A legal clerk in the Chief State Solicitor's office who failed to get promotion did not know at the time that a memorandum relating to her and other candidates for promotion had recorded that she was absent on maternity leave, a High Court judge noted yesterday.
Mr Justice Finnegan upheld a decision by the Labour Court to allow Ms Deborah Ivers-Bligh to proceed with her claim for discrimination even though it was brought outside the statutory six-month limit. Ms Ivers-Bligh failed in June 1997 to get the job of senior legal clerk in the Chief State Solicitor's office.
In June 1998 she referred her dispute to the Labour Court, which decided to hold an investigation into whether to hear her complaint, as it was lodged outside the six months' limit from the date of the alleged discrimination. The court ultimately ruled that it was reasonable to allow her to make her claim.
Agreeing with that decision yesterday, Mr Justice Finnegan rejected the Chief State Solicitor's application that the Labour Court should not hear Ms Ivers-Bligh because she relied on matters which occurred outside the time limit.
He said Ms Ivers-Bligh's disquiet at having been passed over for promotion was brought to the Chief State Solicitor's attention by her trade union in November 1997. The union requested a meeting regarding the matter but, through no fault of Ms Ivers-Bligh, the meeting was not held until February 1998, by which time the six months had elapsed.
Ms Ivers-Bligh sought her personnel file and obtained it in May 1998, a month after the Freedom of Information Act 1997 came into operation.
The judge said that file disclosed a memorandum addressed by the Chief State Solicitor, Mr Michael A. Buckley, to the Attorney General.
The memorandum contained a brief appraisal of three candidates in contention for promotion and, in relation to Ms Ivers-Bligh, recorded that she was absent on maternity leave.
The judge said he was satisfied that, in advance of seeing the memorandum, Ms Ivers-Bligh had no means of knowing that some reason existed for her not being promoted other than one which potentially amounted to discrimination within the meaning of the Employment Equality Act 1977.
The Labour Court had decided, on the basis of the information available to Ms Ivers-Bligh after she got her personnel file, that it was reasonable to extend the time for her to make her claim.
Mr Justice Finnegan said Ms Ivers-Bligh had initiated her inquiries about the reasons for her being bypassed for promotion by her trade union's letter of November 1997, which was within the time limit. The delay thereafter was the fault of the Chief State Solicitor.