Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) - RECENT Decisions & judgements
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001340
Candidate discriminated on the basis of age awarded €750 compensation
The Complainant stated she was discriminated on the grounds of age by the Respondent when she was unsuccessful in gaining a position that she applied online for. The Complainant received a reply letting her know the Organisation were impressed with her application and invited her to an interview with the Assistant Manager (AM).
The interview entailed doing role playing with the interviewer (AM) alongside interview questions and other practical assignments. The interviewer asked a number of set questions from a form, one of which was the Complainants date of birth. The Complainant stated that she was surprised and a little shocked as she did not think she had ever been asked for that information at an interview before. Following the above process, the Complainant was disappointed to find out she was not going to be offered employment. The Complainant stated that she thought the majority of the staff were in their 20s/30s.
The Respondent stated that they have a diverse range of ages within the Organisation from 16 – 65 years old. The Respondent stated it prides itself in its diverse workforce. The Respondent submitted that the interview questions, practical assignments and marking scheme were pre-set by the Respondent based on the competencies required and were applied consistently across all applicants. Notes were taken during the interview meeting by AM. The notes were reviewed in the aftermath of the Complainants interview but she was not successful based on the scoring system applied. The interview questions for each candidate were based on the behavioural competencies that were tailored for each candidate based on how they scored in the online assessment. Not all candidates were asked the same three competency questions.
The Respondents Company policy dictates that at interview stage, a copy of identification must be provided to ensure potential Employees have the right to work in Ireland. A date of birth is also requested of Employees along with other identification information for the purpose of ensuring Employees are within the age of eligibility to work with the Respondent.
The Respondent stated that the Complainants age was not a factor in her non-selection for the post for which the Complainant had applied. The Respondent stated that the Complainant lacked in a number of areas which led to her not achieving the requisite marks to receive an offer of employment.
The Adjudication Officer noted that some interviews and assessments were done with interviewers and note taker and some were done alone with the interviewer. Candidates were offered employment “on the spot” if deemed suitable and not compared consistently across the same criteria. The interview process did not wait to compare all candidates’ scores prior to make a hiring decision.
In relation to the recruitment process experienced by the Complainant it was noted that the interviewer [AM], conducted the interview and took her own notes on an A4 notepad on a clipboard. The interview assessment was not completed in full. The interviewer had asked the Complainant for her date of birth prior to filling out the form.
On this basis the Adjudication Officer concluded that the age of candidates was a factor in the recruitment and selection process and decision not to make an offer of employment and therefore had established a prima facie case of discrimination on the age ground. The Adjudication Officer concluded that the Respondents submission as to why they asked for confirmation of the candidates’ date of birth was not sufficient for the Adjudication Officer to conclude that it was not used in assessing the Complainant suitability for this position. Accordingly, the Adjudication Officer found that the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant on the ground of age contrary to Section 6 (2)(f) of the Employment Equality Acts (hereinafter the “Acts”) and awarded €750 in compensation.
Poor recruitment and selection procedures, as illustrated in this instance, intended or otherwise, can give rise to wasted time, poor hiring decisions and heightened risk of an allegation of discrimination being made as part of the recruitment and selection process. In line with the requirements of equality legislation and best practice, it is vital that Employers have fair and transparent recruitment and selection procedures in place in order to provide for better hiring decisions and demonstrate the appropriate process has been followed, if challenged.
Employers can take further steps to prevent the risk of discrimination occurring and promotion of best practice. This includes having a Recruitment and Selection Policy and Equal Opportunities Policy in place, and ensuring all those involved in recruitment and selection activities are aware of such policies and trained in best practice recruitment and selection procedures.
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003662
Complainant asked Retirement Intentions not discriminated against
The Complainant had her annual performance review for 2015 with her Manager in March 2016. In the course of the discussion she was asked about whether she had any plans to retire. She responded that she had no plans to retire. She was aged sixty at the time of the meeting. The Complainant received positive feedback and was awarded a high overall performance rating.
The Complainant subsequently asked a number of colleagues whether they had been asked a similar question and all said they had not, including some in the same age cohort as the Complainant. She raised the matter with her manager. The Respondent submitted that the question is part of its workforce research, preparations and future planning under the direction of its HR Department in order to identify numbers of possible future departures from the service to assist with its forward planning.
Statistics were provided by the Respondent which it argued necessitated asking this question. This included reference to 12% of the total workforce retiring the previous year necessitating the need to forward plan and minimise the impact of future retirees from the organisation in the future.
Having given careful consideration, the Adjudication Officer found no basis for discrimination having occurred in this case, directly or indirectly, as it relates to any of the nine grounds and considered the question to be an exercise in prudent workforce planning by the Respondent given the challenges faced.
The burden of proof in an equality related claim initially rests with the Claimant, who is required to present facts from which discrimination may be inferred. In the event an inference of discrimination is provided for, the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent. A Respondent is required to demonstrate either that the discrimination did not occur, or that reasonable steps were taken to prevent its occurrence. In this instance, the Adjudication Officer was satisfied that the question asked regarding the Complainant’s retirement intentions did not constitute discrimination, and reflected an appropriate practice given the challenges being faced.
Candidate discriminated on the basis of age awarded €750 compensation
The Complainant stated she was discriminated on the grounds of age by the Respondent when she was unsuccessful in gaining a position that she applied online for. The Complainant received a reply letting her know the Organisation were impressed with her application and invited her to an interview with the Assistant Manager (AM).
The interview entailed doing role playing with the interviewer (AM) alongside interview questions and other practical assignments. The interviewer asked a number of set questions from a form, one of which was the Complainants date of birth. The Complainant stated that she was surprised and a little shocked as she did not think she had ever been asked for that information at an interview before. Following the above process, the Complainant was disappointed to find out she was not going to be offered employment. The Complainant stated that she thought the majority of the staff were in their 20s/30s.
The Respondent stated that they have a diverse range of ages within the Organisation from 16 – 65 years old. The Respondent stated it prides itself in its diverse workforce. The Respondent submitted that the interview questions, practical assignments and marking scheme were pre-set by the Respondent based on the competencies required and were applied consistently across all applicants. Notes were taken during the interview meeting by AM. The notes were reviewed in the aftermath of the Complainants interview but she was not successful based on the scoring system applied. The interview questions for each candidate were based on the behavioural competencies that were tailored for each candidate based on how they scored in the online assessment. Not all candidates were asked the same three competency questions.
The Respondents Company policy dictates that at interview stage, a copy of identification must be provided to ensure potential Employees have the right to work in Ireland. A date of birth is also requested of Employees along with other identification information for the purpose of ensuring Employees are within the age of eligibility to work with the Respondent.
The Respondent stated that the Complainants age was not a factor in her non-selection for the post for which the Complainant had applied. The Respondent stated that the Complainant lacked in a number of areas which led to her not achieving the requisite marks to receive an offer of employment.
The Adjudication Officer noted that some interviews and assessments were done with interviewers and note taker and some were done alone with the interviewer. Candidates were offered employment “on the spot” if deemed suitable and not compared consistently across the same criteria. The interview process did not wait to compare all candidates’ scores prior to make a hiring decision.
In relation to the recruitment process experienced by the Complainant it was noted that the interviewer [AM], conducted the interview and took her own notes on an A4 notepad on a clipboard. The interview assessment was not completed in full. The interviewer had asked the Complainant for her date of birth prior to filling out the form.
On this basis the Adjudication Officer concluded that the age of candidates was a factor in the recruitment and selection process and decision not to make an offer of employment and therefore had established a prima facie case of discrimination on the age ground. The Adjudication Officer concluded that the Respondents submission as to why they asked for confirmation of the candidates’ date of birth was not sufficient for the Adjudication Officer to conclude that it was not used in assessing the Complainant suitability for this position. Accordingly, the Adjudication Officer found that the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant on the ground of age contrary to Section 6 (2)(f) of the Employment Equality Acts (hereinafter the “Acts”) and awarded €750 in compensation.
Poor recruitment and selection procedures, as illustrated in this instance, intended or otherwise, can give rise to wasted time, poor hiring decisions and heightened risk of an allegation of discrimination being made as part of the recruitment and selection process. In line with the requirements of equality legislation and best practice, it is vital that Employers have fair and transparent recruitment and selection procedures in place in order to provide for better hiring decisions and demonstrate the appropriate process has been followed, if challenged.
Employers can take further steps to prevent the risk of discrimination occurring and promotion of best practice. This includes having a Recruitment and Selection Policy and Equal Opportunities Policy in place, and ensuring all those involved in recruitment and selection activities are aware of such policies and trained in best practice recruitment and selection procedures.
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003662
Complainant asked Retirement Intentions not discriminated against
The Complainant had her annual performance review for 2015 with her Manager in March 2016. In the course of the discussion she was asked about whether she had any plans to retire. She responded that she had no plans to retire. She was aged sixty at the time of the meeting. The Complainant received positive feedback and was awarded a high overall performance rating.
The Complainant subsequently asked a number of colleagues whether they had been asked a similar question and all said they had not, including some in the same age cohort as the Complainant. She raised the matter with her manager. The Respondent submitted that the question is part of its workforce research, preparations and future planning under the direction of its HR Department in order to identify numbers of possible future departures from the service to assist with its forward planning.
Statistics were provided by the Respondent which it argued necessitated asking this question. This included reference to 12% of the total workforce retiring the previous year necessitating the need to forward plan and minimise the impact of future retirees from the organisation in the future.
Having given careful consideration, the Adjudication Officer found no basis for discrimination having occurred in this case, directly or indirectly, as it relates to any of the nine grounds and considered the question to be an exercise in prudent workforce planning by the Respondent given the challenges faced.
The burden of proof in an equality related claim initially rests with the Claimant, who is required to present facts from which discrimination may be inferred. In the event an inference of discrimination is provided for, the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent. A Respondent is required to demonstrate either that the discrimination did not occur, or that reasonable steps were taken to prevent its occurrence. In this instance, the Adjudication Officer was satisfied that the question asked regarding the Complainant’s retirement intentions did not constitute discrimination, and reflected an appropriate practice given the challenges being faced.
Note on WRC:
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has resulted in the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA).
In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and a much more streamlined, simplified process.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has resulted in the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA).
In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and a much more streamlined, simplified process.
Adare Human Resource Management is one of Ireland’s leading Employment Law and Human Resource Management Consultancies. Our HR & Employment Law Support Services include:
www.adarehrm.ie
- Advice on all Employment Law, Industrial Relations and HR queries or issues
- Review, Development and Implementation of Contracts of Employment and Employee Policies and Procedures
- Management and Employee Training - Dignity at Work, Anti-Harassment and Sexual Harassment, Conducting Disciplinary Meetings
- Investigations - independent investigations on behalf of Organisations in line with the relevant legislation and codes of practice
- Organisational Management or Change Management Initiatives – including review / development of Performance Appraisal / Management Systems and Organisational Development
www.adarehrm.ie
