to the position of Senior Lecturer 1 Mr. A and the respondent agreed the terms on which he would discharge his duties. It was agreed that he would have the title of Director of the Centre of Child and Youth Care Learning, a teaching load of 6 hours per week and teaching and administrative hours blocked to 3 days per week with 2 days per week to be devoted to research/practice. According to the respondent the Centre was established as part of its research strategy as per its Strategic Plan 2003-2008, which provided for the establishment of four dedicated research centres. The respondent notes that it is commonplace for special arrangements to be made with Senior Lecturers 1 and says that there are 3 Senior Lecturers in the School of Humanities and each show variation in terms of duties and conditions:
- Senior Lecturer 1 in Design teaches 10 hours weekly and acts as a Head of Section in an independent campus with considerable administrative/managerial responsibility;
- Senior Lecturer 1 in Hospitality teaches 16 hours weekly and performs a range of tasks to assist the Head of Department in that area.
The respondent notes that Mr. A has been engaged in a number of initiatives seeking to develop research in the School including:
- participation in the School Research Committee since its establishment in 2001;
- presentation of a number of lectures (from 2002) introducing research to his colleagues within the School and to the Institute as a whole;
- participation as a lecturer in the Research Training Initiative run by the School of Humanities from 2004 to 2006, as a role for which he sought no remuneration though such was on offer;
- frequent exhortation of colleagues (through the CCYLC website and Institute email) to participate with him in presentations, projects, publications and conferences;
- joint research projects and publications undertaken with colleagues in Social Care;
- active engagement in the successful School bid for delegated authority to level 9 from HETAC;
- research alliances with external agencies including a number of Canadian universities;
- visiting lecturer programme hosted and organised by him;
- co-authoring of 3 Strand 1 applications in 2006 with colleagues in Social Care, Languages and Business Studies;
- regular planning meetings with the Head of School and Head of Department to drive the School research agenda;
- planning, incubation and delivery of the Social Care Scholarship programme, 2007.
4.4 It is submitted by the respondent that it is not open to the complainant to seek redress from the Equality Tribunal in respect of matters alleged to have occurred more than 6 months prior to 31st August, 2005 (i.e. prior to 1st March, 2005) unless 'reasonable cause' can be shown (Section 77(5)(b) of the 1998-2004 Acts refers) or discrimination occurring within the permitted time period can be shown to be 'the most recent occurrence' of discrimination that occurred prior to the commencement of that period (Section 77(5)(a) of the 1998-2004 Acts refers). It is the respondent's submission that the complainant has not shown reasonable cause as to why the 6 months period of limitation should be extended and it contends that this period should not be extended. The respondent states that much of what the complainant complains about occurred in 2003 or before:
- Mr. A was appointed to a Senior Lecturer 2 position in September, 2001 and the decision to appoint him to the more junior position of Senior Lecturer 1 was in June, 2003.
- Mr. A's title of Director of the Centre of Child and Youth Care Learning was given to him at the time he took up the Senior Lecturer 1 post in October, 2003.
- Mr. A's appointment to the Research and Development Committee occurred in December, 2003.
- The Institute's membership of the Irish Association of Social Care Educators commenced in 1998.
4.5 The respondent concedes that certain aspects of the claim are not statute barred if the complainant can show that they constitute incidents of gender discrimination against her and that they occurred in the 6 months prior to 31st August, 2005. Into this category, the respondent says, falls the following issues:
- treatment of Mr. A and the complainant in relation to attendance at conferences;
- provision of other funding and assistance to Mr. A and the complainiant;
- the timetabling of Mr. A and the complainant;
- their respective roles in developing research;
- the supervision of PhD students;
- the supervising of undergraduate student dissertations;
- the respondent's ongoing involvement in the Irish Association of Social Care Educators;
- Mr. A's claims with regard to his PhD and his research.
