Informal Pay Disclosure Results in Successful Equal Pay Claim
Background
The Complainant alleged she had been discriminated against by the Respondent in relation to equal pay. She stated a male colleague got a promotion for the same job in a different depot, but she did not receive the same pay as her male colleagues even though she had longer service with the company. She alleged that the difference in treatment was an equal pay issue related to her gender.
Summary of Complainant’s Case
The Complainant stated her boss was promoted and the Deputy Manager position came up which her boss encouraged her to apply for. She confirmed she worked 28 hours and her boss stated it was full-time hours and he said the salary was €39-40K. She successfully applied for the position.
The Complainant stated during the interview she was asked by the Respondent how many children she had and that the job started in September. She stated she asked the person in HR regarding her new pay rate, and she did not get the new salary until October 2022. The Depot Manager met her, and he said her pay scale would be €31K and if working full-time on the current rate and that they were giving her 10% for taking on this new role. She confirmed that took her salary to €34K and she spoke to her male colleague in another depot who received €39K for working in the same role.
The Complainant stated she had more experience and was there longer than her male colleague. She also stated that her male colleague in Dublin got over €39K. She stated that if she had known that the additional increase linked to the job promotion was 10%, she would not have gone for the job. She stated she was always told it would be €39K. She stated she was not taking it then on that basis and went back to the original role and rate.
The Complainant stated she did the job from September to October and was paid the new rate for that time.
The Respondent referred to an Employee pay plan document. The Respondent stated it was a detailed document to break down salary. The Respondent stated that salary promotions were based on 10% increases. The Complainant stated both people went for the job at the same time, herself and her colleague so both should be paid the same. She stated she was always told the increase for the new role was €39K and never 10%.
The Complainant stated she lodged a grievance based on the pay she received. She stated she did not mention anything about an interview at the grievance as she got the interview. She stated she felt the grievance was about her pay which was the basis of her claim.
The Complainant stated a person in HR invited her to a meeting about her grievance. She stated the key was that her manager told her when giving her the job that her salary was €39K and not a 10% increase which was then offered to her. She stated she left that meeting saying she would contact her advisors. She stated she did not go back to work after that and put in her complaint to the WRC.
Summary of Respondent’s Case
The Respondent stated that the Complainant made a complaint that she did not receive equal pay when she was promoted to the Assistant Depot Manager (ADM) role, and that she was paid a different rate of remuneration on the ground of gender.
The Respondent denied that it had discriminated against the Complainant on the grounds of gender or at all. It was the Respondent’s position that:
a) the comparators chosen by the Complainant were not engaged in ‘like work’; and
b) any differences in remuneration between the Complainant and the comparators were justified on grounds other than gender.
The Respondent stated the burden of proof was on the Complainant to establish, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which she relied in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination.
The Respondent submitted that the Complainant failed to discharge the burden, most significantly, in failing to identify a comparator who was performing like work.
The Respondent further submitted that she had not raised a presumption that the Respondent treated her less favourably than an appropriate comparator, nor that the reason she was not afforded the same rate of remuneration was on the ground of gender.
The Complainant pointed to a colleague in two other depots as her comparators. The Respondent referred to her complaint form which submitted that…. ‘At the same time, I got my promotion, my colleague (male) in another depot got the same promotion in his depot and was awarded more money than me (the figure I was quoted) and also a colleague in another depot doing the same role as me is on more money (the figure I was quoted). I have more years’ employment than both these colleagues in this company.’
The Respondent submitted that these Employees were not engaged in ‘like work’, having regard to the responsibilities and different structures of those depots. It was further submitted that the reasons for a difference in remuneration were clearly based on grounds other than gender.
The Respondent submitted that the Complainant did not perform the same work, similar work or equal work to the comparators she identified. It submitted that her role was not interchangeable with either of those comparators, having regard to the size of their respective depots, fleets, Employees and additional responsibilities associated with those roles. The Respondent stated there were significant differences between the work and responsibilities associated with the other ADM roles.
The Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s work was not equal in value to the work performed by the comparators, having regard to their responsibility and working conditions.
Findings and Conclusions
The Adjudicator noted throughout that the Complainant advanced an equal pay claim, and not a complaint of discrimination in relation to the interview or promotion itself.
In this case, the Complainant made a case that she did not receive equal pay when she was promoted to the ADM role, and that she was paid a different rate of remuneration on the ground of gender comparable to her other colleagues who undertook this role at other locations who were both male.
The Adjudicator found on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts from which the Complainant relied in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination was met and it was therefore the responsibility of the Respondent to prove the contrary.
The Respondent denied that it had discriminated against the Complainant on the grounds of gender or at all. It was the Respondent’s position that:
a) the comparators chosen by the Complainant were not engaged in ‘like work’; and
b) any differences in remuneration between the Complainant and the comparators were justified on grounds other than gender.
In particular, the Respondent stated that it was an initial error to have indicated a salary to the Complainant and instead she should have only received 10% increase on her current rate of pay for the promotion which was they say their custom and practice.
It was the case that she was told this initial salary rate, and this led her to realise that her comparators were on this salary, and she was to receive less if she took this promotion which ultimately, she then refused. She did not pursue a formal grievance internally.
The Adjudicator found that the work of her comparators was like work and that the differences in the renumeration between the Complainant and her comparators was not justified on any grounds other than gender.
Decision
The Adjudicator ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €10,000 as a just and equitable redress for the discriminatory treatment she experienced.
Recommendations
For Organisations, the decision is a timely reminder of the changes coming in under the forthcoming EU Pay Transparency Directive. As Employees will have greater access to pay information and clearer rights to compare remuneration, any discrepancies in pay are far more likely to be identified and challenged. Organisations should therefore ensure that pay structures are consistent, objectively justified, and clearly communicated as reliance on informal assurances or pay practices will be increasingly difficult to defend.