FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S) ADJ-00021811 CA-00028680-001 This is an appeal by Ms Michelle Tanner (‘the Complainant’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00021811, dated 18 March 2020) under the Employment Equality Act 1998 (‘the Act’). The Adjudication Officer decided that the Complainant’s equal pay claim on the gender ground was not well-founded. Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 26 March 2020. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 10 November 2021. Factual Matrix The Complainant is employed by Trinity College Dublin (‘the Respondent’) as Head of Sport and Recreation. She was appointed to this position in December 2009 following the retirement of Mr Terence McAuley from the post of Director of Sports and Recreation. Mr McAuley retired under the terms of the Incentivised Scheme for Early Retirement (‘ISER’) then in place in the public sector. The post of an individual who retired under the terms of ISER was suppressed and could not be filled thereafter. Hence, a new position – remunerated at a lower grade than that at which Mr McAuley had been remunerated – was created and subsequently offered to the Complainant. In fact, by agreement with the Respondent (and confirmed in writing by the Respondent in a letter to the Complainant dated 16 December 2009), the Complainant assumed her new role at that time on her existing salary. In 2012, the Complainant successfully applied to be upgraded from Administrative Office 1 grade to Senior Administrative Officer Grade 3 (SA03). The Respondent held a further round of promotions in 2015. The Complainant did not participate in that process. However, in 2018, she submitted an application to be upgraded to SAO2. This application was unsuccessful. In April 2019, the Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Respondent exercised its statutory right to object to an investigation of that matter on the basis that the issue of promotions is dealt with collectively and was, at that time, subject to discussions with the trade unions. The Complainant submitted the within equal pay claim under the Act to the Workplace Relations Commission on 27 May 2019. Her chosen comparator for the purpose of the claim is herpredecessor, Mr McAuley. The Adjudication Officer held that the Complaint was out of time. Preliminary Issue The Respondent submits that the Court should decline jurisdiction to hear the within appeal as the Complainant referred her originating equal pay claim to the Workplace Relations Commission outside the statutory time limit for doing so. The Law The relevant provisions of the Act are sections 19(1) and (2). They provide as follows: “(1) It shall be a term of the contract under which A is employed that, subject to this Act, A shall at any time be entitled to the same rate of remuneration for the work which A is employed to do as B who, at that or any other relevant time, is employed to do like work by the same or an associated employer. (2) In this section “relevant time” in relation to a particular time is any time (including a time before the commencement of this section) during the 3 years which precede, or the 3 years which follow, the particular time.” The Complainant’s chosen comparator has not worked for the Respondent since late 2009. It follows that the comparator has not been employed during the ‘relevant time’ specified in section 19 of the Act. Therefore, the complaint is significantly outside the time limit for an equal pay claim specified in the Act. Decision For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the appeal fails. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld. The Court so determines.
NOTE |
