ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012606
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A machine supervisor | A packaging firm |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00016661-001 | 06/01/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/03/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 6th January 2018, the complainant referred an equal pay complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission. The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 29th March 2018.
At the outset of the adjudication, it became apparent that there was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent. I verified that the respondent was on notice of the time, date and venue of the adjudication. I waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. Having taken these steps, I proceeded with the adjudication in the absence of the respondent.
In accordance with section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The complainant worked for the respondent as a machine supervisor. This is an equal pay claim on the race ground where the complainant says he was paid less than a comparator because he was not Irish. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant outlined that he worked for the respondent between the 19th November 2009 and the 20th July 2017. He is a Lithuanian. He was paid €11.54 per hour. The complainant referred to a named comparator, who is of Irish nationality and paid €13.27 per hour. This is confirmed in a letter from the respondent of the 6th September 2007.
The complainant said that the comparator worked 40 hours per week while he worked 60 hours. The complainant said that he was a supervisor and supervised 12 people on his shift. The complainant would work one week of days and a second week of nights. The complainant supervised the comparator. The complainant checked quality and ordered materials. He managed production and delivery. The comparator was a machine operator, a more junior position.
The complainant submitted that there was a difference in pay between the complainant and the comparator of €1.73 per hour. The complainant said that he worked 60 hours per week and is entitled to recover the difference for all these hours. This gives a weekly deficit of €103.80. He submitted that the Employment Equality Act provides for redress for equal pay for six years. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to recover €32,385.60 in redress for discrimination in equal pay. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no evidence tendered by or on behalf of the respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This is an equal pay claim where the complainant asserts that he was paid less because of his nationality. He provided details of a comparator, i.e. their name and nationality, their role and duties and their rate of pay. The comparator was paid more, but occupied a more junior role and works fewer hours. The complainant is not Irish while the comparator is Irish. The complainant has, therefore, made out a prima facie case of discrimination. This has not been rebutted by the respondent and the complaint is, therefore, well founded.
I find that the respondent has breached the obligation for equal remuneration in respect of the complainant. This is a contravention of section 77(1) of the Employment Equality Act. Section 82(1)(a) provides that redress for arrears of remuneration may be awarded for three years. I make this award and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €16,192.80. This is remuneration, including arrears of remuneration. |
Decision:
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
CA-00016661-001 I find that the complaint in respect of equal pay and a contravention of the Employment Equality Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €16,192.80, which is remuneration, including arrears of remuneration. |
Dated: 06/09/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Employment Equality Act Equal Pay / section 82(1)(a) |