Ms Mary Walsh, Ms Kathleen Jackson and Ms Helen Acton (Represented by A.S.T.I.) vs Board of Management, Ballinrobe Community School (Represented by I.B.E.C.)
The dispute concerns a complaint that the Board of Management, Ballinrobe Community School (the School) discriminated against Ms Mary Walsh, Ms Kathleen Jackson and Ms Helen Acton (the Complainants) on the grounds of their gender contrary to the provisions of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 in the conduct of competitions to appoint an Assistant Principal at the School. The complainants also allege that they were the subject of victimisation within the meaning of Section 74 of the 1998 Act on the part of the School for having in good faith referred complaints to the Director of Equality Investigations (the Director).
2.1 The complainants were employed as teachers at the Ballinrobe Community School at the time of the complaints and applied for the Assistant Principal post when notice of the vacancy was posted on the staff notice board at the School in October, 2000. The complainants attended for interview however none of them were successful and a male candidate was appointed. Reference is also made in the complaint to a competition for a temporary Assistant Principal position held in 1999 in which the complainants state they were unsuccessful in similar circumstances. The respondent argues that insofar as the complaints concern the 1999 competition they are out of time. The complainants contend that they all possess superior qualifications and experience to that of the appointee and allege that the reason why they were unsuccessful in the competition is that they are women. The complainants allege that they were subjected to victimisation by the School when they referred their complaints to the Director.
2.2 The ASTI referred complaints to the Director on behalf of the complainants on 4th May, 2001. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of the 1998 Act, the Director delegated the case to Raymund Walsh, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Act. Submissions were sought from both parties and a hearing of the complaint was held on 27th November, 2002. Having regard to matters raised at that hearing and in subsequent submissions, a further hearing was held on 26th June, 2003. Both sides, as requested by the Equality Officer at the second hearing, furnished additional material regarding staffing complements at the school in July, 2003 and further correspondence ensued up to September, 2003.
3. SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMANT'S CASE
3.1 Ballinrobe Community School was established in 1990 by the amalgamation of three existing schools i.e. the Christian Brothers School, the Vocational School and the Convent of Mercy School. The three complainants were formerly teachers with the Convent of Mercy School and had various lengths of service with the Convent prior to the amalgamation. This service is taken into account in any promotional competitions at the new Community School. The complainants applied for a temporary Assistant Principal post in 1999 and a permanent post in 2000 and were unsuccessful on both occasions when the same male candidate was successful. The complainants state that they have been discriminated against on grounds of their gender and victimised for having referred their complaints to the Director of Equality Investigations.
3.2 The ASTI in its submissions sets out the background to the complaints and refers to the two recent unsuccessful attempts (the subject of the present complaints) on the part of the complainants to secure Assistant Principal posts despite having successfully appealed the competition results through an arbitrator in 1999 and 2000. The ASTI states that the vast majority of teachers can expect to reach Assistant Principal level by the time they retire having previously held a Special Duties Post. Each of the complainants held a Special Duties Post at the time of the complaint.
3.3 The ASTI outlines the career history of each of the complainants and their experiences in each of the disputed competitions. The ASTI by way of background information makes several references to incidents and verbal exchanges involving the complainants and school management in recent years in support of their case that there existed at the school a culture of discrimination and victimisation against female teachers. In one instance in 1998 at a staff meeting Ms Jackson left the meeting in distress following what the ASTI describes as bullying and intimidation. While she was outside the Principal stated that he would prefer "ten men to one woman any day". He was asked to apologise and did so at a subsequent meeting. Both the offending remark and the apology are recorded in the minutes of the meetings. The qualifications and experience of the complainants are summarised below.
Ms Kathleen Jackson
20 years teaching experience having served 9 years with the Convent of Mercy and 11 years at the Community School. She holds a BSc, Hdip in Ed and is a Member of the Institute of Biology of Ireland.
Ms Helen Acton
22 years teaching experience in Ballinrobe having served 11 years with the Convent of Mercy and 11 years at the Community School (two year career break spent teaching maths in the USA) . She holds a BA in History and Economics, and MA and H.Dip Ed
Ms Marian Walsh
22 years teaching experience having served 11 years with the Convent of Mercy and 11 years at the Community School. She was appointed to a temporary Assistant Principal post in 1994 for a period of 4 months. She holds a BA and H.Dip Ed and a diploma in Shorthand Typing.
Additional information was provided by the ASTI in relation to each complainant describing their professional record and contribution to the school. The ASTI compares the complainants' qualifications with those of the appointee who, having trained as a maintenance fitter then took a Bachelor of Technology course in 1988. He had 12 years teaching experience at the time of the competition. The ASTI argues that the Bachelor of Technology course is equivalent to a diploma course and states that the appointee himself refers to the qualification on his application form as a diploma (pass). However evidence was given that the course is recognised by the Department of Education and Science as a degree course. The ASTI refers the Equality Officer to Crowley v County Cork VEC (DEC-E-2000/10) where the Equality Officer, in finding in favour of the complainant, concluded that 'the claimant was at least equally involved in the school as the successful candidate'. She also found that the claimant 'given her educational qualifications, service, experience and involvement in the school would have been capable of meeting the assessment criteria of the interview board'.
3.4 The ASTI argues that promotion competitions at the school take place against a background of grooming of particular candidates, an anti-woman culture and intimidation. The ASTI states that the appointee in the most recent disputed competition was made LCA (Leaving Certificate Applied) co-ordinator, was put in charge of Special Needs Students and was chosen to attend special in-service training, all without the three female complainants having had an opportunity to apply, all of which gave the appointee an unfair advantage at interview.
3.5 The three complainants applied for the temporary Assistant Principal post in 1999 and were unsuccessful while a male candidate was successful. They appealed the outcome of that competition through the appeals procedure and the arbitrator found that the selection committee erroneously awarded higher marks to the successful male candidate in relation to service in a post of responsibility as against the lower marks awarded to each of the complainants. The ASTI argues that it was no coincidence that the selection committee made the same error in relation to each of the female complainants. The ASTI also points to the fact that a number of members of the first interview panel which was successfully appealed by the complainants, were also members of the more recent competition in 2000 when the Assistant Principal post (then occupied by the male candidate on a temporary basis) was made into a permanent post. The complainants again successfully appealed the outcome of this competition through the appeals procedure. The ASTI refers to the arbitrator's conclusion that the same successful candidate was given an unfair advantage in the second competition for the permanent post when he was credited with marks for experience gained in a temporary capacity given that his appointment to that position arose from a competition which itself was deemed unfair by an arbitrator.
3.6 The ASTI states that 55% of staff at the school are female however in the period 1998 to 2000 five out of six appointments to Posts of Responsibility were to males. The ASTI states that on amalgamation in 1990 Posts of Responsibility were evenly balanced between male and female teachers at 9 male and 10 female post holders. At the time of the complaints there were 23 such posts, 14 of which were held by males while the number of female post holders had dropped to 9. The marks recorded by the interview panel, which were not made available to the ASTI when it was preparing its initial submission on the complaints, were included in the IBEC submission on behalf of the respondent and these are given in Appendix 1. The ASTI states that the marks recorded 'beggar belief' and do not reflect the complainants extensive experience, contribution to the school and capacity to meet the future needs of the school. The ASTI points out that in some instances the appointee's score under particular headings exceeds the combined scores of two female candidates. Details were given of the complainants' extensive experience including Special Duties Teacher posts (B Posts) held by all three. ASTI, referring to the respondent's submission, states that the appointee was the only candidate directly questioned in relation to the work area in which the vacancy arose i.e. Examination Secretary.
3.7 The ASTI refers to certain incidents where it alleges that the complainants were subjected to victimisation because of their referral of complaints of discrimination to the Director. At a general staff meeting held on 8th February, 2002 the ASTI allege that the Principal allowed a discussion to develop over a period of one hour regarding promotion posts where the complainants, while not directly referred to by name, were clearly the subject of remarks regarding unsuccessful candidates who were taking complaints to other fora and everyone present knew who was being referred to. The complainants felt intimidated and embarrassed at the meeting. The ASTI also refers to a letter which it had received from the Secretary to the Board of Management dated 12th September, 2001 stating that the vacant Assistant Principal position would not be filled until after the present investigation had concluded. Eight months later the Board reversed its position arguing that the Secretary's letter was in error. The ASTI states that the Board's position is evidence of its contempt for the process.
4. SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT'S CASE
4.1 The respondent rejects the allegation that the complainant's were discriminated against on the grounds of their gender or victimised for having referred complaints to the Director. The respondent argues that any complaint in relation to the competition of 4th March, 1999 is not validly before the Equality Officer since the 1998 Act did not become operational until 18th October, 1999 and the complaints were referred under that Act on 4th May, 2001. In relation to the competition of November, 2000 the respondent furnished details of the composition of the interview board, the selection criteria and the marking system used. The interview board was made up of three males and two females with a female in the chair. The respondent states that marks were awarded under the following headings (1) capacity of the applicant to meet the needs of the school and the case made at interview (2) Service to the school and (3) experience of a professional nature in the field of education and involvement in the school. The marks available under the above headings were 50, 30 and 20 respectively. Criteria (1) and (3) were further subdivided into a number of subcategories which are outlined in the marking sheet in Appendix 1.
4.2 The respondent in its submission gave a summary of each complainant's interview and compared their performance at interview with that of the successful candidate. The respondent states that the successful candidate outperformed all three complainants to a varying degree under criterion (1). All of the complainants had longer service than the successful candidate and therefore received higher marks under heading (2). In relation to criterion (3), only one of the complainants scored higher than the successful candidate in relation to any of the eight factors used.
4.3 The respondent states that the complainants cannot argue that all three lost out financially as a result of the outcome of the competition as only one appointment was made. The respondent rejects the contention that there exists at the school a background of grooming of particular candidates, an anti-woman culture or intimidation in the school. The respondent rejects the suggestion that Ms Jackson was asked at interview "how do you see the male role in society ?" and states that Ms Jackson was asked about the move from teaching girls only (a reference to her previous position at the convent school) compared to teaching at a mixed school. The respondent states that she was also asked "are boys a threatened species ?", a reference to a newspaper article at the time concerning the under performance of boys at Junior and Leaving Certificate exams.
4.4 The respondent states that an applicant's academic qualifications were not a factor in evaluating candidates and that all four applicants were fully qualified teachers. The respondent rejects the statistical argument put forward by the complainants that males have been more successful than female candidates in applying for promotion at the school and states that females are well represented at Assistant Principal level at the school. The respondent states that the findings of the Arbitrators in relation to the competitions for temporary Assistant Principal and Assistant Principal have no bearing on the case before the Equality Officer as their remit did not extend to the investigation of gender discrimination in the selection process.
4.5 With regard to the alleged victimisation, the respondent rejects the allegation that subsequent to the referral of the complaints to the Director, the Principal initiated an open discussion about promotion posts and dissatisfaction among certain teachers at a staff meeting in order to embarrass and isolate the complainants on front of other staff. At the second hearing, the purpose of which was principally to deal with the allegation of victimisation, the respondent called a number of witnesses who were present at the general meeting, to give evidence to the effect that the complainants were not the subject of victimisation at the meeting. They were two other female teachers, a male teacher who was formerly principal of the Vocational School and the school chaplain. Their evidence is referred to at paragraph 5.9 below.
5. CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
5.1 The matters for consideration is whether or not the respondent (a) discriminated against the complainants on the gender ground in terms of Section 6(2)(a) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and contrary to Section 8 of that Act and (b) victimised the complainants within the meaning of Section 74 of the Act for having referred complaints to the Director. In making my decision I have taken into account all of the evidence, both written and oral, made to me by the parties to the case.
5.2 I will firstly address the admissibility of the complaints insofar as they concern the competition for the temporary Assistant Principal post held in March, 1999 having regard to the fact that the complaints were not referred to the Director until May, 2001. Section 106 of the 1998 Act (as amended) makes certain transitional provisions regarding claims in relation to conduct both before and after the commencement of the 1998 Act. Section 106 (3) states :
"(3) A claim for redress to which this section applies shall-
(a) as regards the substance of the claim-
(i) if or in so far as the claim relates to conduct before the commencement date, be dealt with as if the enactment concerned had not been repealed, and
(ii) in so far as it may relate to conduct after that date, be dealt with under this Act, and
(b) in all other respects, be dealt with as if it were a claim under section 77."
