Case Number: DEC-E2016-031. Workplace Relations Commission

CourtWorkplace Relations Commission
Date17 February 2016
Docket NumberDEC-E2016-031
PartiesKennedy Ceist
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS DECISION NO. DEC-E2016-031 PARTIES Kennedy (Represented by Gearoid O’Bradaigh B.L instructed by O’Mara, Geraghty, McCourt, Solicitors) AND Ceist (Represented by Brian Foley B.L. instructed by Mason Hayes Curran, Solicitors) File reference: EE/2013/232 Date of issue: 17th February 2016

HEADNOTES: Employment Equality Acts Sections 6 (2) (a) as amended by section 4 the Employment Equality Act 2004 Discrimination-Victimisation-Conditions of Employment-Gender


1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Mr Kennedythat he was discriminated against by his employer on the grounds of gender contrary to section 6 (2) of the Employment Equality Acts in respect of access to promotion and grading under the terms of Section 8 (1) (d).

1.2 The complainant referred a claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on April 30th, 2013 under the Employment Equality Acts. On October 1st, 2015, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts, the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission delegated the case to me, Pat Brady an Adjudication Officer/Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director General under Part VII of the Acts, on which date my investigation commenced. Submissions were received from both sides. In accordance with Section 79(1) of the Employment Equality Acts and as part of my investigation I proceeded to a hearing on October 6th 2015.

1.3 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.


2.1 The Respondent is a Trustee Body established under the Education Act 1998 to act as a Trustee Body for a five religious congregations and is an acronym for ‘Catholic Education, an Irish School Trust’; thus, CEIST. It acts as Trustee and Patron of about one hundred and ten secondary schools.

2.2 It is a company limited by guarantee with charitable status and is a not for profit body.

2.3 Its ‘Education Office’ acts as an administrative resource of the organisation and the complainant was an employee in that office as a ‘School Relationship Co-Ordinator under a fixed term contract for five years commencing on November 1st 2007


3.1 The complainant started work for the respondent in 1995 as a ‘School Relationship Co-ordinator’. His employment terminated in July 2012. This followed his unsuccessful application for appointment to a new position which would have taken effect on the expiry of the earlier contract.

3.2 His complaints fall into two broad categories; one arises from the process related to the interview in June 2012 to ‘renew’ or extend his contract, the fact that he was not appointed and events arising from that process.

3.3 The second category comprises a large number of individual incidents which were opened in evidence to the Tribunal and dated back to July 2008 (three complaints), 2009 (seven complaints) 2010 (ten complaints) 2011 (six complaints) and 2012, (leaving aside those referred to at 3.2 above) two complaints. These were somewhat refined at the commencement of the hearing and the initial three submissions from the complainant revised for the purpose of the crystallising the issues at the hearing.


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