The primary teachers’ union, the INTO, has welcomed a compensation award of €54,000 for a teacher who was asked in a job interview about her views on
“homos”.
The ruling was made against the board of management of a Catholic primary school in Munster after it promoted a younger and less experienced candidate to the post of principal in 2011.
This followed an interview process which was found to have included an “unlawful” question about the complainant’s sexual orientation, as well as other breaches of procedure, the tribunal said.
The woman, who was assistant principal of the school, Catholic and heterosexual, said she was “floored” and became flustered during the interview when asked for her view on gay and lesbian teachers.
She said she was also asked about the INTO’s submission to the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism and specifically the trade union’s “ideas for religion”.
The tribunal found she was discriminated against on grounds of age, religion and sexual orientation.
The school had argued that the complainant simply did not perform well enough during the interview to be successful. But the chair of the interview board later conceded to the tribunal that the complainant was more qualified than the successful candidate.
The tribunal cited a number of irregularities, including the fact that two of the board members threw away their interview notes after the complaint had been lodged.
The woman also raised concerns about the lack of transparency in the criteria used, and submitted that a nun on the panel, identified only as “Sr B”, had asked inappropriate questions.
The complainant said she responded to the question about patronage by saying the school was already accommodating children of different faiths and none.
The nun was said to have followed up with the question: “What about the homos?”
The teacher replied that there were gay and lesbian teachers already teaching in schools. She told the tribunal these questions “unsettled and upset her”.
Credibility
The nun denied asking any such question or making any statement regarding sexual orientation. The school said the complainant’s sexual orientation was unknown to it.
However, in his ruling, equality officer Stephen Bonnlander, said: “I am satisfied that Sr B asked the question ‘What about the homos?’ as quoted by the complainant.”
Questioning the credibility of the nun’s evidence, he said “Sr B’s insistence on her lack of memory” over discussion of the INTO document “stood in marked contrast to her precise recollection on her interview questions relating to educational philosophy”.
Of the school’s position, Mr Bonnlander said: “It is precisely because the interview board did not know Ms A’s sexual orientation that I interpret Sr B’s question as an attempt to ascertain the complainant’s sexual orientation without asking the question directly.”
Sheila Nunan, general secretary of the INTO, which represented the teacher, said it clearly showed that, while there had been improvements in anti-discrimination policies and procedures, discrimination was still occurring.
“It is unacceptable that interviews for principal teacher positions are carried out less than professionally and in a discriminatory manner,” said Ms Nunan. She called for mandatory training for all persons involved in conducting such interviews.
