Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Paul Sheridan

An Post

Representatives

 Represented Himself

Represented by the Employee Relations Manager

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00069925-001

11/03/2025

The complainant has been employed by the respondent for 24 years and, at present, he is in the role of a postal sorter.  For two years, he was a member of a project team engaged in the installation of a new computer application system for outbound mail.

The role of process area manager is a promotional grade for sorters.  At the hearing, I was informed that around 40 staff are currently in this job, with more than 40 acting up in the role.  In August 2024, the respondent commenced a recruitment campaign to fill five process area manager vacancies and, along with 70 other employees, the complainant applied for the job.

The complainant and 35 others were shortlisted for interview and, on October 24th 2024, he attended for an interview.  Five candidates were offered positions and three were placed on a panel for future vacancies.  The complainant wasn’t offered a role and he wasn’t placed on the reserve panel.  He claims that his interview was cut short and that he was prevented from discussing his experience on the computer applications project.  His position is that his experience on the project was evidence of the competencies required for the role which he accumulated over 24 years.  He claims that the restriction on subjects to discuss at the interview wasn’t applied to all the candidates with the result that the interview was dismissive, prejudicial and undermining.  He claims that he was denied the opportunity to present his qualifications, knowledge and experience.  As a result, the complainant’s case is that he was treated unfairly and unequally due to his age.

In a submission provided by the respondent, I was informed that the five candidates selected for the vacancies and the three who were placed on the panel included individuals who were younger and older than the complainant.  The employer said that the recruitment process was transparent and that candidates with the top five scores were selected.  Age was not a factor in the selection of the successful candidates and, for this reason, the respondent submitted that there is no basis to the complainant’s case that he was discriminated against.

In a submission he provided in advance of the hearing, the complainant said that when he arrived at the scheduled interview time on October 24th 2024, he was left waiting for 10 minutes, with the result that the time available for his interview was cut short.  He said that he was informed by a member of the interview panel that he was not required to discuss the project that he was currently involved in.  He said that the project required reverse engineering of software and hardware, testing and trouble-shooting software and hardware and collaboration with stakeholders such as the director of international mails, software engineers, IT specialists, production managers, project managers, Six Sigma lean coordinators, international administrators and national and international operational users.

It is the complainant’s position that the restriction on discussing the project was not imposed on all the candidates, and this infers that he was denied a fair opportunity to present his knowledge, qualifications and experience.  He said that this “ties directly” to his complaint of discrimination.

The complainant argued that the inclusion of older candidates in the group of successful candidates for the job may seem to show that the respondent does not directly discriminate against older people, but it does not automatically eliminate the possibility that the complainant was unfairly and unequally treated due to his age.  The question is whether the respondent has applied fair and equal treatment to all the candidates, regardless of their age.  The complainant submitted that this is not the case.

Considering the question of the burden of proof, the complainant said that the facts he has set out are sufficient to raise an inference of discriminatory treatment and the burden has shifted to the respondent to provide a cogent, non-discriminatory explanation.

Evidence of the Complainant

When he was called into the interview at 2.30pm, 10 minutes after the scheduled start time, the complainant said that the floor operations manager, Mr Tiedt, apologised for keeping him waiting and said that they would need to finish at 3.00pm.  He said that Mr Tiedt told him that he was aware of his involvement in the project and that this didn’t have to be brought up at the interview.  The complainant said that he was involved in the project because of his experience with outbound international mail and his experience on a previous system.  He said that only three people participated on the project, one of whom is retired.

The complainant said that he was annoyed that the interview had to be rushed and he said that it “didn’t go great.” 

In response to the employer’s submission that candidates who were older than the complainant were selected for the process manager positions, the complainant said that he is trying to work out why he didn’t get the same fair treatment as other candidates.  He said that he wasn’t allotted the same amount of time at the interview and he was discouraged from speaking about his experience on the project.

In her submission for the respondent, Ms Cullen acknowledged the complainant’s long service in the organisation.  She said however, that the candidates who were selected for the process area manager positions were selected at the end of a competitive process and based on merit.  Of the five candidates selected to fill the roles, one is older than the complainant. 

Ms Cullen said that age was not a determination in the selection of candidates and that the complainant simply didn’t meet the competency scoring threshold.

The HR business partner, Mr Moore said that the 36 candidates who were selected for interview all had the skills and knowledge criteria required.  He said that many were already acting up in the job.  He said that not everyone was asked the same questions at the interview and that the notes of the interviews are available. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, and, having listened to the respondent’s managers, the complainant conceded that he was not discriminated against on the ground of his age.  His position is that his interview was rushed and that he didn’t get an opportunity to properly describe his experience and skills, which would have been demonstrated if he had been able to talk about the project he had been involved in for two years.

I note from the respondent’s submission that the complainant was offered an opportunity to get feedback after the interview, but that he didn’t avail of this offer.  This may have provided him with a chance to give some feedback to the HR business partner regarding his sense that he was treated unfairly.  He would also have been given his scores and he would have been able to see where his scores were low and perhaps an explanation about what was needed to do better.

Considering the issue of the burden of proof which is set out at s.85A of the Employment Equality Act 1998, the onus is on a complainant to set out facts that lead to a presumption that the treatment complained about is discriminatory.  In its decision in Melbury Developments Limited v Arturs Valpeters[1], the Labour Court expanded on what is required to establish the initial proof that discrimination has occurred:

“This requires that the complainant must first establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred.  What those facts are will vary from case to case and there is no closed category of facts which can be relied upon.  All that is required is that they be of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination.  However, they must be established as facts on credible evidence.  Mere speculations or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn.  Section 85A places the burden of proof fairly and squarely on the Complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exceptions to that evidential rule.”

From this, it is apparent that, while the burden of proof resting on a complainant in the first instance simply requires the facts to raise an inference of discrimination, the facts presented by the complainant in this case must be “of sufficient significance” to lead me to conclude that the respondent was biased in favour of younger candidates.  Clearly, the fact that one of the successful candidates was older than the complainant means that this is not the case.  I listened to the complainant’s evidence and I accept his sense that he didn’t get a fair chance to set out his experience at the interview on October 24th 2024.  This is not adequate to lead me to presume that he was treated less favourably compared to any other candidate because of his age.

Conclusion

Having examined the facts set out at the hearing by the complainant, it is my view that, in line with the authority of the Labour Court, the complainant has not shown that, on the balance of probabilities, he was discriminated against on the ground of his age.  For this reason, the burden of proving the absence of discrimination does not shift to the respondent.

As I have concluded that the complainant has not established the primary facts which show that he was discriminated against on the ground of age, I have decided that this complaint is not well founded.

Discrimination, age ground, burden of proof