The Equality Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998 - 2008
EQUALITY OFFICER’S DECISION DEC-E2009-049
PARTIES
Evelyn Ryan
AND
Tuam Community Development Resource Centre Ltd.
File reference: EE/2007/319
Date of issue: 18 June 2009
HEADNOTES: Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2008, Sections 6 and 8 - Age - Access to employment.
1. DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Ms Evelyn Ryan that she was discriminated against by Tuam Community Development Resource Centre Ltd. on the grounds of age contrary to section 6(2)(f) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2008 in relation to access to employment in terms of sections 8(1)(a) of the Acts.
1.2 The complainant referred her claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 25 June 2007 under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 and 2004. On 5 May 2009, in accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to Hugh Lonsdale, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Acts, on which date my investigation commenced. Submissions were received from both sides. In accordance with Section 79(3A) of the Acts and as part of my investigation I proceeded to a hearing on 10 June 2009. The respondent did not attend the hearing but I am satisfied that they were on notice of the hearing.
2. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
2.1 The complainant alleges discriminatory treatment on the ground of her age in relation to access to employment when she responded to an advertisement for the position of part-time Information Administrator with the respondent. The complainant saw the advert, rang up the respondent on 2 February 2007 and was told that the deadline for applications was 5pm on Friday, 9 February 2007. The application form arrived on 13 February 2007 in an envelope postmarked 9 February 2007. The complainant contacted the respondent and was told by the respondent’s Coordinator that she had until 15 February 2007 to submit her application. She was also asked to send back the envelope. The complainant submitted that, having attended many courses and been a member of the lone-parent group organised by the respondent, she was known to the respondent and it was because of her age that the application form was sent out late. Consequently she decided not to submit an application for the position.
2.2 The Coordinator submitted that she followed the respondent’s recruitment procedures but could not explain why there was a delay in sending out the application form, other than saying they were aware of a lot of postal delays at the time. However, they did not receive any complainants from anyone else interested in the position. Also she did not know the complainant and was unaware of her age.
2.3 Section 85A (1) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2007 states: “Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.” This means that the complainant must establish primary facts upon which the claim of discrimination is grounded and then the burden of proof passes to the respondent.
2.4 This complaint is made on the ground of age but, as held by the Labour Court in Anthony v Margetts¹: “The mere fact that the complainant falls within one of the discriminatory grounds laid down under the Act is not sufficient in itself to establish a claim of discrimination. The complainant must adduce other facts from which it may be inferred on the balance of probabilities that an act of discrimination has occurred.”
2.5 In this case the application form did arrive after the closing date and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation the respondent gave the complainant extra time to submit an application but she chose not to because she felt she had been treated differently than others involved in the application process. Whilst there in no good explanation for the late sending out of the application form there is no evidence that the complainant was treated in a manner that might lead to an inference of discrimination on the age ground.
2.6 I have considered all of the evidence submitted and I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment on the age ground.
3. DECISION
I have investigated the above complainant and make the following decision in accordance with section 79 of the Acts that the respondent did not discriminate against the complainant in relation to access to employment contrary to S.8(1)(a) of the Acts on the ground of age.
____________________
Hugh Lonsdale
Equality Officer
18 June 2009
¹Graham Anthony & Co v Mary Margetts, Labour Court ADE/03/1 – Det No. EDA038