The Equality Tribunal
Employment Equality Acts
Decision DEC-E2013-123
PARTIES
Anna McGoldrick
(Represented by McAlister O'Connor, Solicitors)
- V -
Meath County Council
File references: EE/2010/830
Date of issue: 2 October 2013
Keywords - Employment Equality Acts - Discriminatory Treatment - Equal Pay - Gender - Victimisation
1. DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by the complainant that she was subjected to discriminatory treatment by the respondent on the grounds of gender and that the respondent breached the principal of Equal Remuneration in terms of Sections 6(2), 19 and 74 of the Employment Equality Acts and contrary to Section 8 of those Acts.
1.2 The complainant referred a claim of discrimination to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 5 November 2010 under the Employment Equality Acts. On 27 August 2013, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director then delegated the cases to Conor Stokes - an Equality Officer - for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Acts on which date my investigation commenced. Submissions were sought and received from the parties. As required by Section 79(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearing on 25 July 2013. On 19 September 2013, I continued examining the Equal Pay elements of the complaint, including interviewing the complainant and the named comparators in relation to their job descriptions. All written and oral evidence presented to the Tribunal has been taken into consideration when coming to this decision.
1.3 The complainant withdrew the discriminatory treatment and victimisation elements of the complaint at the oral hearing on 25 July 2013. Accordingly, the second day of proceedings confined itself to dealing with the Equal Pay element of the complaint.
2. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANT'S CASE
2.1 The complainant submitted that she was paid at a lower rate than three named comparators, Mr X - her current supervisor, Mr Y - another employee (her former supervisor) who was at the same grade as her current supervisor, and Mr Z - another employee who had fewer staff than the complainant. The complainant submitted that she was undertaking work of a similar nature and of equal value to the three named comparators.
3. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONDENT'S CASE
3.1 The respondent submitted that the complainant was paid a lower rate of remuneration than the comparators, denied that it breached the principle of equal remuneration and advanced a reason for this was that the named comparators were undertaking duties of a greater value than those undertaken by the complainant.
4. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
4.1 The issue for decision by me is whether or not the respondent breached the principle of equal remuneration on the ground of gender, in terms of Section 19 of the Employment Equality Acts, and contrary to Section 8 of those Acts.
4.2 Section 85A of the Employment Equality Acts sets out the burden of proof which applies to claims of discrimination. It requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which a breach of the principle of equal remuneration may be inferred. It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of the breach raised.
4.3 At the initial hearing of this complaint, the claims relating to discriminatory treatment and victimisation were withdrawn. Thereafter, both parties were required to job descriptions for the complainant and the three named comparators prior to the second day of hearing. In the interim period, the complainant withdrew Mr X, her current supervisor as a comparator and the hearing proceeded on the basis of Mr Y and Mr Z as named comparators.
4.4 At the second hearing, dealing with the matter of equal remuneration, the respondent stated that Mr Y, the complainant's former supervisor was interchangeable with her current supervisor, and had on a number of occasions substituted for him. This assertion was conceded by the complainant.
4.5 Mr Y confirmed that in his current role, he has only one staff member reporting to him , unless he is providing cover for Mr X, when the complainant and her staff members report to him. He confirmed that he performs a health and safety function for all works in the Meath area, and that staff members such as the complainant defer to him when it comes to signage and lighting as he has the ultimate decision-making role in relation to what signage and lighting should be used. Mr Y confirmed that he is on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week and is a first responder should the need arise. Mr Y further confirmed that he has responsibility for budgets for a number areas, in excess of €32,000, he has an authorisation limit of €3000 per month, in total and €500 per item. He also confirmed that he has a verification role for attendance and personal issues.
4.6 Mr Z confirmed that he has responsibility currently for 13 staff, and during the currency of the complaint for up to 18 staff. He has authorisation limits for items up to €500 and is on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week for emergencies. He also fulfills personnel functions and has the verification role for his staff attendance.
4.7 The complainant confirmed that she has responsibility for six staff and oversees two contractors, although she did concede that where issues arose, she reported such matters to either Mr X or Mr Y for appropriate action. She confirmed that she was not on call, although she had taken work-related calls on her own time on occasion. The complainant confirmed that she did not have any authorisation limit but rather gathered quotations for presentation to either Mr X or Mr Y for authorisation. The complainant stated that she had a role in gathering up the clock cards for her staff for presentation to either Mr X or Mr Y for verification.
4.8 When asked what other areas there might be for which she had responsibility that might amount to a similar value to the areas of responsibility outlined by the comparators, the complainant conceded that there were no other areas for consideration. The complainant stated that over the preceding years she had taken on additional duties to the ones she had been recruited to carry out. The respondent sis not challenge this assertion.
4.9 Section 7(1) of the Acts deals with 'Like Work' and states that
In relation to the work which one person is employed to do, another person shall be regarded as employed to do like work if --
(a) both perform the same work under the same or similar conditions, or each is interchangeable with the other in relation to the work,
(b) the work performed by one is of a similar nature to that performed by the other and any differences between the work performed or the conditions under which it is performed by each either are of small importance in relation to the work as a whole or occur with such irregularity as not to be significant to the work as a whole, or
(c) the work performed by one is equal in value to the work performed by the other, having regard to such matters as skill, physical or mental requirements, responsibility and working conditions.
4.10 Having regard to the evidence given by both parties and the witnesses, I am satisfied that the complainant has not established facts for which it may be inferred that her duties are similar to either comparator or that any differences are simply of small importance.
4.11 In relation to the complainant's contention that the work is of equal value to the work performed by the comparators, I have considered the testimony of the complainant and the comparators under the five elements outlined in Section 7(1)(c). I am satisfied that thes may be assessed as follows:
Skill: the work undertaken by the complainant and the comparators requires a similar level of skill to one another
Physical requirements: the work undertaken by the complainant and the comparators entails a similar physical requirement to one another
Mental requirements: the work undertaken by the complainant and the comparators entails a similar mental requirement to one another
Responsibility: the work undertaken by the comparators demonstrates a higher level of responsibility than that of the complainant, particularly in relation to staffing responsibility, budget responsibility and management, and being on call 24 hours a day (neither comparator has a separate "on-call" allowance)
Working conditions: the work undertaken by the complainant and the comparators is carried out in similar working conditions to one another
4.11 Accordingly, the complainant has not established a prima facie case that she performs 'like work' to her named comparators and her complaint therefore fails.
5. DECISION
5.1 Having considered all the written and oral evidence presented to me, I find that the complainant has not established that she performs like work to her comparators. Therefore, the case for the breach of the principal of equal remuneration on the basis of the gender ground has not been established. Accordingly this complaint must fail.
Conor Stokes
Equality Officer
2 October 2013