Equality Officer's Decision
DEC-E2011-131
John Ryan
versus
Ireland West Airport Knock
(represented by Higgins, Chambers and Flanagan Solicitors)
File reference: EE/2008/300
Date of issue: 28th June 2011
Keywords: Employment Equality Acts, Gender, Age, Marital Status, Access to Employment, No prima facie case.
Dispute
1.1 This dispute concerns a complaint by Mr John Ryan against Ireland West Airport Knock. The complainant alleges that he was discriminated against on the grounds of gender, age and marital status in relation to access to employment contrary to the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2008 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Acts'].
1.2 The complainant referred his complaint under the Act to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 14th May 2008. In accordance with his powers under Section 75 of that Act, the Director delegated the case on 15th October 2010 to me, Orlaith Mannion, an Equality Officer, for investigation, decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions under the Part VII of the Act. This is the date I commenced my investigation. Submissions were received from both parties and a joint hearing was held on 21st January 2011. The final piece of correspondence relevant to the investigation was received from the respondent's representative on 14th March.
Summary of the complainant's case
2.1 The complainant applied for a position as Safety Officer/Human Resources Officer in 2007. Mr Ryan received a letter from the Personal Assistant to the Chief Executive Officer, stating that he was unsuitable for the role. Subsequently, in April 2008, a position as a Part-Time Safety Officer was advertised. He also applied for this role. On 23rd April 2008, the complainant received a letter from Mr A, Chief Executive Officer stating that he did not reach the shortlist. Under Section 76 of the Acts (i.e. using an EE2 form), Mr Ryan made enquiries about who was shortlisted. In their reply, the respondent revealed that one of the shortlisted candidates had only 18 months experience even though one of the criteria for selection was 2+ years of experience. Mr Ryan has a degree in Occupational Safety and Health as well as 3 years of experience so he maintains it could only be on the grounds of gender, age and marital status that he was not shortlisted.
2.2 He submits that his approximate age was obvious as the date of his Leaving Certificate was included in his Curriculum Vitae. He maintains that it is well-known in the local area that he was separated and that his children were living with him and he believes this was also held against him. Regarding the ground of gender, he submits that he cannot understand how he did not get the position of Safety Officer so this must also be a factor. He submits that if additional criteria were being used to assess people he and other candidates should be made aware of this. He also maintains that the decision appears to have been made quickly which leads him to think that the successful candidate was already decided and this was done on a discriminatory basis.
Summary of the respondent's case
3.1 The respondent submits that Mr Ryan was not selected for the Human Resources role as he had limited experience in this area.
3.2 Applications for the role of Part-time Health and Safety Officer were screened by the Human Resources Officer, Ms C in conjunction with Mr A. She submits that she previously was the Recruitment Manager for a pharmaceutical company whose workforce grew from 100 to 1300 during her time working there because she has extensive experience in sifting through applications she agrees with the complainant that the shortlisting was done swiftly. There were 29 applicants and 7 people were shortlisted for interview. The respondent concedes that one person with 18 months experience was shortlisted but submits that was because the Curriculum Vitae was impressive and they wanted to see could a more junior person carry out the job. Ms C's reasoning for this is that a person with less experience would be easier to retain especially when it was a part-time role.
3.3 A person whose year of birth, 1963, was listed on his CV was shortlisted and interviewed for the position. This would make him older than the complainant. Ms C submits that the complainant's experience was mainly based in the construction sector which is one of the reasons he was not interviewed.
3.4 Due to a downturn in business although 6 people were interviewed (1 person did not attend), the position was ultimately not filled. The duties were assigned internally for which no extra remuneration was given.
Conclusions of the Equality Officer
The issue for me to decide is whether or not Mr Ryan was discriminated on the grounds of gender, age and marital status in terms of Section 6(2)(a), 6(2)(b) and 6(2)(f) of the Acts by Ireland West Airport Knock in relation to access to employment contrary to Section 8 (1) (a) of the Acts. Section 6(1) of the Act provides that discrimination shall be taken to occur where on any of the discriminatory grounds mentioned in subsection (2) one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated. In reaching my decision, I have taken into account all of the submissions, written and oral, made by the parties.
4.2 Section 85A of the Acts sets out the burden of proof which applies to claims of discrimination. It requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts upon which he can rely in asserting that he suffered discriminatory treatment. It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the onus sifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination raised.
4.3 Regarding the first position of Safety Officer/Human Resources Officer, I accept the respondent's contention that was primarily a Personnel role and that Mr Ryan did not have the qualifications nor experience for same. In relation to the second role as Part-Time Safety Officer, I asked for (and received) the Curriculum Vitaes of all the applicants. I did not find convincing evidence that the recruitment process was tainted with discrimination.
4.4 While 5 of the 14 women (in comparison to 2 of 15 men) who applied for the position were shortlisted, it is obvious to an independent observer that they had sufficient qualifications and experience to be interviewed. As the respondent pointed out it was clear from the CV of one of the shortlisted applicants that he was older than the complainant. I believe Ms C when she said that neither she nor the CEO knew the marital status of the complainant.
4.5 For these reasons, the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of gender, age and marital status.
Decision
I have concluded my investigation of the above complaints and hereby make the following decision in accordance with Section 79(6) of the Act. I find that the complainant was not discriminated on the ground of gender, age and marital status regarding access to employment contrary to 8 (1)(c) of the Acts.
______________
Orlaith Mannion
Equality Officer