Recent weeks have seen some high-profile instances of employers falling foul of the law when it comes to their recruitment and selection practices. For example, in February 2026, the National Council for Special Education - the State body overseeing special education for adults and children with disabilities - was directed by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) to pay €40,000 to a deaf man for refusing him a job interview. Notably, in this case, the WRC overlooked the standard €13,000 cap on compensation in employment access cases (as provided for under the Employment Equality Act 1998-2015), as it relied instead on the renowned European Court of Justice’s Von Colson principle, the such awards be ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive’ (ADJ-00042837).

Notably, in the previous month (Jan. 2026), the WRC dealt with four cases relating to suspect recruitment and selection practices. In the first, a planner working for a media company was passed over for promotion on the grounds of family status and was awarded €30,000 as a result (ADJ-00043525). Around the same time, the WRC held that St. John’s Special School in Waterford, was in breach of the same (equality) legislation. In this instance, it was held that the complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination on gender grounds and awarded her €40,000 in compensation ‘for the effects of the egregious nature of the discriminatory treatment’. In its conclusion, the WRC  held that the claimant’s pregnancy was a ‘significant influencing factor’ in her not being offered a position (ADJ-00049175).

In the same month, the WRC awarded a senior pharmacist with the Health Service Executive €20,000 in compensation for the discrimination that she experienced when she was excluded from consideration for promotion. Referencing a specified job requirement relating to service/experience, the Commission did not find ‘that the requirement in question is necessary to achieving a real need’ of the respondent’s and as a result didn’t accept their ‘objective justification’ defence (ADJ-00055850). Whilst around the same time, it was held that the same employer had indirectly discriminated against a Lithuanian applicant for a driver/porter role, when it revoked his job offer on the basis that he couldn’t obtain a driver statement via the Road Safety Authority’s National Driver License Statement agency. The Commission held that the relevant requirement was indirectly linked to nationality - insofar as Irish people are more likely to have Irish drivers’ licences - whereas those of alternative nationalities were more likely to have licences from other jurisdictions (ADJ-00042605).

Of course, many of Ireland’s most reputable employers have found themselves in murky legal waters over the years for the manner in which they have handled their recruitment and selection process. They include Ryanair, Iarnród Eireann, the Revenue Commissioners, T.C.D., U.C.D., the Coombe and Mater Hospitals, Independent Newspapers, Health Boards, the Medical Council, local authorities and the C.S.O. Indeed, even a Government Minister found himself on the wrong end of a WRC decision in 2017, after asking the interviewee: ‘Are you a married woman? Do you have children? How old are your children?’ (ADJ-00005366). 

A similar transgression – giving rise to an €85,000 award at the WRC - recently featured at an interview for a teacher, when the interviewee was congratulated on the birth of her daughter and - prior to the end of the interview and scoring process - told to ‘enjoy every moment at home with the  baby’ (ADJ-00055461). Subsequently, in a separate case, the WRC directed an employer to review its recruitment and selection policies, having deemed them to be ‘informal, unstructured, and poorly coordinated’,  with ‘no written procedures, evaluation forms, or objective criteria applied’ (ADJ-00052022). 

Though times may have moved on from when the Labour Court awarded €54,000 against a school’s board for (allegedly) asking the interviewee: ‘what about the homos?’ and her views on the trade union’s stance on patronage, pluralism, and religion (EDA1515-2015), it is still apparent that many recruiters and interviewers are not being properly briefed or trained on their responsibilities.

Clearly, given the sizeable financial investment associated with appointments and their impact on organisational morale and success, it is worth getting the process right. In fact, it can be argued that it is the most important of all ‘people-related’ activities at work. Hence, the guidelines set down below - for this most consequential of H.R. activities - should help ensure that the employer gets the best person for the job and avoids a costly and publicly embarrassing court appearance. That is, there is a convincing case for applying ‘best practice’ at the  Before, During and After stages of the process.

Before The Interview 

• Firstly, it is important that one properly prepares and reviews all of the available information – incl. the job description and person specification. The person specification details the main ‘person’ requirements, criteria or competencies associated with effective job performance. As noted above, considerable care needs to be taken to ensure that any ‘essential’ requirements are indeed ‘essential’ and not directly or indirectly discriminatory.
   
• A weighting system should be applied to the relevant competency requirements and arrangements made to score candidates thereon. This approach facilitates a comparative assessment where there is more than one candidate. It is also a valuable way of minimising biases, clearly specifying what’s relevant and the scores/marks available in respect of each criterion or competency.
   
• It is preferable that the interview board be comprised of a diversity of people, who agree the coverage plan and timescales (i.e. who will cover what and when).
   
• Timescale considerations are also important for ensuring that the job is done right (e.g. that adequate time is allocated to assess each interviewee and for the post-interview assessment phase). In the event that there is more than one interviewer, a chairperson should be appointed. It is the chair’s responsibility to co-ordinate the board’s activities and to ensure that all interviewers know the (agreed) ground rules and their specific role in the process.
   
