Case Number: DEC-E2016-038. Workplace Relations Commission

CourtWorkplace Relations Commission
Docket NumberDEC-E2016-038
Date29 February 2016
PartiesMr. Michael Grange V The Public Appointments Service
EQUALITY OFFICER'S DECISION NO: DEC-E/2016/038 PARTIES Mr. Michael Grange Vs The Public Appointments Service (Represented by the Office of the Chief State Solicitor’s) FILE NO: EE/EE/2012/567 DATE OF ISSUE: 29th of February, 2016 1. Dispute

This dispute involves a claim by Mr Michael Grange that he was discriminated against by the Public Appointments Service on the grounds of age and gender, in terms of section 6 (2) and contrary to section 8 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2015 in relation to getting a job.

2. Background

2.1 The complainant referred a complaint against the above respondent under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2015 to the Equality Tribunal on the 5th of November, 2012.

2.2 In accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2015 the Director delegated the case on the 28th January, 2015 to me, Orla Jones, an Adjudication/Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of those Acts. This is the date I commenced my investigation. Written submissions were received from both parties. As required by section 79(1) of the Acts and, as part of my investigation, I proceeded to a hearing on the 20th of November, 2015. Final correspondence in relation to this complaint was received on the 15th of December, 2015.

2.3 This decision is issued by me following the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on 1 October 2015, as an Adjudication Officer who was an Equality Officer prior to 1 October 2015, in accordance with section 83 (3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

3. Summary of complainant’s case

3.1 The complainant submits

that he was discriminated against, on grounds of age and gender when the respondent failed to shortlist him for interview following his application for the post of Administrative Officer 2012 (Economics),

that he was discriminated against, on grounds of age and gender when the respondent failed to shortlist him for interview following his application for the post of Administrative Officer 2012 (Human Resources),

disputes the respondent’s contention that he did not have a suitable relevant qualification for the post of AO (Economics),

that he should have been successful in the AO (Economics) competition due to the fact that he had a Business Studies degree within which he had taken the subject Irish Economics as a subject in his final BBS,

disputes the respondent’s contention that he did not have a suitable relevant qualification or experience for the post of AO (Human Resources),

that he should have been successful in the AO (Human Resources) competition due to the fact that he had specialised in Human Resources in the final two years of his Business Studies degree in addition to having a post-graduate qualification as a Barrister,

that the respondent was in fact seeking ‘new blood’ in this competition and that he did not meet this criteria due to his age.

4. Summary of Respondent’s case

4.1 The respondent submits that

the complainant was not selected for interview for the post of AO (Economics) following a short-listing process which took place on 4th of April, 2012. It submits that this aspect of the claim is thus out of time,

the complainant was not selected for interview for the post of AO (Human Resources) following a short-listing process (by a different panel) which took place on the 17th and the 28th of May, 2012,

the age and gender of applicants did not in any way influence the shortlisting process of either panel,

a breakdown of successful and unsuccessful applicants provided to the complainant in respect of the AO (Economics) competition indicates that

· a greater number of male candidates were shortlisted than female candidates, and that

· candidates above and below the age of 45 were shortlisted,

a breakdown of successful and unsuccessful applicants provided to the complainant in respect of the AO (Human Resources) competition indicates that

· of the ten successful candidates one who was older than the complainant was appointed,

the failure of the complainant to be shortlisted for these posts have been the subject of internal informal and internal formal reviews and of a review by the Commission for Public Service appointments all of which upheld the procedures of the Shortlisting Board,

the report of the Commission was then the subject of High Court Judicial Review which found the complainant’s contentions in respect of the Commission to be without merit.

5. Preliminary Jurisdictional Issue Time Limits

5.1 The respondent submits that the complaint in relation to the AO (Economics) competition is out of time as it was not submitted within six months of the last date of alleged discrimination. The complaint form submitted by 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