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

• Judgment Date: 01 February 2016
• Year: 2016
• Docket Number: DEC-E2016-038
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: Mr. 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 complainant is dated the 5th of November, 2012.

5.2 Section 77(5) of the Acts provides as follows:

“(a) Subject to subsection (6), a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of occurrence or, as the case may require, the most recent occurrence of the act of discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates.

(b) On application by a complainant the Director or Circuit Court, as the case may be, may, for reasonable cause direct that in relation to the complainant paragraph (a) shall have effect as if for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substitutes a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction”.

5.3 It is submitted that the last date of discrimination is the date on which the complainant was notified that his application was not successful and that he had not been shortlisted for interview. The complainant received this notification on the 12th of April, 2012, this would mean that the last date by which the complainant could submit his complaint was the 11th of October, 2012 in order for the complaint to be considered to fall within the 6 months. The complainant submitted his complaint to the Tribunal on the 5th of November, 2012. Thus the complaint was submitted almost a month outside of the six month’s time limit.

5.4 Section 77(5)(b) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2011 provides that where reasonable cause can be shown the Director may extend the period in which the complainant may refer a complaint to the Tribunal.

Section 77 (5) (b) states:

“On application by a complainant the Director or Circuit Court, as the case may be, may, for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant paragraph (a) shall have effect as if for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction; and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.” ...