New Sinn Féin MLA Director of Group that Discriminated against Job Applicant because of his Political Opinion

The Irish News today highlights details of the newly-appointed Sinn Féin MLA for Foyle Karen Mullan’s relevant experience for the job, mentioned in Eamonn McCann’s excellent post on the case, that illuminates David’s, somewhat limited, subsequent description of her as a “community worker in the city of Derry”.

Karen Mullan is a director of Waterside Neighbourhood Partnership (WNP) Ltd., Sinn Féin and the DUP’s preferred delivery mechanism for community services and funding in the area, who, earlier this year, were ordered to pay Gary McClean £10,734 in compensation after a Fair Employment Tribunal found that they had unlawfully discriminated against him on grounds of his political opinion.  From the Irish News report

Giving evidence to the [Fair Employment] tribunal, [Karen Mullan] said an interview panellist had told her they had been bullied into giving a better score.

However, the tribunal said her evidence “lacked credibility” as her claims were not contained in her written evidence and only emerged during cross-examination.

The dead tree version includes Sinn Féin’s response

A Sinn Féin spokesperson said: “Karen Mullan is a member of the Waterside Neighbourhood Partnership Board but was not involved in the interview panel.  Karen accepts the decision of the tribunal and welcomes the strengthening of the Partnership Board’s recruitment policies and procedures.”

Up to a point, Lord Copper… because another Sinn Féin activist, and WNP director, was involved in the three person interview panel, and Karen Mullan was involved in the discussions of the interview panel shortly afterwards – recommending a re-advertisement of the post in the process, despite there being a successful candidate.

It’s worth repeated some of the detail from Eamonn’s post on May 31.

Having obtained DSD funding, the WNP advertised the Curryneirin job in April 2015. Three applicants were selected for interview. The interviews took place on 5 June 2015, before a panel comprising three WNP directors – strategy manager [Alison] Wallace and WNP co-chairs Geraldine Doherty and William Lamrock. DSD official Geraldine Boggs sat in and took notes.

When the interview scores were totted up, only McClean had reached the set threshold of 59 marks from a possible 70. Each of the panel members signed a document recording the marks of each applicant. The marks were then collated. The collated document referred to McClean as the “person appointed.” The following month, however, McClean was told that he had not been appointed, that the competition was being re-run. McClean did not apply a second time but instead lodged his complaint.

Both Wallace and Doherty suggested to the Tribunal that they had been pressurised by Lamrock into giving McClean higher marks than they otherwise would and that this had later made them uneasy. Doherty said that she had been made to feel “very uncomfortable” during the interviews. Wallace said that Lamrock “can be unpleasant at times…is very overbearing and…can cause difficulties for you.”

Both women also suggested that Lamrock had boosted his own marks for McClean because they had had a previous working relationship.

The Tribunal pointed out in its report that none of these complaints had been made at the time or immediately afterwards, but had appeared for the first time in witness statements to the Tribunal.

“This suggests that this allegation (of favouritism), like the allegation of bullying, is something that has only occurred to Ms. Wallace and Ms. Doherty relatively recently.”

And, on the involvement of the newly appointed Sinn Féin MLA, Karen Mullan…

Another WNP director, Karen Mullan, gave evidence that, shortly after the day of the interviews, Doherty had told her that she had “concerns” about the interviews. The Tribunal noted that these concerns of Doherty’s had not been mentioned by Mullan until cross-examination before the Tribunal.

Mullan is a member of Sinn Fein. She is also manager of the main community group in the Nationalist Top of the Hill area of the Waterside.

The weeks following the interviews saw a furry of emails between Mullan, the three panel members, and another WNP director, Linda Watson.

On June 12, Lamrock wrote: “We need to call a meeting of the Company as there are risks and issues for us in this matter.” No such meeting was held. The Tribunal commented that, “If such a meeting had been held, there could have been a full discussion between Mr. Lamrock and the other two interview panel members.”

Wallace wrote to Doherty and Lamrock again on July 6, making the point that “two of the panel had major concerns.” Lamrock replied: “The recruitment was run and scoring completed…This brought an end to the process…”

On the following day, Mullan wrote again to the three interviewers, Lamrock, Doherty and Wallace: “If two out of three interviewers are not happy with the candidate I think we should go back out to re-advertisement.”

