EDA168

This is the Complainant’s appeal from a decision of an Adjudication Officer dated 21 December 2015. The notice of appeal was received by the Court on 19 January 2016. The Court heard the appeal on 6 April 2016. Mr Daniel Rooney, a Director and the Company Secretary attended on behalf of the Respondent. The Complainant was unrepresented.

The Complainant is a Slovakian national and has been employed as a gym instructor/leisure attendant at the Respondent’s premises in Longford town since July 2007. He is paid an hourly rate of €10.40 and works 39 hours per week.

The Complainant’s Submission

The Complainant refers to three named Irish Comparators who are paid €13.40 per hour. He submits that he has been paid a lower hourly rate than his three named comparators for like work since January 2011 and that the difference in his rate of pay and that of his chosen comparators is due solely to his nationality. He accepts that the Respondent experienced financial difficulties prior to 2011 which led to a discontinuation of a teaching allowance previously paid to instructors/leisure attendants who taught swimming lessons. However, he did not become aware until 2014 that those who had previously been in receipt of the allowance were being paid the higher rate of €13.40 per hour. He submits that the work he performs is of equal value to that of the named comparators who are earning a higher hourly rate of pay than he is.

The Respondent’s Submission

The Court received no written submission from the Respondent. However, Mr Rooney gave the following evidence to the Court. He confirmed that the Respondent was forced to take a number of cost-cutting measures early in 2011. This included reducing staff costs where possible. The Complainant’s wages were not reduced. However, an allowance previously paid to instructors who taught swimming lessons was discontinued. The latter had been in receipt of the same basic hourly rate of pay as the Complainant but also received an additional teaching allowance. The income stream generated from swimming lessons was, and continues to be, an important source of revenue for the Respondent. When the allowance paid to swimming instructors was discontinued, their hourly rate of pay was raised to €13.65 per hour in lieu of the allowance. The Complainant is not qualified to teach swimming lessons.

It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the Complainant and the named comparators do not perform equal work or work of equal value and that the higher hourly rate paid to the swimming instructors is in recognition of the additional higher value work they perform over and above that performed by the Complainant.

Decision of the Adjudication Officer

The Adjudication Officer dismissed the Complainant’s equal pay claim and found that the Complainant did not perform the same work, work of a similar nature or work of equal value to that of the named Comparators in terms of Section 7(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Employment Equality Act 1998.

Determination

The Court finds that each of the Comparators named by the Complainant are qualified swimming instructors. The higher hourly rate of pay paid to the Comparators was introduced in January 2011 in lieu of an allowance previously paid to them. Both the allowance and the higher hourly rate of pay which replace it are paid to the Complainants in recognition of their swimming instructor qualifications and the swimming lessons they deliver and which generate an important revenue stream for the Respondent. The Complainant is not a qualified swimming instructor.

Having considered in detail the submissions made to it, and the evidence adduced by the parties to this appeal, the Court dismisses the appeal and finds no basis for disturbing the decision of the Adjudication Officer.

The appeal fails.

The Court so determines.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Alan Haugh
6th May 2016______________________
SCDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.