FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 83 (1), EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS, 1998 TO 2011 PARTIES : BOARD OF MANAGEMENT ST MARYS ON THE HILL NATIONAL SCHOOL (REPRESENTED BY MR. FEICHIN MC DONNAGH, S.C.,INSTRUCTED BY DIARMAID O CATHAIN SOLICITORS). - AND - CLARE LOVETT (REPRESENTED BY MS. CLIONA KIMBER, S.C., INSTRUCTED BY HAYES SOLICITORS). DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No. DEC-E2016-043
BACKGROUND:
2. The Complainant appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on the 18 April 2016. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th February 2018. The following is the Court's Determination:
DETERMINATION:
The dispute concerns a claim by Ms C that the Board of Management of School A discriminated against her on the grounds of disability in relation to accessing a job and promotion contrary to Section 6(2)(g) and Section 8.1 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2011.
The Complainant referred her complaint under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2011 to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 4 Nov 2013
On 7 September 2015, in accordance with his powers Sec 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to an adjudication officer , for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under part VII of the Acts
Having investigated the complaint and having heard the parties the Adjudication Officer decided as follows
I have investigated the above complaints and make the following decisions in accordance with Section 79 of the Acts that: In accordance with Section 82 of the Act, I order the Respondent to:
7.3 (a) Pay the Complainant €18,750 in compensation for breaches of the Employment Equality Acts. The Complainant clearly suffered considerable upset, anxiety and alienation in relation to the manner in which the Respondent conducted the interview for the position of Principal at the Respondent school. The Complainant had a strong desire to lead the school and was deeply hurt. She commenced sick leave in December 2014 and at the last date of hearing, November 6, 2015 remained on sick leave. This award is arrived at having regard to the seriousness of the discrimination, the effect on the Complainant and the requirement pursuant to Article 17 of the Framework Directive that the sanction be “effective, dissuasive and proportionate”. As this redress is for the infringement of the Complainant’s statutory rights, it is therefore not subject to income tax.
(b) I further order, as per Section 82(1)(e) of the Acts, that the Respondent conduct a review of its policies and procedures in relation to its recruitment policies to ensure that they are in compliance with the Employment Equality Acts with particular reference to the disability ground and an opportunity for an agreed internals appeals mechanism. In addition, all candidates should be offered a feedback session on their performance at interview.
That decision was issued on 9 March 2016. The Respondent appealed against that decision to this Court on 18 April 2016. The matter came before the Court on 13 September 2016 and was adjourned to allow for further submissions.
The matter finally came back before the Court on 19 February 2018.
When the matter came before the Court the Complainant offered no evidence in support of the complaint.
As there was no evidence of a complaint before it the Court upheld the appeal and set aside the decision of the Adjudication Officer.
Determination
The Court finds that the Complaint is not well founded and sets aside the decision of the Adjudication Officer
The Court so determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
09 MARCH, 2018.______________________
CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.