Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Teacher

A Primary School

Representatives

Irish National Teachers Organisation

Rosemary Mallon B.L. instructed by Mason Hayes and Curran

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00010879-001

19/04/2017

The complainant has been employed as a teacher with the respondent since 1983.

In September 2016, she applied for the position of Deputy Principal.

She was unsuccessful and complains that she was discriminated against on the grounds of her age.

There were some complaints about the procedures followed at the interview which are not relevant to this formal complaint under the Employment Equality Acts.

What is relevant is that the complainant says she was asked discriminatory questions at the interview, or, that the questions were framed in such a way as to give an indication of bias against her on the grounds of her age.

In her original complaint there were three such questions but one of these was withdrawn at the hearing.

The first of those remaining involved introductory comments as follows;

‘You‘ve been here a long time, you must know every nook and cranny of every corridor, is there anything you would like to change if you were to be afforded the position of Deputy Principal.’

She saw in this a reference to the age of the school which had been built in 1892 and to her own long service.

The second question to give grounds for complaint was asked at a second interview. The chairperson of the interview board (a retired teacher) opened a question by saying;

‘When you and I started teaching, particularly in national school, people went into their rooms and became an independent republic. Communication, do you have any ideas on how to improve communication and assist the Principal at the same time?’

She also complains that the Chairperson did not follow the pre-set questions as set out.

She says the marks she received do not reflect her capabilities and experience.

A number of legal authorities were submitted on the conduct of interviews and discriminatory questions.

The respondent points out that one of the key categories for marking the candidates was their experience. Indeed, the candidate herself placed great emphasis on it. She scored the maximum under this category.

The complainant’s scores were consistent in the marking of all three interviewers and while she performed better at the second, re-arranged interview she fell well below the successful candidate in important areas.

The suggested inference that the complainant says should be drawn from the ‘nooks and crannies’ comment is not a feasible one. In any event this led to a perfectly valid question about change. There is nothing adverse or discriminatory about these opening remarks.

The same could be said about the second statement complained of. It was no more than a statement of fact leading on to a question about how modern times needed different communications systems.

The respondent says that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination and has not identified a comparator.

The fact that the complainant herself believes she has greater skills or experience than the successful candidate is not sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination on the age ground. (O’Halloran v Galway City Partnership EDA 007/2007. Labour Court).

The simple fact is that the successful candidate performed better at interview.

This case rests on two statements by the Chairperson of the interview Board as outlined above.

The statements were not disputed by the chairperson, who gave direct evidence to the hearing and confirmed that he had asked the questions.

Counsel for the respondent submitted that the inferences the complainant sought to draw from the two complained of statements were not ‘feasible’.

This might be considered an understatement in the circumstances.

In particular, the complainant’s association of one of the questions with the building of the school one hundred and twenty-five years earlier, and her own age is a particularly imaginative flight of fancy.

I can find no basis whatsoever in either of the statements complained of that would ground the inference proposed by the complainant. The comments were unexceptionable, introductory remarks to entirely valid questions at the interview.

The bar necessary to establish a prima facie case is relatively low. It is not necessary, for example, to establish that the case is a good one or one likely to succeed.

It is simply to establish that an inference of discriminatory conduct has been established sufficient to take it to the stage of investigation as a complaint under the Acts.

As is the practise with the WRC in general a full hearing of the complaint will normally take place even when a preliminary point has been raised and that happened in this case.

I fully reviewed the processes at the interviews and viewed the marking sheets of the complainant and the successful candidate.

While the gap between the complainant and the successful candidate narrowed between the first and the re-arranged interview (but lengthened again in a third interview which was outside the scope of the hearing) the complainant was in third position in all three interviews

I pass over the preliminary matter to say that the complaint is so flimsy and devoid of merit it verges on being vexatious.

No reasonable or objective person could form the links between the questions asked and the complainant’s age.

Further, there is no basis for inferring that the interview board assessed the candidates on anything other than merit.

The complaint fails.

For the reasons set out above I do not uphold Complaint CA-10879-001 and it is dismissed.

Discrimination, age ground