Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Knox v Drumcree College & Anor (Part-Time Workers/Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment Regulations NI 2000) [2004] NIIT 3974_03 (18 February 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2004/18.html
Cite as: [2004] NIIT 3974_03, [2004] NIIT 3974_3

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 3974/03

APPLICANT: Veronica Knox

RESPONDENTS: 1. The Board of Governors, Drumcree College

2. Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the applicant has not proved that she was subjected to less favourable treatment on account of her part-time worker status and the application is dismissed.

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT: Mr B McKee, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Mark Sinclair, Solicitor.

RESPONDENTS: Mr D Dunlop, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Napier & Sons.

The claim to the tribunal was brought under Regulation 5 and Regulation 8 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000. In relation to Regulation 5 the applicant relied on 5(1)(b) in that she had been subjected to a detriment by not being appointed to the post of Head of Home Economics Department in May 2003. The successful candidate was working full-time and the applicant claimed that she had more experience in teaching and managing the Home Economics Department. She alleged that the interviewers did not give sufficient credit in their marking for her past experience. She also relied on the fact that she had had to relinquish responsibility points when she opted to work part-time from 1996 onwards.

It was accepted fact that the applicant had been a teacher in Drumcree College for over 22 years and she had taught Home Economics, been a Head of Year teacher and in 1995 had heard about a part-time scheme. She applied for this in 1996 and was granted part-time working. The option to do this was renewed on a number of occasions up to and including 2002. The applicant stated that by the time of the interview in May 2002 she had already applied to the Board of Governors to resume her full-time status and regain her responsibility points starting from September 2003. She stated in evidence that she did not mention this fact to those persons who were interviewing her.

The tribunal saw documentation relating to the interview. It was common case that it was on the basis of an internal trawl. There were only two candidates and there were a number of pro-forma questions designed to allow the candidates to answer fully and the marking sheets were completed by the interviewers and the candidates were scored. There were four people who were interviewing as well as the Acting Principal, Mr McLaughlin, who asked the questions but did not score or assess the candidates. He had been involved in the shortlisting with the interview panel and had confirmed that both candidates had suitable qualifications for appointment. The tribunal saw the scoring sheets and accepted as fact that the two candidates were assessed as very similar with the additional marks being gained by the successful candidate in the categories of skills and personal qualities. We heard evidence from three interviewers and accepted from their evidence that they assessed the candidates in a fair and objective manner. The applicant submitted that Father Larkin and Mrs Hamill and the Acting Principal knew that she was a part-time teacher. We were not convinced on this point by Father Larkin's evidence but we were convinced that Mrs Hamill did not consider the aspect of part-time working. However when we look at the scores that Father Larkin gave the two candidates, there was only one mark between both candidates and so there was no obvious pattern of marking the applicant down. Mr McCooe gave his evidence in an honest and straightforward manner and the tribunal accept that he did not know that the applicant was working part-time.

The applicant complained that she had told the panel she had acted as Head of Department for one year but they had not made any note of this. The tribunal considered this point carefully and accept from the respondent's evidence that the applicant did not cover this point. It certainly was contained in her application to the school as it was in the successful candidate's, but we are satisfied that if she had made a point about it the interviewers, who had made good notes of salient points, would have noted this down. If she is making the allegation that all four interviewers failed to do this in order to keep her out of the job then we would be looking for some evidence of conspiracy between the interviewers. Quite simply this allegation cannot be substantiated from the evidence, either documentary or oral, that has been put before the tribunal.

Counsel for the applicant drew our attention to the procedure to be followed for an internal trawl and in particular the instruction that the Principal or a designated Vice Principal "shall be required to participate as a panel member without voting rights on all promotion panels". It is stated that "the Principal/Vice Principal shall be required to assess and mark candidates and make his and her ranking of the candidates known to the voting members". Counsel for the applicant alleged that this invalidated the promotion procedure. The tribunal finds that the Principal acted in the shortlisting to establish that the candidates were both well qualified and although he did not mark the candidates at the interview, in any event he would not have been entitled to vote. We do not find that this breach of procedure entitles us to draw an inference of discrimination against the respondent. If the breach caused any detriment it was for both candidates because although the applicant tried to downgrade the successful candidate's experience and qualifications the tribunal accepted that this Head of Department post had a number of facets to it as well as the teaching aspect and the successful candidate had demonstrated management ability and other skills. The lack of marking of an assessment for the candidates by the Acting Principal did not disadvantage the applicant in particular.

In considering all the evidence before us we are satisfied that the applicant was not less favourably treated on the grounds of her part-time status at the time of interview. It was a situation in which there were two very good equally matched candidates and following questions which were thorough in their content, the successful candidate performed slightly better than the applicant did and was accordingly appointed. The applicant has not established that she was less favourably treated on the ground of her part-time worker status and the claim is dismissed.

____________________________________

M P PRICE

Vice President

Date and place of hearing: 18 February 2004, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: