Lecturer compensated a third time for being victimised by Waterford IT
The new €25,000 victimisation compensation to Kathleen Moore Walsh now brings to a total of €45,000 Waterford Institute of Technology (pictured) has been ordered to pay the US national in victimisation compensation since 2004. File photo: Denis Minihane.
A third-level institute has been ordered for a third time by a state employment watchdog to pay victimisation compensation to the same law lecturer.
The new €25,000 victimisation compensation to Kathleen Moore Walsh now brings to a total of €45,000 Waterford Institute of Technology (WIT) has been ordered to pay the US national in victimisation compensation since 2004.
In reaching the decision ordering WIT to make the €25,000 award under the Employment Equality Act, Workplace Relations Commission Adjudicator Breiffni O’Neill noted that the previous two awards “do not appear to have had the desired objective of being dissuasive” as WIT lecturer, Ms Moore Walsh “has once again been victimised”.
After reviewing evidence heard over three days in the case, Mr O’Neill found that Ms Moore Walsh was victimised when WIT failed to re-run a 2013 interview process it repeatedly committed to re-running as a direct result of Ms Moore Walsh having taken proceedings against WIT.
In 2013, Ms Moore Walsh was unsuccessful at interview for the post of Assistant Head at WIT’s Dept of Humanities. Previously in 2004, an Equality Officer ordered WIT to pay Ms Moore Walsh €15,000 compensation for victimisation and this was reduced to €5,000 on appeal to the Labour Court.
Two years later in 2006, an Equality Officer ordered WIT to pay Ms Moore Walsh €15,000 concerning a separate successful victimisation claim and this award was not appealed to the Labour Court.
Ms Moore Walsh lost out in the 2013 interview process to a male colleague and the President of WIT agreed to appoint an external investigator of the process and put the appointment on hold after Ms Moore Walsh raised concerns that the chair of the interview panel had previously given evidence against her at a Labour Court hearing.
The external investigation found that the interview panel chair had mentioned Ms Moore Walsh’s previous claims against WIT to the interview board before the interview started.
The investigation also found that the interview chair ought not to have been assigned to an interview board where Ms Moore Walsh was a candidate, given the prior existence of a perception of bias and that Ms Moore Walsh had been adversely impacted by her experience at interview.
WIT’s then HR Manager confirmed to Ms Moore Walsh that WIT would stage a fresh interview process in response to the findings made by the external investigation.
Ms Moore Walsh submitted a fresh victimisation complaint arising from the 2013 interview process to the Equality Tribunal which found in November 2016 that Ms Moore Walsh was victimised.
However, this ruling was subsequently set aside by the Labour Court in December 2017 after it concluded that the 2013 process was outside the scope of the six-month period that it could review. In 2018, WIT then proceeded to appoint the successful male candidate from the 2013 interview process.
In his findings, Mr O’Neill found that Ms Moore Walsh was subjected to adverse treatment by WIT when they failed to re-run the 2013 interview process despite an external report, commissioned by themselves, recommending that they do so.
Mr O’Neill also found that the decision not to re-run the 2013 interview process, and the decision to instead appoint the successful candidate from that process, was in reaction to Ms Moore Walsh having taken legal proceedings.Â
Mr O’Neill stated that WIT had made the 2018 appointment from the impugned interview process despite informing Ms Moore Walsh on numerous occasions that they would re-run it and obtaining permission from the Department of Education in 2014 to do so.
Mr O’Neill also pointed out that WIT had told the Labour Court in 2017 that it proposed to re-run the 2013 competition process. Mr O’Neill has also ordered WIT to instigate a binding appeal mechanism for interview candidates who wish to appeal the outcome of an interview process.
He has also ordered WIT to communicate the identities of those on every interview panel to all candidates involved in a selection process at least three days in advance of the interview taking place. Ms Moore Walsh has been employed as a lecturer with WIT since 31 October 1997 and earns a monthly salary of €7,054.
Ms Moore Walsh told the WRC that the successful male candidate was appointed five-and-a-half years after from an interview process that was found to have been tainted by her victimisation and was heavily criticised in an independent report commissioned by WIT itself.
Represented by Adrian Twomey, Jacob and Twomey Solicitors, Ms Moore Walsh stated that no consideration was ever given to any skills, experience or qualifications that any of the candidates had accrued in the intervening period and no new candidates were considered.
Ms Moore Walsh stated that it was astonishing that WIT would rely on the Labour Court’s 2017 determination to justify ignoring the external investigator’s report and failing to abide by its own undertakings to her.
At the WRC, WIT stated that Ms Moore Walsh had challenged a process concerning a promotional vacancy both internally and externally, and ultimately, the matter was resolved by the Labour Court December 2017 ruling.
WIT stated that that was the end of the matter and it was entitled thereafter to implement the decision that had originally been made but which had been put on hold for very many years by reason of Ms Moore Walsh’s proceedings.
WIT stated that it relies on the decision of the Labour Court and submitted that the new WRC case by Ms Moore Walsh is an attempt by Ms Moore Walsh to, in effect, re-litigate a case in which she has been unsuccessful.
WIT added that this is an abuse of process and should be dismissed on the basis that the complaint does not disclose a prima facie case, and secondly, the application is without merit.
Ms O’Neill did not uphold Ms Moore Walsh’s separate discrimination claim on the grounds of gender.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
