ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00034646
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Joseph Varley | Department Of Education And Skills |
Representatives | Self-represented | Oliver Brennan |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 86 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00045598-001 | 09/08/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/12/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 79 of theEmployment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015,following 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 claims that he has been discriminated against as he has been treated less favourably than colleagues in the teaching profession where Route 3 Teachers enjoy more favourable conditions including increments and annual leave than Route 2 Teachers who perform the exact same work.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant accepts that he has not grounded his claim under the Act on any of the 9 grounds where discrimination is prohibited. However, he contends that under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, his claim that he has been discriminated against should not be excluded. He contends that the spirit and principle of the concept of equal pay for equal work should not exclude him from stating his case. The law is a technical matter but focussing on the letter of the law blurs the essential principle of equality. The argument the Complainant submits is that allowing Route 3 teachers to teach on the same subjects in the same circumstances as Route 2 teachers without giving them the same pay and conditions of employment is discriminatory. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent submits that as the Complainant has not grounded his complaint under any of the 9 discriminatory grounds in the Employment Equality Acts he has no ‘locus standi’ and the WRC does not have jurisdiction to rule on his complaint. The arguments put forward by him regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principle of equality cannot be entertained if the complaint is not properly grounded in the legislation, and he cannot avail of the Employment Equality Acts to press his claim. In any event, his complaint is out of time, having been submitted on 9th August 2021. His complaint dates back to 24th April 2017, which is more than 4 years before the date of receipt of his complaint to the WRC. Further, the Complainant did become eligible and was paid the relevant rate some 6 months before he submitted his complaint to the WRC. In all the circumstances, and specifically as there is no ‘locus standi’ to pursue the complaint, it should be dismissed. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Employment Equality Acts 1998 (as amended) bans discrimination on 9 grounds. Section 6 of the Act provides the discriminatory grounds as follows: The gender ground The marital status ground The family status ground The sexual orientation ground The religion ground The age ground The disability ground The ground of race The traveller community ground. In this instant case, the Complainant has submitted that allowing Route 3 teachers to teach in the same or similar circumstances as Route 2 teachers without giving them the same pay and conditions constitutes discrimination. The Respondent argues that as the complaint is not grounded on any of the 9 grounds the Complainant does not have ‘locus standi’ to pursue his case. The Employment Equality Acts 1998 - 2015 constitute the only legislation under which I can make a decision on the complaint the Complainant submitted. It is common case that the complaint which the Complainant makes is not comprehended by any of the 9 grounds in Section 6 of the Acts. I find that I am not empowered to act outside the law in this matter and the Complainant’s complaint is misconceived and not well founded. |
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.
The Complainant is not well founded.
Dated: 25th January 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Complaint of discrimination, teachers, not on any of the 9 grounds. |