The recent decision by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in Emily Williams v Board of Management St Tola's NS (ADJ-00055461) under the Employment Equality Act 1998, illustrates the care that an employer must take to treat employees equally during a promotion process.
Facts
The WRC held that a school discriminated against a teacher based on family status while she was on maternity leave. The employee, having completed two fixed-term contracts, was eligible for a Contract of Indefinite Duration (CID). When a permanent vacancy arose during her maternity leave, the school appointed another teacher, without notifying or considering the employee while she was on maternity leave. The school defended this by citing the other teacher’s higher score in a previous interview panel. However, no written policy supported appointing a candidate based on previous interview results.
The employee subsequently applied for a fixed-term role in the same school. At the conclusion of the interview the Principal congratulated her on the birth of her daughter, stating “you really should enjoy every moment at home with the baby”, which the employee argued alerted the other members of the interview board to the fact of her maternity leave and in so doing treating her differently to all other candidates.
The Decision
The Adjudication Officer held that discounting the employee's eligibility to be considered for a CID while on maternity leave and awarding the CID to another teacher based on an expired panel, without a policy, was unjustified. The subsequent interview process for the fixed-term post was flawed due to a lack of transparency, inadequate note-taking, and unexplained scoring. Furthermore, the Principal’s comment that the employee should enjoy spending time with her baby, made before the interview concluded, amounted to differential treatment. These factors, in absence of sufficient explanation, led the adjudicator to conclude the school failed to rebut the case of discrimination on the ground of family status. He awarded the claimant €85,000 as compensation for discrimination, noting that the award must provide a real deterrent against future breaches.
Key Takeaways
The case highlights a critical lesson for employers on the importance of conducting a fair and transparent interview process, particularly where equality issues are in play. It is crucial to treat all candidates equally, regardless of whether they are on maternity or other forms of protected leave. Employers must ensure all eligible employees, including employees on protected leave, such as maternity leave, are notified of vacancies and given a genuine opportunity to be considered for vacant posts, as making assumptions about availability or interest based on family circumstances could expose organisations to discrimination claims.
The interview process itself must be carefully conducted. Interview boards should use prearranged questions tied to the criteria set out in the job specification. All candidates should be asked the same or comparable questions, and panel members should avoid ad-libbing or introducing personal comments. In this case, a seemingly friendly comment about a candidate’s baby, made before scoring had concluded, undermined the integrity of the process and contributed to a finding of discrimination. Interviewers should also keep contemporaneous notes explaining how scores were reached, as in the absence of clear documentation, an employer will struggle to defend the fairness of its process if challenged.
If you would like to discuss the above case and its implications in further detail, please contact Paul Gough, Emily Deering or your usual Beauchamps contact.