• Arrangements should also be made to prevent interruptions and distractions, together with some consideration of the seating and desk positioning. Of course, the fewer the interviewers the greater the scope one has in devising an appropriate or welcoming setting/lay-out.
   
• Furthermore, it is important that the process allows all candidates to compete on an equal footing (e.g. are adjustments for people with disabilities required?). Prepare for notetaking - that is precise, objective and factual. Related thereto, it is important that interviewers are trained in this highly sensitive and legalistic area before being let loose!
   
• Having reviewed the aforementioned documentation, good interviewers will also study the candidates’ applications. This extends to the preparation of appropriate questions (i.e. competency and/or situational-type questions). A key ground rule here is to ensure a ‘logical linkage’. That is, questions should be designed to elicit information directly relevant to the scoring system (which in turn has been derived from the aforementioned person specification, which is itself a product of the aforementioned job description). Related thereto, it is notable that Article 5 of the E.U.’s Pay Transparency Directive now prohibits employers from asking applicants about their pay history from current or past employment relationships.
   

During The Interview 

• Establish rapport. Having introduced the interviewers, get the candidate talking. This entails nothing more complex than ‘breaking the ice’, as one tries to relax the interviewee. Outline the purpose and structure of the interview. Having confirmed the structure, it’s important that the interviewers stick to it.
   
• Clear the fact that there will be (discreet) notetaking. Follow the agreed coverage plan and interview in turn. Don’t engage in the potentially disconcerting practice of criss-cross questioning, which is unfair and confusing for both the interviewer (who may be pursuing a particular line of questioning) and the interviewee (who may find the experience more akin to an interrogation).
   
• Listen actively. This is the key to good interviewing and can entail up to 85% of the interviewers’ time, as one elicits enough relevant factual information to enable an ‘informed decision’.
   
• Alongside open-ended questions, clarifying and reflecting are useful techniques for getting an interviewee to open up, whilst probing and close-ended questions can counter evasiveness and enable specificity.
   
• Maintain eye contact and give appropriate positive feedback (verbally and non-verbally), to show your interest in the interviewee and to encourage them to talk/open up. Don’t rush this important (interview) interaction or be afraid to use ‘silence’ if and when appropriate.
   
• For good practical and legal reasons, treat all candidates equally. Having checked that her/his colleagues have no further questions, the chairperson should invite the candidate to ask questions and to volunteer additional information.
   
• Assuming that the interviewee has been provided with all relevant organisation and job-related information pre-interview, this may be a good time to inquire as to whether clarification is sought in respect of any of it.
   
• Thank the interviewee for coming and sharing their information and advise them as to the next stage and timescale of the process.

After The Interview 

• Score the interviewee. The candidate’s assessment - against the scoring criteria derived from the person specification - should take place immediately after the candidate has left the room. To put it bluntly, once the interview is over, the interviewers should ‘Shut Up’, enabling independent assessments. Then - and only then - should they share their assessments. In this regard it is worth recalling both the aforementioned case that gave rise to an €85,000 award (ADJ-00055461) and the 1992 case when Nenagh Urban District Council found itself on the wrong side of a judgement, as their interview board firstly decided its preference between 2 candidates and subsequently completed the scoring process to reflect this preference.
   
• Having scored individually, the interviewers may then discuss any significant variations in the assessments That is, an appropriate and practical device deployed by some boards is that where there is ‘little’ variation between the interviewers in their scoring under a specific criterion, they can proceed by calculating an average score. However, should the variation be ‘significant’ under any criterion - and the numeric difference between ‘little’ and ‘significant’ must be agreed at the preparatory phase - discussion ensues until consensus emerges, serving to reduce the ‘significant’ to ‘little’, as one or more interviewers alter their score on the basis of an informed debate.
   
• The scoring/assessment process should concentrate on solid facts of past behaviour. That is, facts are more appropriate than ‘gut instinct’, should the board have to defend its decision! Information from any other tests used in the process can be incorporated into the decision-making process at this stage.
   
• Such are the limitations of the selection interview in predicting future performance that there is a good case for the proper usage of probationary periods and appropriate tests on a pre-determined basis (e.g. assessment centres, personality, aptitude, achievement tests). All assessments, records and notes should be retained and the candidates advised of the outcome when appropriate.
   
• The bottom line is that a record of how a candidate has been selected (or rejected) is essential to demonstrate the objectivity of the process. Progressive employers will also be prepared to give detailed feedback to applicants – and if these guidelines are adhered to, they shouldn’t find themselves giving that feedback in court! The bottom line is that whilst selection interviewing may not be ‘scientific’, it must be ‘systematic’.

Dr. Gerry McMahon is a former lecturer at TUD and Adjudicator at the WRC. He is the MD at Productive Personnel Ltd., specialising in H.R./Employee Relations consultancy and training assignments. E-Mail: ppl1gerry@gmail.com