Case Number: ADJ-00027228. Workplace Relations Commission

Docket NumberADJ-00027228
Hearing Date04 September 2020
Date13 October 2020
CourtWorkplace Relations Commission
Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Background:

The complainant is a local authority employee who was recruited in 2018 as an Environmental Awareness Officer.

He says the manner in which a new post in which he was interested was filled was a discriminatory act on the Family Status ground.

It also represented unlawful penalisation for his application for Parental leave.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

All local authorities were required to recruit a Climate Action Officer in line with the Government's Climate Action Plan.

The respondent sought specific funding to appoint a Climate Officer role and explicitly committed to using that funding increase to appoint additional personnel for climate action.

This was further confirmed in correspondence and in other similar employments a new additional Climate officer role was established and recruited externally.

The complainant applied for Parental leave on November 4th, 2019. There were delays in acceding to it and it was only finally agreed over a month later; it commenced just prior to Christmas 2019.

The complainant had developed a resource plan for his role and all climate change and energy efficiency work for the period of his reduced availability due to parental leave and he submitted it to line management on November 14th.

He made it clear that when a formal climate officer role might be advertised he would consider returning from leave early and applying for it.

In fact, the position was filled without advertising externally or internally or having any competitive process of any kind and an existing staff member was assigned to the post. The complainant has much greater experience than the person appointed and he had effectively fulfilled the de facto role of climate and energy officer with the respondent since his appointment.

The complainant submits that he is substantially better qualified for the position than the person appointed and believes he was discriminated against and not considered for the role because he had taken parental leave.

He submits that his version of events was confirmed in a meeting between a third party and a senior manager.

The respondent has also failed to comply with its own Grievance procedure.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

There are two complaints, one of penalisation and the other under the Employment Equality Acts.

The respondent raises a preliminary point about this duplication of claims and submits that the complainant may not succeed under both statutes under the rule in Henderson v Henderson.

The first complaint relates to penalisation for having availed of parental leave.

This arises because the respondent did not fill a post in such a way that the complainant could have applied for it. However, there was no obligation on the respondent to fill it by means of an ‘open’ competition and the manner in which the position was assigned to an existing employee is not uncommon.

The essential ‘but for’ test set out in Tony and Guy Blackrock Limited v O’Neill HSD095 has not been met.

To do so the complainant would have to establish that ‘but for’ his parental leave he would have been appointed, and that the failure to appoint him was a detriment he suffered as a result of his having applied for parental leave.

In fact, no competition for the post of any sort took place nor was there any obligation on the respondent to fill it in that way. It chose to do it in a different way. The decision was impersonal and the criteria were related to budgetary, resources and other such considerations.

This is an entirely common practice in the respondent’s sector and new roles are often allocated to existing personnel where appropriate.

It was also done in accordance with all statutory obligations falling on the respondent.

The respondent also relies Melbury v Valpeters EDA/0917 where it was stated;

“Section 85A of the Act provides for the allocation of the probative burden in cases within its ambit. This requires that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT