The complainant works in the HR department of An Post National Lottery. The complainant submitted that when she succeeded her comparator in the respondent's HR department, she did the same work as he did, yet for lesser pay. She appended a complaint of victimisation, in which she claimed that problems with her performance and timekeeping, the veracity of which she accepts, were subject to excessive written documentation by her manager after she lodged her complaint with the Tribunal.

The respondent accepted that there is a difference in remuneration between the complainant and her comparator, but disputed that the complainant and her comparator performed like work within the meaning of the Acts. The respondent submitted that the reason for the pay differential is that the complainant performed less challenging work commensurate with her grade as Business Support Officer. The HR function was re-organised, and a separate HR manager at Assistant Principal level was appointed to whom the complainant reports. Her predecessor comparator reported to the Logistics manager, also at Assistant Principal level, and since there was no specific HR manager to support him in his work, it had greater responsibilities attached to it. The respondent argued that her poor performance and timekeeping would not warrant a salary at the level her predecessor enjoyed. 

The EO found that the complainant performed "like work" with the named comparator in terms of section 7(1)(b) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2008, but that the respondent succeeded in rebutting the assumption that the discrepancy arose because of the complainant's gender (it was mainly females who received acting up allowances). However, the EO recommended that the respondent review its processes of allocating allowances for particular types of work with a view to establish a system of greater transparency, and to ensure that it is clearly communicated to its staff. 
http://bit.ly/mWKdgT