Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Anonymised

Primary School

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-00060258-001

27/11/2023

The Complainant brings this complaint arising from the failure of the School to call her for interview.

The School advertised a teaching role on or about May 2023.

She heard nothing and followed up with an email.

The school principal replied and stated that as she had failed to provide proof of a Teaching Council registration, she wasn’t shortlisted.

The reason for not shortlisting the Complainant it is alleged then changed to her proficiency in Irish, once it became clear that she was registered with the Teaching Council.

The named comparator it is alleged missed the application deadline. That comparator it is alleged had no teaching experience.

It is alleged these facts meet the prima facie test.

The Respondent deny that the Complainant was discriminated against as alleged or at all. The reason for not calling the Complainant was on two grounds:

·       The lack of primary school teaching qualification

·       That lack of ability to teach through Irish.

The Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against on the ground of gender. A male teacher was appointed when he never attended for interview. It also the case that the male comparator has little or no teaching experience. The School gave different reasons for not calling her for interview. These were contrived.

The male comparator applied for the role advertised but sent in his application after the closing date. He was not considered for shortlisting as he was late. In circumstances where none of the candidates offered the role after the interviews took up the role, the comparator was then contacted. The appointed candidate has high proficiency in Irish and a masters in primary education. The Complainant cannot make out a claim for gender discrimination when all the candidates called for interview were female. Also out of a group of 27 teachers employed at the school,  17 are female.

The applicants called for interview were all female. Job offers were made to those candidates based on their interview score ranking. Unfortunately arising from the other offers from other schools also made to these candidates, the offers made were not taken up. That competition then ended.

Subsequently a male teacher was appointed since he had a high proficiency in Irish. The requirement to teach in Irish was now required as over a number of years several teachers had been appointed who can’t teach Irish. A teaching review and Board review of that report had identified that proficiency in Irish would be an important factor to consider when making appointments.

The Competition complained of called all female candidates. The best candidates were offered positions based on their scoring at interview. The competition then came to an end. Arising from the failure of successful candidates to take up the offers made to them the school appointed a male teacher with a high proficiency in Irish.

The facts show that all the candidates called for interview were female. The competition ended when offers were made to successful candidates. I am satisfied that no discrimination took place arising from this competition. On the evidence provided by the school principal the overriding reason why the candidate was not shortlisted related to her proficiency in Irish. The subsequent appointment was made and did not involve any competition. I am satisfied that this appointment was made based on the competency of the teacher and proficiency in Irish.

The Complainant questioned that the Board had in fact determined that Irish was a priority. The Respondent was asked to produce Board minutes to show that in fact Irish and the ability to teach in Irish was a priority. A minute was produced dated 15th of May 2023. I am satisfied that the reason given by the principal to prioritise Irish is based on a previous report and a teaching requirement.

The Complainant has not made out a prima facie case. A link must be show between the ground being relied upon and the alleged unfavourable treatment. The failure to be called for interview when all the shortlisted candidates were in fact female cannot support a claim for discrimination on the ground of gender when the Complainant is also a female.

The subsequent teaching appointment was made without any competition. The school is private and there is no requirement to hold a public competition. The appointment was made based on the assessment of the teacher’s competency and proficiency in Irish. No prima facie case has been made out by this Complainant that arising from being female she was not appointed after the competition closed. I am satisfied that the Respondent appointed the male teacher on objective grounds and that the school has not discriminated against the Complainant on the ground of gender. The school rationally decided that there was no point in readvertising, that it was logistically problematic as they required a teacher for the new school year.  That gave rise to a new direction where a candidate would be identified and approached. That appointment was made based on a sound competency assessment and the candidate’s proficiency in Irish. The Complainant has adduced no fact other than that the appointed teacher was male.

The dispute about whether her qualification was recognised when all candidates called for interview were female is not relevant when relying on the ground of gender. Her complaint is that she was not shortlisted for interview arising from the competition as she was female. That competition ended. The subsequent appointment was made when no successful female candidate took up the role.

The male candidate was appointed as he had a recognised teaching qualification and the ability to teach in Irish while the Complainant did not have the same proficiency in Irish. The Board had in fact prioritised Irish as teaching gap that needed to be addressed.  The Complainant has failed to adduce facts that would give rise to an inference of gender discrimination.

I have determined that the Complainant was not discriminated on the ground of gender.

The facts show that all the candidates called for interview were female. The competition ended when offers were made to successful candidates. I am satisfied that no gender discrimination took place arising from this competition. On the evidence provided by the school principal the overriding reason why the candidate was not shortlisted related to her proficiency in Irish. The subsequent appointment was made and did not involve any competition. I am satisfied that this appointment was made based on the competency of the teacher and proficiency in Irish.

The Complainant has not made out a prima facie case. A link must be shown between the ground being relied upon and the alleged unfavourable treatment. The failure to be called for interview when all the shortlisted candidates were in fact female cannot support a claim for discrimination on the ground of gender when the Complainant is also a female.

The subsequent teaching appointment was made without any competition. The school is private and there is no requirement to hold a public competition. The appointment was made based on the assessment of the teacher’s competency and proficiency in Irish. No prima facie case has been made out by this Complainant that arising from being female she was not appointed after the competition closed. I am satisfied that the Respondent appointed the male teacher on objective grounds and that the school has not discriminated against the Complainant on the ground of gender.

The school rationally decided that there was no point in readvertising, that it was logistically problematic as they required a teacher for the new school year.  That gave rise to a new direction where a candidate would be identified and approached. That appointment was made based on a sound competency assessment and the candidate’s proficiency in Irish. The Complainant has adduced no fact other than that the appointed teacher was male. That does not meet the prima facie test.

I have determined that the Complainant was not discriminated against on the ground of gender.

Gender