An academic has claimed Dublin City University broke its own jobs policy and discriminated against her by keeping her “in the dark” about a permanent job that was advertised while she was out on maternity leave.
In a complaint against the university under the Employment Equality Act 1998 Dr Rebecca Murphy, a sociologist employed on a fixed-term contract as assistant professor at the DCU school of nursing, further alleges the college’s human resources department proceeded to engage in “gaslighting” by telling her she had no right to be told directly about the job.
The complaint is denied, with the university having told the complainant that she had been notified by an internal vacancy email in the same manner as all staff.
“Permanent academic jobs are like hens’ teeth, particularly in my field,” Dr Murphy told the Workplace Relations Commission at a hearing today.
“To know that the one time I went on protected leave I missed an opportunity was devastating to me. The one time I was away from work for eight months, I missed an opportunity for my family,” she added.
“I’m not saying I would have gotten the job – I’m not arrogant – but I would have learned from [the application process]. That’s all lost opportunity,” Dr Murphy said.
Dr Murphy’s trade union rep, Nicola Coleman of SIPTU, argued that the university had broken its own policy, which stated staff on maternity leave “will where possible be notified of vacancies by the head of school”.
“At no stage did the head of school say there will be a vacancy coming up. There was no communication – she was kept in the dark about it,” Ms Coleman added.
The university, which was represented by Laura Kerin of IBEC, countered that the wording of the policy made it discretionary and that as Dr Murphy still had access to her emails she was treated no less favourably than anyone else in the university.
Dr Murphy said she was absent on maternity leave from June 2023 to March 2024 – and only learned upon her return to work that there had been a new assistant professor in social sciences who had secured a permanent appointment at the school of nursing.
Dr Murphy said that when she quoted the maternity policy to the college’s HR department, the response was that there was “an obligation [on] employees on any kind of leave to familiarise themselves with vacancies” as there was a “high volume” of posts being advertised and it was “not always possible for line managers to reach out”.
“I just felt like they were completely gaslighting me and telling me I hadn’t a right to be told directly,” Dr Murphy said. After some engagement between Siptu and DCU, she complained to the WRC in May this year, the tribunal was told
“I don’t want to be seen as a troublemaker. I’m a precarious academic – I fear for the impact this may have on my future,” Dr Murphy said. “We don’t have a mortgage, I don’t have permanency, we don’t have a home. When’s the next opportunity going to come? Two years? Five years? That upset could have been fully avoided,” Dr Murphy added.
In evidence, Deirdre Reynolds, a senior employee relations manager for DCU, said the college took a “standardised approach” to advertising vacancies, and posted them publicly on the university’s website as well as circulating emails with vacancies internally.
Asked whether it was standard practice for people on maternity leave to be personally informed, Ms Reynolds said it wasn’t.
She said the policy quoted by the trade union used the words “where possible” – calling it “discretionary language” that “recognises the practical challenges that may arise”.
Ms Coleman of Siptu put it to Ms Reynolds that colleagues of Dr Murphy had made contact with her by phone or text in relation to having a key cut for her office while she was away and that the university also had her home address on file.
“So it was possible for the university to communicate directly by telephone during maternity leave, and you had her home address,” Ms Coleman said.
“Possible, but I don’t think practicable,” the witness replied. “You would need to apply that same approach to everyone who could be considered for a post,” she added.
The head of the school of nursing, Professor Victoria Lambert, said she knew the permanent assistant professor post was going to be advertised but did not inform Dr Murphy. “I would never directly inform any staff member directly of any upcoming post,” she said.
She agreed when cross-examined that she knew the permanent job was “potentially relevant” to Dr Murphy – but that she said nothing about when they spoke on a video call on November 6th — three days before it was advertised.
This was because it was “not standard practice” to do so, Prof Lambert said.
“The policy says differently – it says ‘where possible’. Is it standard practice not to apply the policy?” Ms Coleman asked.
“No, I’m not saying that, I’m saying I never inform any staff member personally about any upcoming post,” Prof Lambert said.
“You were at a meeting with Dr Murphy. The post was about to be advertised. The policy says ‘where possible’ you inform people of vacancies. Would it have been possible to notify her?” Ms Coleman asked.
“It would have been possible to notify her, however there would be other people then you would also have to be informing of the vacancy and it’s not possible to inform everyone,” Professor Lambert said.
Adjudicator Valerie Murtagh closed the hearing and is expected to give her decision in writing to the parties in due course.
