WRC case ‘a lesson’ on interview processes
An employment lawyer at Beauchamps says that a recent case before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) highlights “a critical lesson” for employers on the importance of conducting a fair and transparent interview process.
In , the WRC held that a school discriminated against a teacher based on family status while she was on maternity leave.
In on the firm’s website, partner Paul Gough writes that the WRC adjudicator awarded the claimant €85,000 as compensation.
Employee not notified
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, but no written policy supported appointing a candidate based on previous interview results.
Principal’s comment
At the end of a subsequent interview for a fixed-term role in the same school, the principal congratulated the teacher on the birth of her daughter, stating: “you really should enjoy every moment at home with the baby”.
The employee argued that this alerted the other members of the interview board to the fact of her maternity leave and, in so doing, treated her differently to all other candidates.
The WRC 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 adjudicator also found the subsequent interview process to be flawed, and that the principal’s comment amounted to differential treatment.
Assumptions
The Beauchamps lawyer says that it is crucial for employers to treat all candidates equally, regardless of whether they are on maternity or other forms of protected leave.
He adds that employers must ensure all eligible employees are notified of vacancies and given a genuine opportunity to be considered for vacant posts.
“Making assumptions about availability or interest based on family circumstances could expose organisations to discrimination claims,” Gough writes.
Personal comments
He adds that interview processes must be carefully conducted, and boards should use pre-arranged questions tied to the criteria set out in the job specification.
The Beauchamps lawyer also urges panel members to 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,” he concludes.