THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL
An Binse Comhionannais
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS
DECISION NO. DEC-E2015-085
PARTIES
Patricia Murphy
(Represented by Coghlan Kelly Solicitors)
AND
Trudie’s Catering Kitchen
(Represented by MSS)
Date of issue: 18 September2015
HEADNOTES: Employment Equality Acts Sections 6 (2) (a) Gender- Equal Pay
1 DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Ms Murphy thatthat she was discriminated against by the company by being denied equal pay with a male comparator contrary to section 6 (2) of the Employment Equality Acts.
1.2 The complainant referred her claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on October 9th 2013 under the Employment Equality Acts. On 16th June 2015, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Pat Brady, 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 received from both sides and in accordance with Section 79(1) of the Acts and as part of my investigation I proceeded to a hearing on June 25th 2015.
2 COMPLAINANTS' SUBMISSION
2.1 The complainant started work for the respondent on September 27th 2006 and she was employed as a Delivery Worker who occasionally also worked in the food preparation area.
2.2 In the period since 2009 the company experienced economic problems and various changes were made in the Claimant’s hours and she was eventually made redundant in 2013.
2.3 She claims that the named comparator JF was employed on exactly the same basis as she was and that in every respect he performed like work. It was accepted by the complainant that JF had a ‘C’ Driving licence but she submitted that he was never asked to make use of this. Also, the claimant was not at any stage invited to apply for a C licence.
2.4 The differential in pay was €0.50 per hour less than the comparator. Another female employee who did like work to that of the claimant and the comparator was also paid a similar differential. However, the claiamnt submitted that she performed like work for less pay and that there was no objective justification for this.
3 RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION
3.1 The company stated that it was a requirement of one of its large customers that it retained a person with a ‘C’ licence on its staff. It stated that this liability to drive a larger vehicle for that company’s deliveries justified the differential in pay. The company accepted that otherwise the claimant and the comparator were engaged in ‘like work’.
3.2 The company submitted that the reason for the differential in pay was not the Claimant’s gender but the liability to have a C licence.
4 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
4.1 I have to decide if the case for equal pay has been made out successfully. In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the submissions, oral and written, made to me in the course of my investigation as well as the evidence presented at the hearing.
4.2 I can see no objective justification for the differential between the salary of the claimant and that of the comparator and accordingly I uphold the claim.
5. DECISION
5.1 I have investigated the above complaints and make the following decisions in accordance with section 79 of the Acts that:
5.2 I order the respondent to pay the complainant arrears of remuneration in respect of her hours worked from a date three years before the referral to the Tribunal (i.e. three years before October 9th 2013.)
5.3 I further order that she be paid an amount of €2,500 as compensation for the effects of the acts of discrimination. This latter figure represents compensation for infringement of her rights under equality legislation in relation to discrimination and does not include any element relating to remuneration, and is therefore not taxable.
____________________
Pat Brady
Equality Officer
18 September 2015