4.6 In relation to each of the above issues (at paragraph 4.5) the respondent makes the following points:
Attendance at Conferences
The respondent states that its policy on the expenditure of its limited funding for the attendance at conferences is that funding is made available to Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers for up to 2 conferences per person in each academic year. Each application is considered on an individual basis. The respondent says that attendance at conferences (as distinct from respondent funding for attendance) is a matter in respect of which academic staff have complete freedom, subject to timetable commitments. According to the respondent it is open to academic staff to source third party funding for conference attendance and Mr. A has done this. The respondent notes that the Head of School, in the context of expressing appreciation for the complainant's contribution as Chair of the School Research Committee, indicated that she would look favourably at an application from the complainant for funding for conferences in Ireland or abroad and the respondent notes that the complainant attended a conference in the UK. It is the respondent's contention that there is no question whatsoever of gender discrimination against the complainant with regard to funding for attendance at conferences or granting of time off for the attendance at conferences. The respondent notes that the complainant made no specific complaint with regard to the 6 months prior to the date the complaint was filed.
Dedicated Research Post
In terms of the description of Mr. A's post as what the complainant described as a 'dedicated research post' the respondent says that this description is incorrect and that Mr. A's post is best described in his Contract of Employment. The respondent states that this aspect of the claim is entirely without merit and cannot be categorised as an instance of gender discrimination.
Funds and Assistance
The respondent notes that the complainant in her submission has stated that Mr. A 'receives some funds or assistance from the Institute which other lecturers do not receive ...'. The respondent states that the complainant was given 2 hours off her teaching schedule in the academic year 2005/6 to develop a strand 3 application. When she failed to deliver on this these hours were withdrawn in 2006/7. According to the respondent the complainant is given the same support that is given to all other holders of the grade of Lecturer in terms of the conduct of her research and she has a weekly research day every year. The respondent says that certain meetings take precedence over people's research days and in the majority of cases Lecturers are happy with the set up and feel that, even if they have to come in five or six times during the year on their research days, research days are a worthwhile facility. It is the respondent's submission that it is the cornerstone of the Department of Humanities that flexibility will always prevail, but it is a two-way process. The respondent notes that the complainant has, on several occasions, been excused on days she was scheduled for lectures. According to the respondent there was no obligation on the Head of Department to do so but he would try to facilitate all staff in this regard and the complainant is no different and he expects in return people to be flexible on work issues and in participating in events on research days.
Timetable
It is the respondent's submission that it is not unusual for Mr. A to make himself available on Thursdays and Fridays (his research days) for the business of the respondent even though he is under no obligation to do so. The respondent states that there are many members of the academic staff who receive hours off from lecturing to perform an array of tasks for example there is a three hour block of time off from lectures for the academic placement co-ordinator. According to the respondent all members of staff are required to attend meetings properly convened by the Head of Department/Head of School. It is commonplace for individual staff members to be excused from particular meetings on personal/professional grounds by the Head of Department/Head of School and the respondent notes that the complainant has benefited from this arrangement. The respondent says that while the Head of Department had hoped through timetabling to set aside a fixed weekly time for meetings this has not been possible and the respondent denies the complainant's contention that the scheduling of meetings in the early part of the week was done to suit Mr. A alone. The exigencies of timetabling render such a notion impractical and unworkable. The respondent says that the School operates within the terms of Mr. A's contract which allows him not to attend the respondent organisation on Thursdays and Fridays so when Mr. A is required to attend a meeting, the Head of Department schedules accordingly, where possible. It is the respondent's submission that there is no evidence of gender discrimination against the complainant in relation to timetabling. The respondent notes that the complainant makes no specific complaint with regard to the six months period prior to the referral of her claim i.e. 31st August, 2005 and asks that this aspect of her claim be dismissed.
Developing Research
The respondent accepts that what the complainant says about her role in developing research from 2002-2005 is correct and says that she received full credit for this on a number of occasions. When she refers to her assigned role of assisting other lecturers to complete applications for research funding in 2005-2006 the respondent notes that she has omitted to mention that she had been given substantial free time during that year (2 hours weekly of her 16 hours teaching obligation) to work on her own research. The respondent says that in sending the research related emails to Social Care academic staff Mr. A was discharging his duties. According to the respondent the complainant had made a complaint that these emails annoyed her and arrangements were made to allow her express her annoyance to a mentor who was specifically appointed for that purpose. The respondent considers that this aspect of her claim has no link to gender discrimination and no complaint is made with regard to any specific matter occurring in the 6 months prior to 31st August, 2005 and therefore this aspect of the claim should be dismissed.
Supervising a PhD student
The respondent states that the Head of Department has no recollection of the alleged discussions on this matter but says that if they did take place they represent an accurate reflection of his thinking on the matter. The respondent says that prior to 2003 the Department had a number of Masters (by research) students. It was the view of the Head of Department, on taking up his position in 2003, that the Department was ill-equipped to take on these students. The respondent says that when the complainant sought permission to take on a Masters student she agreed with the view of the Head of the Department and felt that the respondent should not seek delegated authority for Level 9 (awarding its own Masters Degrees). The respondent says that, consistent with this thinking, it has not taken on any new Masters students since the time of this conversation but it will do so in September, 2007 as the Department has a policy that will get the students through successfully. The respondent accepts that Mr. A did take on a PhD student through the CCYLC, which was without Departmental involvement or approval/sanction. According to the respondent the Head of Department did not know of the application until it was a 'fait accompli'. It is the respondent's submission that as far as Mr. A is concerned he acted correctly and properly in going through the relevant committee. The respondent says that the Head of Department accepts the complainant could be annoyed by the manner in which the issue of PhD student supervision has unfolded but he believes that it highlights an organisational deficiency within the respondent organisation and its committees. It is the respondent's submission that the Head of Department has not given Mr. A any time off his timetable to supervise his PhD student. The respondent states that the circumstances of Mr. A having a PhD student have nothing to do with gender and notes that the complainant was treated no more or no less favourably than other Lecturers, including male Lecturers.
Supervising Undergraduate Student Dissertations
In relation to the allegation that Mr. A is shown favouritism in having first choice of the student dissertations he wishes to supervise the respondent says that for the academic years 2003/2004 the Head of Department delegated responsibility to Mr. A (as Senior Lecturer 1) to allocate supervisors to thesis proposals in the Social Care stream. Then in the academic year 2005/2006 the Head of Department took over responsibility for this function himself. Due to staff shortages in this academic year there were not enough resources to provide thesis supervision to all final year students from among the Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers. Therefore the Head of Department asked Mr. A to take some students for thesis supervision and made it clear that there was no reward on offer in terms of Mr. A's timetable. Hence the request was over and above Mr. A's contractual commitment. The respondent says that Mr. A agreed to take on the students but asked to be allowed to select students who were doing their thesis in areas of research that he was interested in. According to the respondent the Head of Department considered this to be a reasonable request in the circumstances and agreed to give him first preference on what projects he wanted to supervise. The respondent notes that the complainant did approach the Head of Department subsequently about this issue and he explained the situation and in his view she accepted it. It is the respondent's contention that this issue had nothing to do with gender.
Research and Development Committee
The respondent notes that Mr. A has a Senior Lecturer post and is the Director of a Research Centre. As such the respondent says that it is within his remit to develop research and the respondent organisation approves and fosters his efforts in this regard. In this capacity the respondent says he was given, ex officio, a place on its Research and Development Committee on the occasion of the restructuring of its committees in December, 2003. The respondent notes that Heads of Schools and certain other post holders are also ex officio members of the Committee.
Irish Association of Social Care Educators
The respondent says that Mr. A is not the appointed Association representative for the respondent. According to the respondent any member institution can have up to three representatives at any Association meeting. In practice, for continuity purposes, Mr. A or the Head of Department attended meetings of the Association. The respondent says that this is in line with the practice in other Institutes and it is also typical of how the respondent's Department of Humanities interacts with other bodies. It is the respondent's submission that the Association website is updated regularly and information about the organisation is readily available. The Head of Department attended one of the Association meetings in October, 2005 to judge the merits of the association for himself. At this meeting he proposed that they should prioritise a stream each year so that all Lecturers from those streams could interact and benefit from attendance. The other Association members felt that two streams would be more appropriate and the respondent selected the Creative Arts and Psychology streams as the two from which Lecturers would attend the following conference in April, 2006. As a consequence of this the Head of Department invited the complainant to attend but she declined and the respondent says that her assertion that the Head of Department's invitation was linked to her complaint to the Equality Tribunal is incorrect. The respondent rejects the complainant's assertion that only Mr. A and the Head of Department were involved with the Association and notes that all other Lecturers in the Social Care stream (with the exception of the complainant) have had involvement with the Association through presenting at Association conferences, attending Association conferences, working on placement issues for the Association and developing or delivering Association Programmes.