The 1999 competition took place more than six months before the commencement of the 1998 Act and the repeal of the Employment Equality Act, 1977 on 18th October, 1999. Had a complaint in relation to that competition been referred to the Labour Court for example on 1st October, 1999 it would have fallen outside the six month time limit then in force under the 1977 Act. While Section 77(6)(6) of the 1998 Act provides that a complaint must be referred with 6 months of the occurrence or, as the case may require, the most recent occurrence, I am of the view that the competition of 1999 falls within the scope of Section 106(3)(a)(i) above and is therefore out of time. I consider that I have no jurisdiction to make any findings in relation to the 1999 competition. The complaint validly before me concerns the competition of November, 2000 and alleged victimisation relating to the referral of the complaint. I am of the view however that the interviews of 13th November, 2000 cannot be considered in isolation and I will be considering whether factors preceding the interviews were relevant to the outcome of the selection process.
5.3 Having regard to the European Communities (Burden of Proof in Gender Discrimination Cases) Regulations, 2001 (SI 337 of 2001), the onus in the first instance is for the complainants to present factual evidence from which it may be presumed that discrimination has taken place. I am satisfied that where an unsuccessful female complainant in a competition demonstrates that she meets the advertised requirements for a position, has at least similar or superior qualifications and has considerably longer satisfactory service compared to a successful male candidate a prima facie case of discrimination has been established and the burden of proof must shift to the respondent to show that there were reasons unrelated to gender for the outcome. I have examined in detail the qualifications and experience of each of the complainants compared with those of the appointee and I have arrived at the conclusion that the academic backgrounds and teaching experience of the complainants are sufficient to give rise to an inference of discrimination and to shift the burden of proof in this case and that it is therefore necessary for the respondent to demonstrate that there were reasons other than gender for the decision to appoint the successful male candidate.
5.4 The disputed competition followed an earlier competition, the outcome of which was also disputed by the complainants. Both competitions were investigated by an independent arbitrator under established appeals procedures and on each occasion the arbitrator found that the conduct of the competitions was unsatisfactory. Some members of the first interview board also sat on the second interview board, including the chairperson of the second interview board and the same successful candidate has emerged from both competitions. It was not the role of the arbitrators to examine the reason for any procedural shortcomings however it is the ASTI contention that these occurrences are part of a chain of events which are symptomatic of the school's desire to appoint a particular male candidate. I consider that in examining the background to the complaints before me I cannot ignore the history of successful appeals to an Arbitrator where on each occasion the successful candidate was the sole male applicant while the three unsuccessful candidates were females with equal if not considerably higher academic qualifications and considerably longer teaching experience. I note that the only redress offered through the appeals system is that the competition be run again with perhaps the same or largely similar interview board and, as occurred in this case, the same outcome. I consider it unlikely that the two religious sisters who participated in the interview board, including the chairperson, would knowingly contrive to favour the male candidate for reasons related to his gender. I am nevertheless of the opinion that the male candidate was the favoured candidate before the interviews commenced and that he arrived at this position by virtue of his gender.
5.5 The Ballinrobe Community School was formed in 1990 by the amalgamation of three schools i.e. the Convent School, the Christian Brothers School boys school and the Vocational School. The staffing position on amalgamation shows that the convent school teachers, who were predominantly female, constituted the largest single group (15 female and 2 male teachers out of a total of 38) and it followed that on amalgamation female teachers would occupy a greater number of posts of responsibility i.e. 11 female to 7 male. Although the total number of male and female teachers remained virtually unchanged, the breakdown for posts of responsibility had become 12 female and 10 male by 2001. The number of male teachers in posts of responsibility had increased at a measurably higher rate than the number of female teachers in posts of responsibility over the same period. I would regard the numbers involved to be too small as to draw any significant statistical inference from them but a trend is nevertheless in evidence.
