No discrimination against teachers: Equality Tribunal

Claims taken by two teachers who were unsuccessful in being promoted to the post of deputy principal at Dunshaughlin Community College that they had been discriminated against by Meath VEC on age grounds have been rejected in a ruling by the Equality Tribunal. The claims by teachers Geraldine Horgan and Helen Comiskey were outlined to equality officer Tara Coogan in hearings over three days in May and June this year. In a report on the case just released, the equality officer sharply criticised members of the Meath VEC Committee who made public allegations of age discrimination against the VEC despite the fact that "they had no legitimate reason to be involved in the selection and appointment process". The complainants submitted they were discriminated againt by the VEC by the application of an unfair and biased selection process. They said they were both more qualified teachers with a proven track record of competence to meet the needs of the position, and that they were treated differently from younger candidates in making the appointment. The two teachers made a number of submissions, including that they secured evidence of a strong bias towards a young candidate; that "significant public utterances" following the interview process confirmed the age discrimination, and that bias towards a younger candidate could be found in the application form, the interview process and the allocation of marks. Both claimed that not all candidates were asked the same questions, that no questions were asked about the complainants' proven track record as a teacher, their role as senior managers or other education work, and that this put them at a particular disadvantage. It was submitted that, prior to the interview process, there was an atmosphere in the staffroom "that indicated a shift in perceived power" and that there was an overwhelming emphasis on the importance of information technology and that this was "due to the principal's past involvement in the computer business and his continued links with an information technology company". It was submitted that the VEC had asked for applicants' date of birth be inserted on the application form and it was submitted that this was illegal. It was also suggested that the VEC used a "minimalist interview panel" to facilitate the appointment of "the younger, favoured candidate towards whom the complainants submitted the chief executive officer showed a bias by including her in the shortlist". The complainants criticised aspects of the interview process, stating that because there were only five interviewers, there was no competent independent person present to challenge the CEO's "biased opinion", and that each candidate was only given a very short period of time for interview. The VEC, in its response to the complaints, said it employed 700 staff and that, during 2007, about 100 interviews boards had been convened for both recruitment and promotion. It said that since the Vocational Education Act 2001, recruitment and promotion of VEC staff was an executive function that was carried out by the human resources section of the VEC. It said that it takes its selection and recruitment "most seriously". The VEC added that interviewing as a means of selection was widely acknowledged as "not being an exact science". However, the interview board had a proven track record at interviewing, had individual character to make their own judgement and had a deep understanding of the position and had prepared well. The VEC denied any age discrimination. It denied that there was any favourite candidate from the outset or that there was a bias at every stage. The equality officer said it was not in dispute that both complainants firmly believed that they were respectively better candidates that the successful candidate, and that they had broad experience and expertise in the education sector. But it was not a matter for the tribunal to assess whether the succcessful candidate was the best person for the job, rather to decide whether the process in this case was discriminatory on the basis of age. The officer said she found the whole concept of an information technology company having undue influence on the VEC to be "quite frankly, fantastic". She asked: "Why would such a company care what age the deputy principal of the respondent school is and/or why would such a company have an age bias towards younger candidates? And why would the wider organisation - the respondent - be influenced by such?" The equality officer concluded: "There is no evidence that the respondent colluded with the named company." The officer found that the complainants had not established a prima facie case of discrimination on age grounds and, therefore, the claims failed.