A male prison officer has failed in his claim that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform discriminated against him on grounds of sex in relation to promotion. Mr Patrick Jordan had claimed the fact that more than half the successful interviewees placed on a promotional panel were female, despite the fact that women comprised only 24 per cent of the applicants, was discriminatory.
Mr Jordan was one of 173 applicants for a "grade II" clerical post with the Department. Following a written examination and subsequent interview (of candidates who passed the written test), a promotional panel was formed which comprised 18 males and 13 females. Mr Jordan, who reached the interview stage, was not placed on the panel.
He claimed the fact that 54 per cent of the interviewees were female - as against 28 per cent male - meant he had suffered discrimination on grounds of his sex.
Mr Jordan's case was originally investigated by an equality officer of the Labour Court last November. He claimed he had been discriminated against under Section 3(2) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977.
The equality officer found the Department had not discriminated against him. He subsequently appealed this finding to the Labour Court - basing his case largely on statistical evidence.
Some 76 per cent of the applicants (132) were male. However, fewer than half the male applicants were interviewed - only 64, while 24 out of the 61 women who applied were called (about 60 per cent). But even more significant, he said, was the fact that only 18 males made it to the promotional panel (14 per cent of male applicants), as against 13 females (32 per cent).
Mr Jordan claimed in the course of his interview he was asked what he described as "discriminatory questions". These related to his "flexibility of movement between geographical locations" together with "his views on civilian staff" within the prison service.
He also objected to the fact that the interview board was comprised entirely of men and said the Department pursued a policy of increasing the number of females in all grades. In addition, he claimed he was unfairly marked by the interview board "under some identified assessment headings".
The Department's response was that Mr Jordan's case had been conducted fairly and objectively at all stages. It said the higher percentage of female applicants who succeeded reflected the relative merits of the candidates.
It denied the questions were discriminatory and that there was a policy of favouring female candidates. As to the composition of the interview board, the Department told the Labour Court "no female at the grade from which interview boards are selected" was available.
Mr Kevin Duffy, the Labour Court deputy chairman, found there was "no substance" in the prison officer's claim of discrimination. He accepted the competition was conducted fairly and that the result reflected the objective assessment of the candidates by the interview board. "No evidence of any discriminatory policy on the part of the Department was adduced by the claimant and none can be inferred from the facts of the case."
While the court did not consider it desirable, said Mr Duffy, "to constitute an interview entirely of one gender", there was nothing to suggest that an all-male panel would be a source of discrimination against a male candidate.