5.6 The school has provided a breakdown of the marks awarded to each candidate under the various criteria (Appendix 1). Marks for service are calculated on the basis of a formula laid down by the Department and show that each of the complainants was awarded about twice the mark of the appointee in respect of service. The successful candidate scored higher than each of the complainants on all five of the headings which were subjectively assessed by the interview board under 'School Needs/ Interview'. The school contends that these markings reflect the quality of his answers to questions asked at interview. Having regard to the qualifications and experience of the four candidates and to the articulation and presentation of the complainants' written applications when viewed alongside that of the appointee, I cannot understand how this could be the case under such a diverse range of headings for all three complainants. Since the service mark is derived from a mathematical formula it is instructive to remove this mark from the totals and compare the performance of the candidates solely in relation to marks awarded by the interview board. The table below summarises the position.
|Marks Available||Appointee||Ms Acton||Ms Jackson||Ms Walsh|
The school did not keep detailed notes of the individual interviews and there was no record of how marks were awarded by the panel members however at the hearing the members of the interview board vehemently defended the marks and stated that the marks awarded reflected the successful candidate's performance at interview. I am however guided here by the determination of the Labour Court in South Eastern Health Board and Brigid Burke1 where the Court stated in relation to the allocation of the greater amount of marks at interview to subjective assessment :
"Where in a case such as this the interview committee met in advance, looked at the two curriculum vitae, then decided to set the marking criteria, allocated a substantial number of marks for what can be regarded as the subjective elements of the assessment, and then failed to retain any notes as to how they arrived at that assessment, it would be extremely difficult for them to discharge the onus of proof placed upon them. In this case, the respondent has not discharged that onus".
While the interview board in this case were operating to a broad marking structure laid down by the Department, I can find no correlation between the undocumented marks awarded by the interview board and the information before me in terms of the applicants' qualifications, experience and contribution to the school. Having regard to the recent trend in the level of female representation in posts of responsibility I note also in the above Labour Court determination its finding that:
"The Court is sustained in this finding by the fact that there is such a substantial statistical imbalance between the number of male and female nurses at entry-level grade and those occupying management positions. It has consistently been held by the European Court of Justice, particularly in R V Secretary of State for Employment ex parte Seymour-Smith 1999 IRLR 253, that statistical anomalies of this type may constitute evidence of apparent sex discrimination unless justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination based on sex. No such justification has been advanced by the respondents in this case."
5.7 The complainants, in relation to the alleged victimisation complaint, refer to the Principal's role in the alleged victimisation. I noted at the hearings, in the course of some exchanges between the parties, that the Principal became loud and domineering in his manner towards the complainants. I formed the opinion that he was a dominant and influential figure at the school. I note that he is on record as having said that he would prefer "ten men to one woman any day" and that it was only when pressed some time later that he apologised for the remark. I find it difficult to accept that he was simply a note taker on the interview board as suggested by the respondent and I believe his presence could have been highly influential. Evidence was given that the earlier Arbitrator's report was discussed by the panel prior to the interviews. I am of the opinion that the interviews started against a background where the three female complainants were regarded as disaffected former convent school candidates from an earlier competition, who were dissatisfied with school management with regard to senior appointments and that this was common knowledge among the interview panel. I believe the candidates themselves entered the competition with this weight on their shoulders and that in all probability the panel members were unable to objectively assess the candidates against this background. It was evident at the hearing that the chairperson and other members of the interview board who had sat on the previous interview board, were uncomfortable with the fact that both rounds of interviews were the subject of appeals . I note that the minutes of the interview board state that each candidate was to be asked at the end of their interview if 'he/she is satisfied with the interview'. This in itself I believe is indicative of the atmosphere that pervaded the process and stems from the fact that the previous competition was the subject of appeals. A candidate who is unhappy with an interview is in no position to take the matter up with the interview board while the interview board is sitting in judgement on their application and the inclusion of the question in those terms on the list of questions to be asked could be construed as an 'insurance policy' or a subliminal attempt to get a candidate to compromise any future appeal if, in their anxiety to end the process, they should answer 'yes' to this question. The chairperson stated at the hearing that Ms Acton 'did herself no favours' when asked at the end of her interview had she anything she wished to ask or say. Ms Acton took the opportunity to say that she was looking for fair treatment in the light of the background to the competition. Ms Acton, who holds an honours primary degree, an honours Higher Diploma in Education and an honours Masters Degree, received 39% of the marks available at interview as against the 89% awarded to the appointee who holds a pass Primary Degree. Another member of the interview panel stated that he 'took issue' with some of the Arbitrator's findings. Some members of the interview board spoke of a general reluctance of qualified persons to sit on interview panels at the school because of the atmosphere at the school.