Lamrock wrote back: “There was a successful candidate. Now for that decision to be overturned there must be a strong reason based on fact that will stand up to scrutiny. Otherwise the company would open itself to risk. I am not prepared to do that. This is public funds…” [added emphasis]

Told that he had not been appointed, McClean asked for the interview notes. However, the Tribunal recorded, the notes forwarded by Wallace “had a significant part removed without any indication that that part had been removed. In particular, that part recording the setting of the threshold marking of 59 marks and the blank space where the interviewers would have completed their names…(Wallace’s) only explanation was that she had been advised that the names of the interviewers should not be related directly to each scoring sheet. However, since the place for the names had been blank…there was absolutely no reason for the deletion other than the obvious reason of avoiding telling the claimant that the threshold marking had been set at 59 marks and that therefore he had exceeded the threshold mark.”

The Tribunal described Wallace’s evidence on this point as “unconvincing and evasive.”

Another WNP director, Linda Watson, told the Tribunal that a few days after the interviews she had been informed of the concerns of Wallace and Doherty. But, the Tribunal recorded, “At no stage had she asked for sight of the collation sheet or for any of the documentation…She merely stated that she had taken it that ‘what Ms. Wallace told me was the truth.’”

The Tribunal declared: “In short, Ms. Watson’s evidence was not credible.”

Watson is a prominent campaigner for the DUP in Derry. She is a senior community coordinator in the Unionist Caw/Nelson Drive area.

Doherty accepted in cross-examination that she had been an active member of Sinn Fein in the Mountainview area of the Waterside, where McClean, too, lived: “She stated however that she knew very little about him. That was unconvincing. This had been a small area in a small city where both individuals had been involved in community work for lengthy periods.”

One implication of Doherty knowing little about McClean would have been that she couldn’t, then, have held his political views against him. Doherty is a former secretary of the SF branch which covers Mountainview.

Doherty repeatedly insisted that she had no knowledge of the North West Social Forum (NWSF), of which McClean had been coordinator. She was “absolutely sure” that she had never heard of this organisation. She was then shown a copy of McClean’s job application in which his employment by the NWSF between 2002 and 2005 was highlighted under the heading “relevant experience.” She explained that she had read “most of” the application, but “not in any real detail.” She agreed that she had had the application form in front of her during the interview.

The Tribunal found it “not credible” that Doherty had not read that part of the application form which referred to relevant experience. This was “particularly implausible” given that “she now states that she had been concerned about the claimant’s experience.”

If the Fair Employment Tribunal’s finding that certain testimony “lacks credibility” sounds familiar, it should.  [Equality, Respect, Rights? – Ed]  Indeed.

As the Chief Commissioner of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI), Dr. Michael Wardlow, pointed out in February this year,

Dr. Michael Wardlow, Chief Commissioner of the Equality Commission, said that the case was a reminder that Fair Employment legislation and good equality practices can protect people against discrimination on grounds of their political opinion.

All appointments, including those in the community sector, must be made without reference to a person’s political opinions, or to any other protected ground,” he said.

“It is also important that the procedures for such appointments meet basic standards of fairness and transparency and that they are accountable to scrutiny,” `Dr. Wardlow said. “Procedures which put a particular focus on the need for systematic and objective recruitment have been the building blocks of Northern Ireland’s equality law since it was established.” [added emphasis]

And from the ECNI Head of Policy, Eileen Lavery, on the ECNI blog in April

In McClean –v- Waterside Neighbourhood Partnership Ltd., a job-seeker was not appointed to a post of Community Development Officer, even though he had been the highest marked candidate in an interview process, had exceeded the threshold marking, and had been identified as the person to be appointed. The Tribunal found that he had been unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of his political opinion –  he believed that the control and funding of community activities should be a matter for the communities themselves and not for the main political parties. The Tribunal held his belief to be a political opinion covered by the legislation.

These cases illustrate the breadth of the term political opinion which is protected under the legislation. They also illustrate something else. Employers and service providers need to ensure they comply with what is, after all, one of the most basic principles of equal opportunities – the need to treat people fairly and consistently regardless of personal characteristics which are protected in law – and that includes political opinion. [added emphasis]

If you haven’t read Eamonn’s detailed post in full yet, you should.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • james

    “Sinn Féin MLA for Foyle Karen Mullan’s relevant experience for the job”…..

    Hmmm…. I’m not a Sinn Fein supporter myself, so perhaps I miss the point here, but I would have thought that being someone who “discriminated against (a) job applicant because of his political opinion” would make a person an ideal candidate as far as Sinn Fein high command is concerned. They’ve always encouraged bigotry and sectarianism in their ranks.

  • the Moor

    Biter(s) bit …

  • The worm!

    Fair point!

  • james

    Hmm.. cryptic.

    What’s your take on the concern raised in the OP?

  • the Moor

    This is the natural upshot of the institutionalised post–GFA model of balanced sectarianism in governance of civil society organisatons . And it is a good thing it’s been found out and the practice exposed.

  • Mike the First

    I wonder will SF’s response be anything different to that in the Conor Murphy religious discrimination finding – i.e. denial then writing out of the narrative as if it never happened.

  • David McCay

    Yawn ! Who really cares about this inconsequential nonsense ? There must be little happening in the world of politics in NI is this justifies as post !

  • james

    Who really cares about discrimination in employment opportunities…. uhm I think we should.

    Perhaps Sinn Fein don’t – as long as it’s Protestants, recent (non-Irish) immigrants, or even Irish non-Republicans on the receiving end, is that what you mean?

    One wonders which other groups Sinn Fein are happy to see discriminated against? Immigrants from eastern Europe, for example? Are you saying that the SF hierarchy would be comfortable seeing discrimination against those people?

  • james

    Both, i should think, and in the usual sequence.

  • David McCay

    As I said, Yawn ! It’s hardly a clear-cut case of discrimination – looks much more like a case of procedural deficiencies / lack of documentation opening up the group to a claim. Boring.

  • Then you need to read it again, this time in “real detail”.

  • David McCay

    No thanks. Was boring enough the first time round. Maybe you need to get over your complete obsession with Sinn Fein – I’d say 99% of the readership if Slugger could immediately tell this article was yours without looking. No need for you to even put your name to articles these days.

  • james

    Hmm… can’t help but feeling that you’re being hypocrical here.

    Obviously the civil rights protests of the ’70s were an SDLP thing rather than a Sinn Fein thing – but SF usually pretend that they cared passionately about discrimination – now it seems that they don’t really mind, as long as it’s the ‘right sort’ of person being discriminated against.

  • Reader

    the Moor: Biter(s) bit …
    You seem to be hinting that the victim, McClean, had discriminated against people in the past. Do you have any evidence?

  • james

    Not many of the usual suspects on here defending the Shinners – silence speaks volumes, really.

    Embarassed, one imagines.

  • David McCay

    Not at all James. Discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, political outlook etc is always wrong, however you have got to differentiate between the blatant institutional discrimination which existed in NI in the past, and the minutiae of individual local disputes / claims like this.
    As I stated above, I just don’t think this is a clear case of discrimination on the basis of political outlook at all. When you drag discussion down to the minutiae of a single local case like this and try to paint a narrative (based on your own political outlook), you are simply being disingenuous and dishonest. It seems to me that Pete is so buried within and obsessed by his own worldview that he loses all objectivity and his posts are therefore completely devalued.

  • james

    To be honest, this really reads to me as…

    ‘ “however you have got to differentiate between the blatant institutional discrimination” against Catholics, which was wrong, “the blatant institutional discrimination” practised by members of Sinn Fein on non-Repiblicans, which is fine.’

  • David McCay

    Your honesty is refreshing, but your reading ability is somewhat limited it seems.

  • james

    Well, let’s make it simple for me, then.

    I think it is shocking that Sinn Fein not only tolerate discrimination, but promote those who do it.

    Would you agree?

  • David McCay

    No. Is that simple enough ? If not then I’ll copy and paste from my earlier comments above (in case you missed it):

    ‘Discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, political outlook etc is always wrong……I just don’t think this is a clear case of discrimination on the basis of political outlook at all’

    Anyway, I’m probably wasting my time here, given that you have already stated your opinion that Sinn Fein have ‘always encouraged bigotry and sectarianism in their ranks’. They really haven’t you know – quite the opposite in fact. Slan.

  • Mike the First

    Well, he’s one of themmuns, isn’t he?

    And we all know what they’re like.

  • Granni Trixie

    A really bad answer. What was the civil rights campaign about if not fairness including in the realm of employment.

  • Granni Trixie

    Its a very clear cut case of bigotry.

