ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00018064

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	An Employment Candidate	A Telecoms Company

Representatives

Mary Fay, B.L.

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-00023179-001	13/11/2018

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/02/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath

Procedure:

In accordance with 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).

I have decided to exercise my discretion to anonymise the parties.

Background:

The Complainant lodged a Complaint Form with the WRC on 13th November 2018 claiming that he had been discriminated against by the Respondent, by reason of his gender and age, in that he did not get a job. The Respondent is a Telecoms Company.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant submitted that he had applied for employment as a Customer Care Agent with the Respondent, through a Recruitment Agency. Having attended an Assessment Centre and in his own opinion, having performed well, the Complainant was subsequently informed that he was not a "suitable candidate for the company."

Regarding the allegation that he had been discriminated on the age ground, the Complainant submitted that he believed, having spoken to another younger, successful candidate, that he had been discriminated against because of his age. The Complainant stated that he had no actual evidence to support this view other than the conversation he had had with the younger candidate.

Regarding the allegation that he had been discriminated on the gender ground, the Complainant submitted that call centres are by their nature more oriented for females, that more women than men work in call centres and the Respondent knew he was a man when he was turned down for the job.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent denied that it had discriminated against the Complainant on the grounds of age or gender. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant, in his Complaint Form, has not identified or particularised any discriminatory conduct by the Respondent.

Regarding the recruitment process the Respondent submitted that 15 candidates were called to be assessed at an Assessment Centre. The Respondent submitted that a fair and non-discriminatory merit-based marking system was used to assess the candidates.

From this 15 who were called to attend, only 12 turned up. From these 12 candidates, nine were hired. Of the nine hired, five were male and four were female.

During the assessment the Complainant indicated that his skill set was better suited to a social media role, whereas the role applied for was entirely telephone based. The Complainant was invited to apply for a social media post.

Regarding the allegation of discrimination on the age ground, the Respondent submitted that Applicants were not obliged to provide their age or date of birth as part of the assessment process and that the age profile throughout the Respondent's employees is mixed, particularly in the geographic area in question.

Findings and Conclusions:

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.

In this case I find that the Complainant has not established primary facts to ground a claim of discrimination and therefore the complaint must fail.

Decision:

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.

I find the complaint is not well founded.

Dated: 24th May 2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath

Key Words:

Recruitment, Assessment Centre, burden of proof.