5.8 I referred above to the academic achievements of the successful candidate compared to that of the complainants. I noted that no additional credit was awarded for additional qualifications such as an honours primary degree or a masters degree. I noted in particular a comment by the respondent at the hearing that once a candidate met the minimum requirements for the competition 'academic qualifications didn't count'. Coming from the management of an educational establishment I found this comment most surprising. When I asked if this message was communicated to students at the school I received no reply.
5.9 I will now address the allegation that the complainants were victimised for having referred complaints to the Director of Equality Investigations. The union refers to a general staff meeting held on 25th January, 2002 (see 3.7 above) and an open discussion which took place concerning promotion posts. The respondent accepts that staff relations were discussed at the meeting stating that this was a follow on to an earlier staff development workshop but denies that there was any deliberate or premeditated effort to embarrass the complainants in front of their colleagues. Other teachers who were present at the meeting and who gave evidence did not form the impression that the complainants were being singled out for adverse comment and were not aware of any outward signs of upset on the part of the complainants. I do not doubt that the complainants were unhappy with the nature of the discussion in relation to promotion posts however I formed the opinion that the atmosphere at the school was such that any general meeting at which staffing was discussed could potentially generate tension.
5.10 The ASTI also refers to the respondent's decision to proceed with an appointment to the disputed post as soon as the Minister for Education and Science had made a determination in relation to the most recent arbitrator's report. The Principal had stated in correspondence on 12th September, 2001 that the Board of Management had decided not to make any appointment pending the outcome of this Equality Officer's investigation but subsequently wrote to the union on 8th May, 2002 to say that he had misinterpreted the Board of Management's decision and that an appointment would be made as soon as the Minister's determination had been received. The ASTI states that this was further evidence of the respondent's victimisation of the complainants. I would not expect a respondent to put an essential appointment on hold pending the outcome of an Equality Officer's investigation. It is a matter for the respondent to weigh up the possible consequences of proceeding with an appointment in circumstances where an Equality Officer may find in favour of a complainant and order a particular course of redress. I do not in any event regard the Board of Management's decision in this case to proceed with the appointment as evidence of victimisation of the complainants. I have concluded therefore that the respondent did not victimise the complainants for having referred complaints to the Director.
5.11 I have concluded from the above that all three complainants suffered discriminatory treatment as a result of the selection process and have suffered stress in referring their complaints to Director. I will award redress by way of compensation in the case of all three complainants. As only one post was to be filled from the disputed competition only one complainant could be deemed to have lost out by not being appointed. Having regard to my conclusions above in relation to the conduct of the interview board, a question remains as to whether or not the order given by the interview panel is objectively fair as between the complainants. However it is the only ranking available to me and it is not my function to substitute my judgment of their respective qualifications for that of the interview board. As Ms Walsh was ranked the highest of the three complainants I will order that Ms Walsh be appointed to the position of Assistant Principal with effect from the date of the appointment of the successful candidate following the competition of November, 2000.
6.1 (a) On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the Board of Management, Ballinrobe Community School did discriminate against the complainants on the gender ground in terms of Section 6(2)(a) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and contrary to the provisions of Section 8 of that Act in the conduct of the competition to appoint an Assistant Principal in November, 2000.
(b) I find that the respondent did not victimise the complainants within the meaning of ection 74 of the 1998 Act.
(c) I order that the respondent pay to each of the complainants compensation for distress suffered in the amount of € 10,000 to each complainant. The parties are referred to the provisions of Section 7 of the Finance Act, 2004 which exempts from income tax, certain awards unrelated to pay made on or after 4th February, 2004, in respect of the infringement of an employee's statutory rights. The above awards are compensation for the effects of breach of the complainants' rights under the 1998 Act including the distress caused and do not include any element of lost income.
(d) I order that Ms Walsh be appointed to the position of Assistant Principal with effect from the date of appointment of the successful candidate in the competition of November, 2000 and paid arrears of salary and other related benefits for the intervening period.
(e) Having regard to my comments at 5.7 above in relation to the apparent practice of interview boards to ask candidates if they were satisfied with their interviews, I recommend that the Department of Education and Science, which sets out the rules for the conduct of promotion competitions in Community and other schools, examine the extent of the practice and consider its appropriateness.
28 June, 2004
1 South Eastern Health Board and Brigid Burke, Labour Court, EDA041, 12th January, 2004