  • the Moor

    No. Biters: both sides in the local fix-up. One guilty of baleful intolerance of local critic and the other complicit in political discrimination.

  • ted hagan

    Very ‘tolerant and respectful’, or whatever the mantra is.

  • David McCay

    Is it now ? Thanks for clarifying that – if only you’d told me earlier I wouldn’t have wasted my time posting ! Any other absolute’s you want to put me straight on whilst you’re here ?

  • james

    Well, if it isn’t bigotry what is it?

  • james

    .I just don’t think this is a clear case of discrimination on the basis of political outlook at all’

    Fair enough. Then what is it a case of, in your opinion?

  • Granni Trixie

    Why do you try to defend the indefensible?

  • David McCay

    The interview process is, by its very nature, a very subjective process. It is challenging to arrive at the right decision when you have one interviewer and decision maker – way more so when there are multiple interviewers, all with different perceptions and personalities. It’s not a case of, add up points and give the job to the person with the highest points.
    The explanation for the reasons to re-interview appear plausible to me. The gap in the process which opened up the opportunity for this claim, and which made it easy for the tribunal to decide in favour of the claimant was the lack of detailed documentation as to the decision making process. If there is any lack of documentation or procedural failings in claims like these, the tribunal will almost always find in favor of the claimant – it’s just the way the system works.
    Then again, much easier just to shout ‘Sinn Fein Bigotry!’, especially if you’re predisposed to that position in the first place.

  • David McCay

    In all likelihood this claim came about due to the 3rd interviewer (who apparently had some relationship with the interviewee), informing the interviewee that he should have got the job, leading him to asking for interview notes and taking this course of action. Utterly unprofessional, but that’s what happens in small local disputes such as this – human nature, personal relationships, differing opinions, disputed facts – all very messy, but a bit silly to try to elevate it to having some political significance. Unless of course…………

  • Sprite

    She’ll probably be working closely with Conor Murphy then – should fit right in.

  • chrisjones2

    Weaponised equality then?

  • chrisjones2

    Yes…thats why SF allegedly specifically told the panel not to appoint the named candidate. Not a cock up. Targeted act

  • Gary McClean

    your reading ability is definitely limited David McCay…what this is is one piece of a very big jigsaw…its called a Shared out Future which involves an absolute carve up…consolidation of control in areas already controlled and seizure of areas NOT YET controlled…this particular case happened in relation to the latter…I was the person on the receiving end of this discrimination which is as unacceptable in 2017 as it was under the “Old Unionist Regime!…We are going backwards in this wee statelet

  • The worm!

    Aye, I can think of one.

    But it would probably get me a ban!

  • The worm!

    I doubt it, they seem remarkably good at filtering out the stuff that doesn’t suit.

    Either that or it’s someone elses fault entirely.

  • james

    “The interview process is, by its very nature, a very subjective process.”

    Indeed. It seems to have been very subjective indeed, in this case.

    Thing is, though, the hiring decision is supposed to be objective, and apparently that didn’t happen here.

  • james

    Indeed. And that certainly does seem to be the case here. David, below, is giving it a good college try with a very wooly ‘well, what is doscrimination anyway..’ spiel – but most of the regular Republican commentariat seem to be ducking the issue until the next opportunity for wounded outrage because Arlene says that she doesn’t own any green socks or whatever. Now something like that would be totally unacceptable…

  • Granni Trixie

    Well done, Gary for fighting back against discrimination.

  • james

    Does seem clear to be honest – and not only that, but it seems to have earned this particular Shinner a promotion!

  • grumpy oul man

    Yep the Shinners and the DUPers equally divvying up the goodies between them.

  • grumpy oul man

    I care, discrimination in employment has long been a tool of the powerful in this place and every case needs exposed.

  • grumpy oul man

    You did read the post, the DUP was nvolved as well.

  • chrisjones2

    Who says there’s no cooperation in Stormont

  • chrisjones2

    A very good idea perhaps

  • chrisjones2

    To be fair the IRA was pretty indiscriminate in who it murdered a lot of the time

  • james

    Fair point – though when they did deliberately target people it was (at a rough approximation) about 80% British people, and Irish people about 20% of the time. Usually men (farmers sons on the border a particular favourite), and sometimes women. Children, apparently, were rarely (though sometimes) deliberately targeted.