Case Number: ADJ-00011134. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00011134
• Hearing Date: 20 December 2017
• Date: 22 June 2018
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: Andrew Conway V Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine
• Respondent: Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011134

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Andrew Conway	Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine

Representatives Brooks & Company Solicitors Sarah-Jane Hillery, BL instructed by the Chief State Solicitor's Office

Complaint:

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-00014733-001	2 October 2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20 December 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham

Procedure:

On the 2nd October 2017, the complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Employment Equality Act. This complaint was heard at adjudication on the 20th December 2017 with a related claim. The instant complaint is made against the Department while the related complaint (ADJ 8454) is made against the Public Appointments Service.

The complainant was represented by Brooks & Company Solicitors. The respondent was represented by Sarah-Jane Hillery, BL instructed by the Chief State Solicitor’s Office. Five witnesses attended for the respondents, two for the Department and three for the Public Appointments Service.

In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

The complainant alleges age discrimination following his placing of 87 on a panel of inspectors; the respondent denies the claim.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant worked for the respondent since 1990 as an inspector on two plants. In December 2016, the Department ran a competition for new veterinary inspectors. The complainant interviewed for the panel on the 14th March 2017 and retired on the 31st March 2017. He received good feedback from the interview but placed 87 on the panel. The complainant outlined that he had been doing the job for 27 years, doing the work of two employees. There was a requirement to have an independent expert on the interview panel, but the person designated as independent was then working for the respondent. The PAS did not do an independent analysis. Despite his work record, the complainant was placed 87 on the panel. He was looking to retire at 70 and had to retire for 6 months to get on this panel. Those higher than him on the panel were younger and one person, placed 64, had only retired three months ago so could not take up the role. The complainant submitted that there was an irrationality between his interview notes and his score. He gave good evidence of his 27 years’ experience and how he knew the job inside out. The respondent praised him for exceeding in the role. The placing of 87 does not tally with the interview notes. An inference could be drawn that the respondent was looking for younger people as the candidates placed on the panel were younger and less experienced. The complainant had to train in one person taken from the panel. This was about age discrimination and irrationality in how they assessed candidates. The panel was not independent, in particular the panel member designated as the external expert. The interview notes do not highlight the complainant’s very good interview. He was ably qualified and had many years of experience. In evidence, the complainant said that the interview was good and he enjoyed it. They asked him questions. He had completed interviews in 1990 and then relied on his experience in general practice. He was now able to give “on the job” experience. He was asked about the highlights of his career; he gave an outline of doing audits for a State regulator. He mentioned a high-profile Tribunal and described this as a “baptism of fire”. He had raised practice issues and made a statement to the Tribunal Chair. After the Tribunal concluded, the inspectors did more training and the Department introduced Standard Operating Procedures. They had an audit from a significant importer in 2016 and he was required to issue a legal notice as part of this inspection. The complainant was asked at interview about his most challenging role. He mentioned a named facility and pig farming. The issue involved a local politician. He had highlighted a problem and met the farmers. He told them that they would have to improve their husbandry. They allowed a farmer to see the slaughtering process so he could see why the contamination was so high. This resolved the issue. The complainant said that he also dealt with the meat and bone meal issue where farmers were over-feeding animals meat and bone meal, causing them to die. There were court proceedings where the Department raided one farmer. The complainant then stopped certifying the slaughtered meat as free of meat and bone meal. This was a high-profile intervention in line with Department policies. This was team working under pressure and involved interpersonal skills. The complainant outlined that you had to relate to the farmers to get a problem resolved. The Department was involved the whole way. At the interview, the complainant gave an outline of his daily operations, for example ante mortem, to review the animals to ensure they were fit and healthy. In 2000, the EU found in an audit that Ireland was then allowing animals with broken legs to be slaughtered. It was his job to coordinate the inspectors so that they were on the same wave length. The complainant said that he had worked with TVIs who came in on shift. They were encouraged to sort issues locally. He had to manage a “go slow” by TVIs in 2012 regarding BSE sampling. The complainant outlined that he gave evidence in 2006 at an Employment Appeals Tribunal when a factory closed. He was the supervisor of the TVIs and gave evidence about what he and they did. He did not know whether they were employees and he wanted them to get the job done. This facility was subject to audit by US authorities. The complainant used to meet the TVIs to pass the audit and they worked as a team.

...