The head of the State’s employment rights watchdog “denies in the strongest terms” that she said last year that neither of two civil servants who campaigned for a pay boost would “ever get an interview” while she was in charge, a witness has said.
However, Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) director general Audrey Cahill will not be testifying to the tribunal on a rights claim by one of the civil servants, it was confirmed to a hearing on Thursday.
Neither will a former WRC official said to have recounted the alleged remark, after the claimant’s legal team dropped an application to have her compelled to attend as a witness.
The claimant, WRC adjudication officer Séamus Clinton, is pursuing complaints under the Employment Equality Act 1998, Employees (Provision of Information and Consultation) Act 2006, and the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.
READ MORE
He alleges discrimination on the basis of his gender, victimisation in relation to an equality matter, and penalisation, either for acting as a shop steward or whistleblowing – or both.
The State denies the claims.
A central allegation in the case is that Clinton suffered a detriment when he was not shortlisted for interview in a competition to fill regional manager posts in the WRC’s mediation division.
Cahill chaired the interview panel that rejected Clinton’s application, the tribunal was told.
A disclosure of data to Clinton under equality law revealed that five men and five women applied, only one of the men was shortlisted for interview, and three women were ultimately appointed.
The last day the case was heard, Paul Malone, the deputy general secretary of Clinton’s trade union, the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants, said it was “very unusual, in fact possibly unique” that the a shortlist was drawn up for “a relatively small number of internal candidates”.
Pat Phelan, head of human resources at the Department of Enterprise, said in evidence: “This just isn’t factual.”
He pointed to one competition last year where five of the nine applicants were screened out before interview. Shortlisting, he said, was “a mechanism to ensure everyone’s time is best used” and “standard practice in the department”.
Another competition run last year seeking assistant principal officers had over 70 applicants with a “50/50” gender split, Phelan also said – but in the end, 16 of the 18 candidates put on the panel for appointments were women.
“We don’t hire based on gender. We don’t promote based on gender. We look for the best candidate for the job,” Phelan said.
Last month, Andrew Heavey, another adjudication officer, gave evidence that on April 2nd, 2025, a colleague approached him in the workplace and asked for a word. He said she told him that Cahill “had said some things to her that were very upsetting”.
“All I ever hear about is internal AOs (adjudication officers), and I’ll tell you something else: neither Andrew Heavey nor Séamus Clinton will ever get another interview or any jobs in the WRC while I’m director general,” were Cahill’s alleged words, according to the departing official, Heavey said.
When Cahill’s alleged remark was put to him, Phelan said: “I know Cahill denies in the strongest possible terms saying this.”
“Is Cahill going to be here?” the complainant’s barrister asked him.
“She isn’t,” said the presiding adjudication officer, Brian Dalton. He said it was “hearsay” for Phelan to recount Cahill’s position and he could give “no weight” to it.
“Cahill doesn’t determine who goes forward for competition. I would say Clinton is welcome to apply for any role in the WRC or any role in the wider department,” Phelan said.
Cross-questioning Phelan, Clinton’s barrister, Michael Kinsley, said: “You seem very categorical she didn’t say that. Why are you so sure?”
“I’m saying so because I asked her about the statement,” Phelan said, adding that it was on foot of the statements put forward in legal papers filed just before Christmas by Clinton’s lawyers.
Kinsley said there was “an investigation mounted within the WRC” after the legal papers were filed about whether Clinton had “breached the data rights of another individual”.
It was after Clinton included individualised data setting out “the success rate[s] of various mediators” working for the WRC, including for himself in terms of female applicants for the regional manager posts, and the male candidates who were not selected.
Kinsley said his client was not assigned any more mediation work by his employer and that this was the basis for a new complaint filed under the Employment Equality Act 1998.
Asked whether he thought it was a serious matter for Clinton to be taken off mediation duties, Phelan said: “I don’t know.”
Counsel said his client was contractually obliged to do work as a mediator. “And you don’t think it serious?” Kinsley said.
“I understand [Clinton] was taken off that duty while an investigation was conducted by the WRC. I don’t see that that was an inappropriate response,” Phelan said.
Kinsley said that since the contents of Clinton’s legal papers set in motion an investigation into his client, they “should have been the prompt” for the witness to investigate the allegation against Cahill.
“I asked the question and I was told it hadn’t been said”, Phelan said. He said it “wasn’t an investigation, it was a question”.
The matter has been adjourned to June, with the new complaint by Clinton being attached to the ongoing proceedings.
