THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF:	9095/03

APPLICANT:	Brendan J Doherty

RESPONDENT:	University of Ulster	

DECISION 

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the applicant was not discriminated against, on the grounds of his sex, by the respondent. 

Appearances:
The applicant appeared in person.
The respondent was represented by Ms Mary Larkin, Barrister-at-Law, with Mr Oliver McCullough of the respondent.

The facts of the case

1.	The applicant applied for a post of Lab Technician with the University of Ulster in Coleraine.  The interviews for the post had been held in Coleraine on 23 July and three members of the University had interviewed the eight applicants.  The Chairman of the panel Dr W Gilmore and Mrs Taggart and Mr J Morrow gave evidence to the tribunal concerning the assessment of the candidates.

2.	Out of the eight candidates four were male and four were female.  The first two candidates were female and the first selected candidate a Mrs Tregear although she was initially appointed to the post did not take it up and Miss M McCloskey was appointed.  Of the remaining six applicants the score of the applicant Mr Doherty was the second lowest, the lowest score being accorded to a female applicant.  Consequently there were four other unsuccessful candidates between the appointee and the applicant three of whom were male.

3.	The post in question was to be in the Faculty of Life and Health Sciences and this required expertise in Micro Biology Laboratories.  It appears that the applicant did not have that experience whilst other applicants did have it.  The applicant argued that this was not made clear in the advertisement for the post.

The evidence of the applicant

4.	The applicant could not show any evidence of sex discrimination in this appointment procedure.  His main point was that he was not aware that Micro Biology was going to play such an important part in the interviews.  Furthermore, the applicant felt that his marks given by the interviewers in certain areas were unfair as he felt that he had answered the particular questions appropriately.

The evidence of the respondent

5.	The respondent stated that all the applicants read the same advertisement and were given the same information about the post and it should have been clear to any applicant applying for a post in that particular facility that micro biology was going to be important.

6.	Each interviewee was asked the same questions by the same panel and marked in a consistent manner.

7.	Evidence was given that the Faculty had two female supervisors and four male supervisors and a significant number of males working in the laboratories. 

8.	Of the three interviewers each of them mentioned the fact that the applicant had failed to attach significance to the question concerning team work and didn’t seem to understand the particular point concerning team work that was being made at the interview.  The Chairman of the interview panel stated that the applicant’s answers at times were reasonable but six of the other applicants performed better at the interview and answered the questions more fully.

Decision of the tribunal

9.	The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that there was no evidence of sexual discrimination in this interview procedure.  The applicant failed to realise that he was applying for a job for which he did not have sufficient experience mainly because he did not have the experience in the micro biology laboratory area.  Consequently he was unable to perform well at the interview and as a result was placed seventh of the eight candidates.  There was no question of him being discriminated against because he was a man.

10.	The tribunal considered whether or not to award costs to the respondent in this case but felt that despite the fact that the proceedings were misconceived the applicant had been possibly justifiably disappointed at being unable to obtain a post because of his inability to deal with the questions concerning micro biology laboratories.  This was not set out in the job 

application and it could be argued that he was slightly misled in this aspect.  There was no malice in this application to the tribunal although it could be argued that his application was somewhat misconceived.  However in the circumstances of the case the tribunal do not award costs.

 	

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	14 October 2004, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: