Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

 


Ozanne v Ulster Community & Hospitals Trust (Sex Discrimination) [2002] NIIT 00046_00 (30 May 2002)

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 00046/00

APPLICANT: Mary Ozanne

RESPONDENT: Ulster Community & Hospitals Trust

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the applicant has failed to establish a case of sex discrimination against the respondent and the case is dismissed.

Appearances:

The applicant in person.

The respondent was represented by Mr Crothers of Brangam Bagnall & Co, Solicitors.

1. The applicant was employed by the respondent as a part time social worker from 7 June 1999 to 8 October 1999. The applicant's employment was on a twelve month temporary contract which could be terminated by either party with one week's notice. The applicant was given notice of termination of her contract in September 1999 and her employment ceased on 8 October 1999.
2. The applicant applied for a vacant full time social worker post. Prior to the interview and at interview the applicant was asked whether she wished to work full. The applicant passed the interview and was placed on a waiting list. The applicant was offered a position working three days per week on a month to month contract. The applicant agreed to this and to a start date of 7 December 1999. However on 4 December 1999 she was offered employment for one year with another employer, she informed the respondent of this on her first day and worked for the respondent on a part-time capacity from 7 December 1999 to 17 December 1999 when she left to take up other duties.
3. The applicant alleged that she was indirectly discriminated against by the respondent because of the respondent's alleged failure to make employment available to her as a part time worker. She argued that the proportion of women who could comply with a requirement to work full time was less than the proportion of men. She argued that the respondent's advertisement for full time social workers was unreasonable and that there was no justification for it in practice. The applicant gave evidence that the work which she undertook with the respondent was reviewing children's care arrangements and as this rarely involved immediate emergency intervention it could be done on a part time basis. She argued that there was a high level of vacancies for full time social workers. She further stated that at all times she had made it clear that she only wished to work part time because of her domestic commitments.
4. The applicant referred to figures showing that there were 96 field work staff of whom 82 were female and 14 male and of the females 30 were part time. She argued that this was a relevant comparative pool and that the requirement to work full time therefore had a disproportionate effect on women.
5. The tribunal considered the case in the light of the evidence presented by the applicant. The tribunal accepted that having considered the evidence of the applicant it was not necessary to hear evidence from the respondent. In relation to this the tribunal found that the applicant had been employed on a year's contract by the trust as a temporary part time social worker. She was given notice verbally that the contract would end on 8 October 1999 because of the return of previously absent staff. The tribunal did not accept that any form of discrimination was established in relation to this dismissal. The applicant was aware of the temporary nature of her contract and the reason for its termination.
6. In relation to the post which the applicant applied for and for which she was interviewed on 12 October 1999, this was a full time post. The applicant accepted that she was aware that the respondent wished to appoint full time social workers and that the interview which she attended was for a full time post. The applicant accepted that prior to interview and at interview she confirmed that she would only work part time. The advertisement which appeared in the Belfast Telegraph stated that the post was full time. The applicant was placed on a waiting list after her interview and when full time workers could not be found was offered, and accepted, work for three days per week.
7. The applicant argued that because of the high level of need for social workers owing to a social work reorganisation in the trust and the high number of social work vacancies there was an obligation upon the respondent to offer her part time work when she made it clear that she would not undertake full time work and the work was available. The applicant was unable to give details of other posts which were available she was only able to repeat that there was a high level of vacancies.
8. The tribunal found that the applicant applied for a full time social workers post with the respondent. At interview she was asked whether she was prepared to work full time. The applicant stated that she was not but wished to be employed part time due to her family commitments. The applicant was successful at interview which took place on 12 October 1999. She was informed of this on 20 October 1999 and was placed on a waiting list for a part time appointment. The applicant approached the respondent on 3 November 1999 for feedback from her interview. She was informed that the respondent would make enquiries regarding part-time work for her and if it was available she would be employed on a part-time basis. The applicant was then approached around 17 November 1999 and offered part-time work with immediate effect. The applicant accepted the appointment however she only worked for one week as she obtained a more favourable contract elsewhere.
9. The tribunal considered the case in the light of Article 3(1)(b) of the Sex discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

The tribunal firstly considered the question of whether the respondent applied a requirement or condition to the applicant.

The tribunal found that the applicant was a part-time social worker who wished to continue working on a part-time basis. We found that she applied for and was interviewed for a full time social worker's position. We found that it emerged during the interview that the applicant was prepared only to work part time. The respondent was aware of her position in relation to this. In spite of this we found that the applicant was successful at interview and was informed of this shortly afterwards. She was also informed that she was to be placed on a waiting list for a part time position and the respondent sought such a job for her and offered it to her when available. In view of these findings the tribunal did not accept that the respondent applied a requirement or condition that the applicant should work full time. On the contrary it sought a part time position for the applicant offered it to her and it was accepted by her in these circumstances. The tribunal did not find that such a requirement was applied to her. The applicant was aware that the respondent sought to employ full time social workers but this did not prevent her being offered a part time position which she accepted. The tribunal therefore found that the applicant did not establish that a requirement or condition was applied to her in accordance with the provisions of Article 3(1)(b) and the case before the tribunal was therefore dismissed.

____________________________________

Date and place of hearing: 5 February 2002, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: 30 May 2002