ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00005993
Parties:
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00005993
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Complainant | Respondent |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00008250-001 | 18/11/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/02/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The complainant was in the process of being recruited by the respondent when it was ceased by way of telephone call on the 14th of October 2016. The herein complaint was received by the WRC on the 18th of November 2016. The respondent made written and both sides made oral submission to the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that she was informed by telephone call of the 14th of October 2016 that her application for a position as relief support worker was being discontinued (no longer processed) by the respondent as her three references were not of the standard required by HIQA. The references were in the possession of the respondent for 9-12 weeks at that stage. Additionally it was submitted that in the course of the training which was provided by the respondent from the 27th of September onwards she was asked to complete a form which requested her date of birth. The abovementioned telephone call followed. It is asserted that she was discriminated against on the basis of her age as it related to getting a job and the provision of training. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits that the complainant has failed to make a submission and that she has not established a prima facie case of discrimination as she is required to do. She has not adduced any facts pertaining to any allegation of less favourable treatment on the basis of the discriminatory ground cited and therefore it can’t be inferred that any act of discrimination has occurred. The references relied upon to discontinue the recruitment process (two of three) objectively justify the decision not to recruit and does not amount to discrimination on age grounds in breach of s. 6 (2). Internal emails refer to the respondent’s position concerning the references and do not relate to any other reason. The complainant refers to the fact that she was asked to fill a form that requested her date of birth during the training however she had provided a number of documents prior to the training that contained her date of birth all of which had legitimate purpose. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant was at an advanced stage of the recruitment process when it was decided to decline an offer of employment. It was incumbent on her to provide a number of significant documents including three references. A number of these documents referred to the complainant’s date of birth. These documents were to be provided by the end of June. It was made clear to the complainant that the processing and content of the three references required was critical as it related to an offer of contract. The HR function flagged the fact that it had received “some References which are only Satisfactory” in mid-September to operational management and the regional manager proposed that the organisation would not proceed further with the recruitment process on the 29th inst. I am satisfied that the organisation was entitled to make the decision not to continue with the recruitment process based on the references received. I am satisfied that the decision was made on that basis and that there is no evidence of age discrimination in this case. That said I am equally satisfied that the complainant has failed to set out a prima facie case of discrimination in this case. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
The complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 20.10.2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes
Representatives | Ennis Citizens Information Centre | IBEC |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00008250-001 | 18/11/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/02/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The complainant was in the process of being recruited by the respondent when it was ceased by way of telephone call on the 14th of October 2016. The herein complaint was received by the WRC on the 18th of November 2016. The respondent made written and both sides made oral submission to the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that she was informed by telephone call of the 14th of October 2016 that her application for a position as relief support worker was being discontinued (no longer processed) by the respondent as her three references were not of the standard required by HIQA. The references were in the possession of the respondent for 9-12 weeks at that stage. Additionally it was submitted that in the course of the training which was provided by the respondent from the 27th of September onwards she was asked to complete a form which requested her date of birth. The abovementioned telephone call followed. It is asserted that she was discriminated against on the basis of her age as it related to getting a job and the provision of training. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits that the complainant has failed to make a submission and that she has not established a prima facie case of discrimination as she is required to do. She has not adduced any facts pertaining to any allegation of less favourable treatment on the basis of the discriminatory ground cited and therefore it can’t be inferred that any act of discrimination has occurred. The references relied upon to discontinue the recruitment process (two of three) objectively justify the decision not to recruit and does not amount to discrimination on age grounds in breach of s. 6 (2). Internal emails refer to the respondent’s position concerning the references and do not relate to any other reason. The complainant refers to the fact that she was asked to fill a form that requested her date of birth during the training however she had provided a number of documents prior to the training that contained her date of birth all of which had legitimate purpose. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant was at an advanced stage of the recruitment process when it was decided to decline an offer of employment. It was incumbent on her to provide a number of significant documents including three references. A number of these documents referred to the complainant’s date of birth. These documents were to be provided by the end of June. It was made clear to the complainant that the processing and content of the three references required was critical as it related to an offer of contract. The HR function flagged the fact that it had received “some References which are only Satisfactory” in mid-September to operational management and the regional manager proposed that the organisation would not proceed further with the recruitment process on the 29th inst. I am satisfied that the organisation was entitled to make the decision not to continue with the recruitment process based on the references received. I am satisfied that the decision was made on that basis and that there is no evidence of age discrimination in this case. That said I am equally satisfied that the complainant has failed to set out a prima facie case of discrimination in this case. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
The complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 23.10.2017