Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Marina  Ostroumova

Munich Re Automation Solutions Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-represented

Emily Maverley, IBEC

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-00052903-001

20/09/2022

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

6 witnesses undertook to give evidence under affirmation.  Not all chose to and for those that did, cross examination was offered.

The complainant submitted that she was unlawfully treated and discriminated against on the grounds of her race during a job interview process with the respondent. She was approached by a recruitment company who were tasked with filling a position for accounts assistant. The complainant submitted that at the interview she was directly asked about her origins and felt under pressure to disclose her Russian nationality. However, she continued with the interview and outlined how she holds Irish citizenship. The complainant submitted that the question was unlawful, unacceptable and irrelevant for the position applied for. The complainant submitted that given the current sanctions against Russia due to the war with Ukraine she was quite aware of the situation.

The complainant submitted that she was unsuccessful in obtaining the position and sought detailed feedback. She was told that a choice had been made between her and another candidate. A few weeks later the recruitment agency replied to her saying that the respondent does not give out detailed information the interview process. The complainant noted that she did not see or was not advised that any notes were taken for HR purposes.

The complainant submitted that as a result of the incident it had very negative effects on her well-being and mental health ranging from low self-esteem to developing stress related disorders. The complainant stated that she was on medical care from April until August with depression and anxiety and suffered significant loss of income.

Complainant evidence:

The complainant stated that she interviewed for an accounts position with the respondent, the first stage was online, the second, in person. Her application was refused, and she requested feedback. She was told that the recruitment agent does not provide detailed feedback. The complainant stated that she was refused the job based on her race, that she was asked about her nationality and felt that she had to reply as she originally came from Russia.

The complainant stated that she expressed her concerns with the way the interview was conducted and sought detailed feedback. She stated that she was told that the company went for another candidate. The complainant stated that she felt she should not have been asked the question and that it had a negative impact on her mental health. She stated that she was very uncomfortable being asked where she was from.

Under cross examination it was put to her that she raised no concern at the time of the interview processed first time she raised her concern was on 9 June some eight weeks after the interview. She stated that she finally had direct contact details for the respondent.

The respondent submitted as a preliminary matter that there is no case to answer and the claim should be declared unfounded and dismissed. The respondent denied the assertion that the complainant was discriminated against on the grounds of race.  The respondent submitted that is has 19 different nationalities in employment roughly split 50% Irish and 50% other nationalities. The respondent submitted that there is a recruitment training programme for managers.

The respondent submitted that the complainant was invited to a competency based interview with questions relating to qualifications, previous experience, and understanding of how the company works and scenario based questions. The complainant was successful at the first stage and was invited to a second interview, this was in-person in the respondent’s offices. Questions asked in this interview mirrored the structure of the first interview and comprised competency-based interview questions. The respondent’s position is that the question about nationality was asked following the formal interview questions, as the interview was concluding. The respondent submitted that at no point was this information used in the scoring mechanism.

The respondent submitted that the successful candidate was offered the road and that she had noted that her salary expectations were approximately €35,000. This figure was within the budget of the role and the candidate was more junior and had less experience, so it was decided that she was better suited to the role. The respondent submitted that when two candidates are capable of carrying out a role, it considers three things: Firstly qualifications, level of experience personality traits, secondly career aspirations and growth opportunities for career development and progression and finally the budgeted salary assigned to the role.  The respondent noted that the complainant’s salary expectation was approximately €8000 over budget, in that she expected €43,000 p.a.

The respondent submitted that, given the complainants higher level of experience, she would have been better for a more senior position. The job advertisement was looking for a candidate with about two years’ experience in a similar role and the salary matched that level of experience.

The first witness for the respondent was the financial controller. He noted that the questions were mainly asked by the chief financial officer and that, in his role, he would have asked for alternative answers. He noted that diversity and inclusion is normally discussed by the HR team or the recruitment consultant. During the interview they asked questions and discussed her salary requirements. The question regarding her nationality was made as part of closing remarks. The witness stated that following the interview there was a brief discussion, looking at other candidates but that nationality was not discussed following the interview.

Cross examination was not availed of.

The second witness for the respondent was the chief financial officer who also held the role of chief operating officer. He noted that the company was going through a growth phase and had grown by 50% in six months. He noted that he was not involved in many interviews and was not involved in any screening interviews. He stated that the company deployed a recruitment tool for interviews, and he prepared in advance by reviewing the CV’s from the candidates. He stated that he doesn’t like talking to the other interviewers in advance as he does not want to be swayed regarding candidates.

The witness noted that they were very heavily invested in diversity and inclusion across their Ireland and UK branch and that it features as part of their corporate strategy. In relation to the complainant, he had come to the conclusion that she had done a reasonably good interview and the question that he asked her was asked at the end of the interview. He asked the question as it was not clear where her background experience or her education came from outside Ireland. Only then did they get the information that she was a naturalised Irish citizen. Nationality was never discussed with anyone.

The witness stated that he did not make the ultimate decision as the other board member is the hiring manager. Under cross examination the witness was asked what difference does the diversity conversation make? He noted that it makes no difference but that it is more of a friendly chat as to how somebody could contribute. It's also important to bear in mind that different countries use different systems and they needed to be aware of specific systems experience.

The third witness was the HR business partner.  She was asked at what point did she hear about the complainant being asked her nationality, she noted that she was unaware until the ES1 form was received. She stated that she was not aware that the complainant was seeking feedback. Under cross examination the witness was asked to guess what was in the mind of another person, but it was not possible to guess.

A fourth witness gave evidence that they were not aware of any details of the recruitment process until the case was taken to the WRC.  No cross examination was availed of.

Section 85A of the Employment Equality Act deals with the shifting Burden of Proof.  Section 85A(1) states as follows:

85A.—(1) 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.

Having considered the evidence put forward in support of this claim, I am satisfied that the complainant was asked where she came from.  The complainant was asked where she was from in the context of establishing what experience she had.  Her salary expectations were outside the budget for the position.  I am not satisfied that she has established facts from which discrimination may be presumed.  Accordingly, I find that the complainant is not well founded and that the complainant was not discriminated against in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Equality Act.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented to me in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not discriminated against.

Employment Equality Act – Discrimination – Nationality – not well founded – no shift in burden of proof – not discriminated against