THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998-2011
Decision DEC – E2015 – 011
PARTIES
Mr Marius Marosan
and
OCS One Complete Solution Ltd. (represented by IBEC)
File Reference: EE/2012/598
Date of Issue: 19th March 2015
Keywords: equal pay – civil status – union membership not civil status – victimisation linked to complaints about conduct unlawful under the Employment Equality Acts – no prima faciecase.
1. Claim
1.1. The case concerns a claim by Mr Marius Marosan that OCS One Complete Solution Ltd discriminated against him on the ground of civil status contrary to Section 6(2)(b) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2011, in terms of equal pay. He also complains of victimisation contrary to S. 74(2) of the Acts.
1.2. The complainant referred a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2011 to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 22 November 2012. A submission was received from the complainant on 13 March 2013. A submission was received from the respondent on 12 August 2014. On 12 February 2015, in accordance with his powers under S. 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Stephen Bonnlander, 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 this date my investigation commenced. As required by Section 79(1) of the Acts and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hold a joint hearing of the case on 18 March 2015.
2. Summary of the Complainant’s Written Submission
2.1. The complainant does not give details about his civil status. He submits that he discovered that a named comparator, whose civil status he likewise does not give details of, received better pay than he did. The complainant submits that in his opinion, this is the case because his comparator is a union member.
2.2. In terms of his victimisation complaint, the complainant gives details of difficult relationships with various managers. He does not give details of himself taking any of the protected actions listed in S. 74(2) of the Acts which could ground a complaint of victimisation.
3. Summary of the Respondent’s Written Submission
3.1. The respondent denies discriminating the complainant as alleged or at all. It submits that the complainant has not established a prima facie case. It accepts that following a complaint by the complainant to the Rights Commissioners, it was discovered that the complainant had been underpaid by €743.30 for holiday and overtime rates. According to the respondent, this was rectified in January 2013.
3.2. Specifically with regard to the complainant’s complaint of equal pay, the respondent states that the named comparator earned more than the complainant because he was a supervisor, and the complainant was not.
4. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
4.1. The issue for decision in this case is whether the complainant was discriminated in terms of his entitlement to equal remuneration, or victimised within the meaning of the Acts.
4.2. In evaluating the evidence before me, I must first consider whether the complainant has established a prima facie case pursuant to S. 85A of the Acts. The Labour Court has held consistently that the facts from which the occurrence of discrimination may be inferred must be of “sufficient significance” before a prima facie case is established and the burden of proof shifts to the respondent.
4.3. In coming to my decision, I have considered all oral and written evidence presented to me by the parties.
4.4. At the hearing of the complaint, the complainant specified that in terms of civil status, both he and his comparator for his complaint of equal pay were married. The complainant explained that when he filed the complained, he mistakenly believed that the civil status ground included union membership. Given that the complainant and his comparator have the same civil status, I find that there can be no prima facie case for equal remuneration on the ground specified, or indeed any other ground enumerated in the Acts, and that this part of the complainant’s case must fail.
4.5. In terms of the complainant’s complaint of victimisation, I explained at the hearing that the victimisation provisions contained in S. 74(2) of the Acts only pertain to adverse treatment that is a result of informal or formal complaints of conduct which is unlawful under the Employment Equality Acts, and that it did not comprehend the complainant’s complaint to the Rights Commissioners. Following this clarification, the complainant confirmed in evidence that he did never informally complain to the respondent about discrimination, and that he experienced no retaliation of any sort following his complaint to the Tribunal on 22 November 2012. Accordingly, he has not established a prima facie case of victimisation, either, and this part of his complaint must also fail.
5. Decision
5.1. Based on all of the foregoing, I find, pursuant to S. 79(6) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2011, that OCS Ireland Ltd did not discriminate against with regard to his right to equal remuneration, or victimise Mr Marius Marosan within the meaning of the Acts.
______________________
Stephen Bonnlander
Equality Officer
19 March 2015