Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Bernie McPhelim

Health Service Executive

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Payroll Manager

A public sector organisation

Representatives

complainant

HR Operations Manager

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-00030348-001

18/08/2019

The complainant alleges that she was graded at a lower grade than a male counterpart carrying out the same role.

The Complainant believes that she was not paid in line with other male Payroll Manager within the respondent organisation. Her initial appointment on 1st April 2001 was at Grade V level and was updated by interview to Grade V1 from 1 January 2006. Subsequently, after undergoing a Job Evaluation process the post was upgraded to Grade 7 with effect from 4th March 2019. It is the complainant’s contention that the post should have been at Grade 7 from the outset.

Following the introduction of new payroll software (SAP), staff responsible for payroll were graded at either Grade 7 or Grade 6. Those in the non-SAP sites were at the higher level due to the antiquated manual systems in place. The complainant was in one of the sites into which SAP was introduced and this was the reason the post was graded at Grade 6. This was an agreed grading structure.

The complainant was encouraged to apply for the Job Evaluation Scheme used by the Respondent for administrative grades, and subsequently was regraded to Grade 7 with effect from 4th March 2019, in line with the circular.

During the period from 2006 to 2019 the respondent’s complement of staff at this grade was 549 female Grade 7’s and 176 male Grade 7’s.

Section 85A of the Employment Equality Act provides;

85A.—(1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

(2) This section is without prejudice to any other enactment or rule of law in relation to the burden of proof in any proceedings which may be more favourable to a complainant.

(3) Where, in any proceedings arising from a reference of a matter by the Authority to the Director under section 85(1), facts are established by or on behalf of the Authority from which it may be presumed that an action or a failure mentioned in a paragraph of that provision has occurred, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

This section imports the burden of proof requirement to be established by both the complainant and the respondent. The burden of proof shifts to the respondent if facts are established by a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her.

The complainant in this case was upgraded under the terms of the agreed Job Evaluation Scheme in operation within the respondent organisation. She sought to use this scheme to determine if her post should be regraded. Her application was successful and therefore her complaint relates only to the effective date to be used in applying the upgrading to her. The terms of job evaluation scheme provide that the effective date for upgrading is the date when the evaluation team certifies that the post should be upgraded and that there would be no back pay in such cases. This provision in an agreed scheme was the reason why her regrading to Grace 7 was not back dated. The reason did not relate to the gender of the complainant and the same provision applied to applicants under the job evaluation scheme, regardless of gender. Accordingly, I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of gender.

I have investigated the above complainant in accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts and find that the complainant was not discriminated against.

Equality and Job evaluation