Placement Procedures
The respondent notes that the complainant fails to explain how the issue of adopting the Association's manual on procedures for social care students on work placement is discriminatory on the grounds of gender. According to the respondent the Head of Department, on his arrival to the respondent organisation in October 2003, considered that the issue of Social Care placements were in disarray. The Association was asked to head up a project team and a female Lecturer represented the respondent on this team. The team produced the Association's Placement Manual and the respondent adopted this manual. The respondent denies that the Head of Department or Mr. A had any input to this manual. It is the respondent's submission that Lecturers (including the complainant) had not produced an alternative placement manual and states that what they had produced was about three hours work on a flipchart, which could have formed the basis for a manual. The respondent says that the decision to adopt the Association's manual cannot be taken to be discriminatory on the grounds of gender as alleged and notes that this aspect of the claim did not occur in the six months prior to 31st August, 2005 (the date of the claim).
5. CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
5.1 The issue for decision in this claim is whether or not the complainant was subjected to discriminatory treatment by the respondent within the meaning of Section 6 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2007 on the grounds of gender and contrary to the provisions of Section 8 of those Acts. In making my decision in this claim I have taken into account all the submissions, both written and oral, from the parties.
5.2 The issues raised by the complainant stem from the fact that, in her view, Mr. A received more favourable treatment, which was not justified by his Senior Lecturer status and which she claims amounted to discrimination on the grounds of gender. According to the complainant Mr. A received privileges mainly related to research activity and involvement in a professional association. The complainant states that they also related to the obtaining of the post of Senior Lecturer, his job title, his teaching schedule, attendance at meetings, supervision of student's research and membership of the Research and Development Committee. In response the respondent has noted that a number of these claims are outside the time limits imposed by Section 77(5) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2007. The respondent further denies the allegation of discrimination on the grounds of gender.
5.3 In paragraph 4.4 above the respondent has set out a number of aspects of this claim, which it alleges are outside the time limits imposed by the 1998-2007 Acts. The complainant made the point that there was a continuing effect to Mr. A's appointment to the Senior Lecturer 1 position; to the title of Director being given to Mr. A; to Mr. A's appointment to the Research and Development Committee and to the respondent's membership of the Irish Association of Social Care Educators. While I understand the complainant's argument I am satisfied that the legislation is clear that the claim for redress cannot be referred after the end of the period of six months from the date of the occurrence of the discrimination. The decision to appoint Mr. A to the Senior Lecturer 1 position was made in June, 2003. At the time there were two applicants for this position (Mr. A and the complainant). Mr. A was the successful applicant and the complainant did not consider at that time that the appointment of Mr. A was discriminatory on the grounds of gender. Given the time limits set out in the legislation a claim in this regard by the complainant is out of time and, therefore, not validly before me for investigation. In October, 2003 Mr. A was given the title of Director of the Centre for Child and Youth Care Learning. I note that this position was not the subject of a competitive process even though the appointment of Directors of other Centres in the respondent organisation was the result of competitive interviews. However had the complainant considered Mr. A's appointment to this position to be discriminatory on the grounds of gender she could have referred a claim in the six months after the appointment was announced. The appointment of Mr. A to the Research and Development Committee was in December, 2003. I note that his membership to the committee was without recourse to the nomination and election procedure. It is the complainant's contention that all other lecturers have to be elected to this committee. Had the complainant considered this appointment to be discriminatory on the grounds of gender she could have referred a claim within the six months after his appointment. The respondent 's membership of the Irish Association of Social Care Educators goes back to 1998 when he was involved in setting up this Association. The complainant is critical of the fact that Mr. A and/or the Head of Department attended meetings of this Association over the year and she specifically mentioned 2002 and 2003. Again this is outside the time limits set out in the 1998-2007 Acts.
