EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998 to 2011
DECISION NO. DEC-E2015-134
PARTIES
Madelyn Portley
-v-
Orona Midwestern Lifts Limited
File reference: EE/2014/399
Date of issue: 1 December 2015
1. Background to Claim
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Madelyn Portley (hereinafter the “Complainant”) that she was discriminated by not receiving equal pay against by Orona Midwestern Lifts Ltd (hereinafter the “Respondent”) on the grounds of gender contrary to the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2011 (hereinafter the “Acts”)
1.2 The Complainant referred her claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 24th July 2014 under the Acts. On 22nd September 2015, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Caroline McEnery, an Adjudicator, 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 received from both sides. In accordance with Section 79 (1) of the Acts and as part of my investigation we informed both parties by letter sent registered and ordinary post that we had scheduled a hearing for 8th October 2015. The Complainant and the Respondent attended the hearing along with their representatives.
1.3 This decision is issued by me following the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015, as an Adjudication Officer who was an Equality Officer prior to the 1st October 2015, in accordance with section 83 (3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.
2. Preliminary Issue
The Respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the timing of the submission the Complainant’s claim for equal pay in relation to two issues.
2.1 The Respondent objected to the hearing of the claim on the basis of s. 77(5) of the Acts which provides:
Subject to subsection (6), a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of the occurrence or, as the case may require, the most recent occurrence of the act of discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates.
These timelines do not apply in this case as the claim has been made for equal pay which is covered by Section 19 (1) and 19 (2).
2.2 The Respondent also objected to the claim on the basis of section 19(1) and 19 (2) which provides:-
19.—(1) It shall be a term of the contract under which A is employed that, subject to this Act, A shall at any time be entitled to the same rate of remuneration for the work which A is employed to do as B who, at that or any other relevant time, is employed to do like work by the same or an associated employer.
(2) In this section ‘relevant time’, in relation to a particular time, is any time (including a time before the commencement of this section) during the 3 years which precede, or the 3 years which follow, the particular time.
In this case the comparator referred to by the Complainant left the Respondent Company in January 2007. The three year timeframe for compensation has lapsed as this claim was submitted on the 24th July 2014 to the Equality Tribunal. Consequently, it is outside the timeframe provided for in the legislation in Section 19 (2).
Therefore I do not have jurisdiction under the legislation to progress this claim.
3. Decision
3.1 In accordance with Section 79(6) of the Acts I issue the following decision.
3.2 It is my finding that the Complainant in this case is out of time for bringing a case discrimination for not receiving equal pay against the Respondent on the grounds of gender.
____________________
Caroline McEnery
Adjudication Officer/Equality Officer