ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047294
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jason Stack | Prodieco |
Representatives |
| Laura Kerin of IBEC |
Complaint(s):
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-00058332-001 | 17/08/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/04/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 79 of the Employment 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 has raised a claim under the Employment Equality Acts (“EEA”) of pay discrimination related to age. He is an experienced machinist working for the Respondent for over 10 years. In 2021 his long standing colleague (“Mr. A”) threatened to resign and received a pay increase. The Complainant says Mr A works substantially the same job as him whereas the Respondent disputes this. For a number of years, the Complainant has gotten no pay increases save for his normal increments and company wide pay increases. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted detailed written submissions and provided evidence under affirmation. He is of the view that there should be equal pay for like work and that every employer has a legal obligation to adhere to this principle. Mr A and him perform the same work but Mr A is on higher pay since he threatened to resign. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent submits that Complainant has not raised a prima facia case of discrimination. His supposed comparator does not provide like work as they are assigned to different machinery which is more sophisticated and more productive. This is why, when Mr A threatened to resign, they increased his pay to retain him. Mr A leaving would have caused a disruption to business. It has nothing to do with his age which is substantially the same as the Complainant. Mr Paul County and Ms Elaine O’Brien gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant appears to be genuinely aggrieved by his treatment at work. His pay and progression within the Respondent have stalled, particularly compared to his colleague Mr. A. The Complainant is ready and willing to be trained up on the machinery which Mr A works on and which he says is not any more complicated than the machinery he already works on. However, the case put forward by the Complainant simply does not support a claim under the EEA. Mr A is of a similar age to the Complainant, Mr A is 49 and the Complainant is 55. While discrimination on the basis of age, between two people of similar ages, is possible under the EEA it is obviously counterintuitive. Such an allegation would need to be substantiated by evidence which explains how the difference in treatment is actually related to the difference in age. Instead, both parties agree the disparity in pay came about because Mr A threatened to resign and the Respondent increased his pay in order to retain him. There is nothing to suggest it has anything to do with the 6-year age gap. |
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.
I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 11th of April 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|