5.4 At paragraph 4.5 above the respondent sets out the aspects of the complainant's claim, which are not statute barred. I have examined these issues in detail and have had regard to the arguments made by both parties in respect of each issue. I am satisfied that the privileges granted to Mr. A were as a result of his higher status in the respondent organisation to the complainant (i.e. Mr. A was a Senior Lecturer 1 whereas the complainant was a Lecturer) and his ability to negotiate his contract of employment with the most senior persons in the respondent organisation. There is no evidence to support the complainant's contention that the alleged discrimination was related to gender.
5.5 In terms of attendance at conferences I note that the complainant (along with all other lecturers in her grade) was restricted to attendance at two conferences per annum. By comparison no restriction was applied to Mr. A who was a Senior Lecturer 1. Mr. A also had a greater capacity to attend other conferences (not funded by the respondent) due to his ability to attract funding as Director of the Centre for Child and Youth Care Learning and his reduced teaching hours afforded him more time to attend conferences. Mr. A's reduced teaching hours and the fact that they were confined to three days per week was a reflection of his ability to negotiate his contract of employment than to any alleged discrimination on the grounds of gender.
5.6 The complainant sought permission from the Head of Department to supervise a PhD student and she was told that this request would not be approved because in his opinion the Department was ill-equipped to take on these students. Subsequent to this Mr. A did take on a PhD student having obtained approval to do so through an Academic Committee in the respondent organisation. According to the Head of Department he was unaware of this until it was all organised and the student had arrived from Canada. Furthermore the Head of Department was relatively new in the organisation at the time and was unaware that approval could be obtained in this way. I appreciate the complainant's difficulty in understanding how this could have happened given that to her knowledge the Head of Department's approval was required before a PhD student could be taken on. It is clearly an organisational deficiency that enabled this to have happened, but it is not related to gender as alleged by the complainant.
5.7 In relation to the supervising of undergraduate student dissertations the respondent states that the Head of Department assigned this task to Mr. A as Senior Lecturer 1 for the years 2003 and 2004. Then after that he took over this task himself. As the Head of Department had not enough Lecturers to undertake all the dissertations he states that he asked Mr. A if he would do some as a favour. When Mr. A agreed the Head of Department offered him first preference of the dissertations. It was after the assignment of the remaining dissertations to Lecturers that Mr. A sought one particular dissertation. This dissertation had already been assigned to the complainant and the Head of Department agreed to the reassignment as Mr. A was doing him a favour in the first instance. I am satisfied that there is no evidence of discriminatory treatment on the grounds of gender in this regard.
5.8 The Irish Association of Social Care Educators, a professional body was set up in 1998 and Mr. A was one of its founders and a member of the body. This was prior to Mr. A's employment with the respondent organisation (when he was employed by another Institute of Technology). After Mr. A was employed by the respondent organisation he continued his involvement with the Association. The complainant is critical of Mr. A for his failure to disseminate information about the Association. She is also critical of the fact that the respondent had corporate membership entitling three persons to attend and no Lecturer was afforded such an opportunity. The complainant further criticises the respondent for having adopted placement procedures drawn up by the Association in preference to the drawing up and adoption of internal procedures. Subsequent to the complainant's referral of this claim the complainant was invited to attend a meeting of this Association, which she refused. I find that there are no issues of alleged discrimination on the grounds of gender in any of the matters raised by the complainant in relation to the professional association.
5.9 There is no evidence of discrimination on the grounds of gender in this claim. I note that at the hearing of this claim the complainant stated that her claim is against management (not Mr. A) and that if this claim of gender discrimination helped, that was good but if she was not to achieve anything by her claim of gender discrimination then the issues would not be resolved. Having investigated this claim it is my view that the parties should endeavour to resolve the issues to the mutual satisfaction of the parties by way of mediation undertaken by an independent mediator e.g. a mediator from the Mediator's Institute of Ireland who specialises in workplace mediation.
6. DECISION
6.1 In view of the foregoing I find that the Athlone Institute of Technology did not discriminate against Dr. Sheila McGree as alleged on the grounds of gender within the meaning of Section 6 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2007 and contrary to the provisions of Section 8 of those Acts.
______________________
Gerardine Coyle
Equality Officer
5th November, 2007