The HSE has been instructed to pay €20,000 in compensation to a senior pharmacist who missed out on a promotion due to a discriminatory job requirement that disadvantaged part-time staff.
The Workplace Relations Commission determined that the HSE breached the Employment Equality Act 1998 by discriminating against Marie Ronan on the grounds of gender and family status, reports Breaking News.
It also concluded that the HSE subjected the pharmacist to less favourable treatment in violation of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001.
The WRC heard that Ms Ronan was considered by the HSE not to have satisfied the eligibility requirements for the advanced specialist pharmacist role because she worked on a part-time job-share basis, reports Breaking News.
One of the requirements for the position was “experience within a hospital setting” with a minimum of two years worked at least on a half-time basis.
Ms Ronan argued that she was fully qualified for the role when it was introduced in late 2024, reports Breaking News.
However, her application was dismissed during the initial screening stage because she worked fewer than half of the standard hours in the specified specialist area.
The HSE maintained that the criteria for the role had been set by an expert working group to ensure only suitably qualified candidates applied, reports Breaking News.
It noted that the job requirements had also been agreed through negotiations involving the relevant bodies as part of an industrial relations process.
The HSE denied claims that Ms Ronan had been treated unlawfully or discriminated against, either directly or indirectly, reports Breaking News.
Ms Ronan stated that she had worked as a clinical pharmacist for 15 years, with nine of those years spent in the relevant specialty.
She said roles within the HSE were traditionally assessed based on combined experience rather than a strict whole-time equivalent threshold, reports Breaking News.
WRC adjudication officer Brian Dolan said it was evident that Ms Ronan was a long-serving, highly qualified and well-regarded pharmacist who had worked within the HSE for more than 17 years.
Mr Dolan said it was clear that the requirement imposed by the HSE for a minimum of 0.5 WTE amounted to indirect discrimination, reports Breaking News.
He referred to previous rulings showing that part-time work, particularly due to family responsibilities, is predominantly undertaken by women.
Mr Dolan said the job requirement effectively excluded anyone working below a certain threshold from being considered for a senior position, regardless of overall experience or other relevant factors, reports Breaking News.
He said it was unclear why the HSE required a “minimum level of service” exceeding 50 per cent of the role.
“It remains unclear as to why an applicant cannot rely on experience aggregated over a longer period, which would provide the same level of overall experience required for the role, without excluding those engaged on certain part-time contracts,” said Mr Dolan, reports Breaking News.
While the HSE was entitled, and possibly obliged, to set standards and eligibility requirements for healthcare roles, particularly those involving controlled substances in a hospital setting, the WRC official said this did not justify indirect discrimination without objective grounds.
In awarding Ms Ronan €20,000 in compensation, Mr Dolan said it reflected the potential loss of earnings resulting from the rejection of her application, reports Breaking News.
He also instructed the HSE to reassess its eligibility criteria for the advanced specialist pharmacist position.
Tell us your thoughts in the Facebook post and share this with your friends.
