[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> McKee v The Queen's University of Belfast [2004] NIIT 994_00 (16 February 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2004/994_00.html Cite as: [2004] NIIT 994_, [2004] NIIT 994_00

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 00994/00

APPLICANT: Dr V McKee

RESPONDENT: The Queen's University of Belfast

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that this application is dismissed.

Appearances:

The applicant appeared in person.

The respondent was represented by Mr C Hamill, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Elliott Duffy Garrett, Solicitors.

1. The respondent advertised for a second chair in Inorganic Chemistry – closing dated 2 July 1999. The advertisement stipulated that candidates –

(a) must have an international reputation with any branch of Inorganic Chemistry with significant published papers and research grants; and

(b) must have the ability to develop a significant research group and to provide leadership in research and teaching in the general area of Inorganic Chemistry.

2. The particulars specified that the job purpose was to provide leadership in both research and teaching in Inorganic Chemistry. It further provided that the main duties of the post inter alia were to –

(a) develop a research programme of international standing in Inorganic Chemistry;

(b) obtain significant research funding;

(c) publish widely in high quality journals;

(d) provide leadership in the development of research and teaching in Inorganic Chemistry within this school.

3. The employee specification under relevant experience required –

(a) experience of teaching at under-graduate level;

(b) an established independent research programme in Inorganic Chemistry;

(c) evidence/ability to attract research grant funding; and

(d) high quality publications.

4. The applicant applied on 1 July 1999 and there were two other applicants. The Head of School, allegedly without considering those application forms, decided to readvertise the post. The applicant was not told and on 4 October 1999 wrote to Personnel in an effort to discover what was happening. By letter dated 13 October 1999, the Personnel Office informed the applicant that it had been decided to readvertise and that her application would be considered along with any other received.
5. The applicant served an SD74 Questionnaire upon the respondent on 2 June 2000. Responses were provided by the respondent on 9 August 2001. It was specified therein that the criteria used on the selection process (November 1999) were –

(a) education and qualifications, relevant experience, presentation, intellectual ability, interests, disposition, motivation and special factors as set out in the job description; and

(b) the matters set out in the employee specification and contained in paragraph 3 above.

6. Twelve candidates applied for the readvertised post. Seven were not shortlisted. The applicant was amongst the five who were shortlisted. Two male candidates were considered to be appointable. The applicant and two other male candidates were considered to be unappointable. The two appointable male candidates each declined the appointment and no appointment was made.
7. The interview panel was chaired by a Professor Andrew and contained seven other Professors. The subject expert was Professor S, the first Professor of Inorganic Chemistry, and Professor WAD was external assessor. Professor L B was the only female on the panel. She was Professor of Condensed Matter Simulation. Professor WAL was Dean of the Faculty of Science and Agriculture. Professor M was Head of the School of Chemistry. Professor B was Professor of Physical Chemistry.
8. In answer to the questionnaire – question T – in what way did the complainant fail to meet the selection criteria? – the respondent stated that the applicant was felt to lack the qualities of leadership which the post required and summarised the conclusions of each of the interviewers.
9. The subject expert, Professor S, who was the first Professor of Inorganic Chemistry, was involved in the shortlisting process for this post. On 14 January 2000, his comments in writing on the candidates were sent to the Personnel Office as Professor S would not have been available for the shortlisting meeting. These comments were in fact assessments of the candidates and the personnel office were asked to distribute these comments to the other members of the Board.
10. The respondents Code of Practice in Equal Opportunities advises that –

(a) no decision will be made, or preference stated, in advance regarding the outcome of the selection process;

(b) those responsible for appointments will be aware of the importance of consistency in shortlisting and appointments procedures; and

(c) shortlisting will normally be carried out by the perspective interviewing panel.

11. The Recruitment Procedure for Academic Appointments stipulates that –

(a) candidates will be assessed on their area of subject specialism and (interview) boards will have at least two subject experts;

(b) each (interview) board must act in a clear and independent fashion and the Panel Convenor will ensure from the Chair that individual panel members are fully aware of their responsibilities and that they discharge them properly;

(c) the Personnel representative will advise on matters of law procedure and equality of opportunity;

(d) the Board will shortlist by identifying from the information available those most suitable in terms of experience, qualifications and other requirements of the post by comparing candidates with the criteria laid down in the Employee Specification and job description.

12. On the evidence and submission of the applicant there were two possible claims, namely –

(i) that she was discriminated against on the grounds of her gender when she was not interviewed/appointed when she first applied; and

(ii) that she was discriminated against when she was assessed as unappointable to the Professorship.

13. Insofar as (i) is concerned, the applicant made no mention at all of this aspect of her claim in her originating application. She was informed on 13 October 1999 that 'due to the small number of applications it has been decided to readvertise the position and your application will be considered along with any others that are received'. Her complaint was received on 18 May 2000 and as described in that form was confined to her failure to be appointed after interview. No application was made to amend the application though in her replies to further particulars requests the applicant whilst describing her complaint again in terms post interview mentioned as significant –

(a) the decision to readvertise the post; and

(b) the decision not to notify the applicant of the decision to readvertise.

The tribunal did not accept that the complaint made on 18 May 2000 could be amended to include a new complaint of failure to shortlist.

14. This recruitment exercise took place in a context where –

(a) on a national basis chemistry as a university subject was under attack;

(b) there were significant failings within the Chemistry Department at QUB as revealed by the 1996 Research Assessment Exercise; and

(c) a consultant's report commissioned after this RAE concluded that the School needed strong, internationally recognised professional staff leading each of the three traditional areas. These persons needed to energise the whole school.

In addition there was a requirement at QUB that appointments would only be made where an excellent candidate was available.

15. The applicant in her cross-examination did not challenge the importance of leadership as a criterion in this selection and we do accept the evidence of the respondent that –

(i) the applicant was an excellent teacher;

(ii) her publications were of a high standard;

(iii) she had a poor track record in attracting funding and did not have any intention of growing her small research group;

(iv) she had no strategy for seeking to increase her funding;

(v) at interview she concentrated on problems in the past and lacked a coherent strategy for departmental improvement, and

(vi) she did not explain the significance of her research or show how she proposed to improve the RAE rating of the School.

16. The applicant did not argue that she was superior, or equal to, the two successful candidates nor challenge the assessment afforded to those candidates by the interview panel. The applicant accepted the panel's assessment of her in relation to qualifications and experience and

(i) argued between B and an A minus for administration; and

(ii) accepted her marking for research.

And when she was asked specifically which members of the panel she believed had discriminated against her, she accused only Professor S.

17. We did find aspects of the evidence in relation to Professor S disturbing and, in particular, his short-listing advice to the Personnel Department in which he –

(a) set out his comments on the various candidates; and

(b) asked for these to be distributed to the other members of the Board of Curators.

18. In the end we have to ask whether we believe Professor S discriminated against the applicant on the grounds of her gender. We do not believe that the applicant has produced evidence from which we could conclude, in the absence of explanation, that he did. We do believe that the interview panel reached their decision on assessment of the applicant's leadership qualities in light of the state of the School, the Ley Report and the Vice Chancellor's exhortation to appoint only if excellence was displayed.

____________________________________

J E MAGUIRE

President

Date and place of hearing: 9-16 February 2004, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: