ADJ-00021811

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Head of Department

A University

Representatives

Liz Murray , HR Consultant

Darragh Whelan, IBEC

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00028680-001

27/05/2019

The complainant has been employed by the university since October 1998. She is alleging that she is being discriminated against by the respondent by reason of gender in relation to her pay.

The complainant was promoted to head of department in 2009 and carried out the same duties as the previous director who had availed of an early retirement scheme that year. In 2012, the Chief Operations Officer supported her application to address the inequity in pay but the matter was not fully addressed. When she raised the matter again in 2015, she was promised that a job evaluation would be carried out but this never happened. She also sought to address the matter in 2018 but her application was once again rejected. Following advice from the HR Director, the complainant then submitted a complaint directly to her but nothing has been done about the matter since.

It was also stated that she has worked very effectively in the role and expanded its remit.

The complainant was promoted to head of department in 2009, following the retirement of the previous director. Given that his retirement was incentivised, there were specific non-replacement conditions attached. While the complainant assumed the same role as the previous director she was not given the same title and was referred to as Head of the Department. It was also communicated to her that she would remain on the same salary and grade, given the restrictions that were in place at the time, but that she would nonetheless be allowed to apply for a promotion in the normal way.

Prior to making a decision on the substantive point, there are a number of preliminary points that I must address.

1.

Both parties requested that the complainant’s name be anonymised in light of another delicate, internal matter in the university, which was revealed to me, and which could, in my opinion, cause difficulty for the complainant if her name was to be published. Accordingly, I have exercised my discretion and have chosen to anonymise both parties.

2. The Equality Act 1998 states under Section:

I note from a review of the evidence that while the complainant became aware in December 2009 that her predecessor, the comparator, was on a superior salary package to the one she was offered when she assumed what was alleged to be the same role, she did not make a complaint to the WRC until 27th May 2019. In addition, I note that the comparator, the complainant’s predecessor, retired in 2009, which more than three years before she referred her complaint to the WRC. I find therefore, in the absence of any other comparator, that this complaint is out of time and cannot succeed.

For the reasons outlined above, the complaint cannot succeed.