This Complainant brought her case to the Workplace Relations Commission after the Respondent failed to pay the Complainant on the same grade as her fellow male colleagues. The Complainant submitted that this decision was contrary to Article 4 of Directive 2006/54/EC.  When the Complainant queried the Respondent’s reasoning behind the differing pay scales, the Respondent simply claimed that the Complainant did not have experience in the Grade VII post. The Complainant stated that of the pool from which the Complainant and her comparators were promoted, 100% of the top grade (VII) were men, six of the pool were men, 50% were Grade VII, seven were women and 100% of these were Grade VI or less. Of those eligible to receive the level of pay ultimately received by the comparators, 66% of eligible recipients were men, 100% of actual recipients were men and 100% of non-recipients were women

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was not discriminated against either directly or indirectly. The Complainant was appointed in accordance with the appropriate legislation. The Respondent also submitted that neither the Complainant nor her trade union have put forward any evidence whatsoever that gender played any part in determining where she was placed on the pay scale. The respondent submitted that in seeking to establish a case for discrimination, the complainant has chosen a small cadre of comparators with distinct and unique circumstances. Furthermore, examination of appointments to this level within the organisation show that a wide range of both male and female employees are dispersed throughout the pay scales.

The Adjudication Officer noted that there is no absolute right to rely on length of service as a legitimate objective for gender-based pay differentials in the absence of justification. The Adjudication Officer considered that the uncontested facts that the three individuals were recruited to undertake the same job, at the same time and are doing the same work, but that the two male employees are paid at a higher rate of pay was sufficient to ground a prima-facie case of discrimination. The Adjudication Officer found that the Respondent did not provide justification for the denial of equal pay.  Therefore, the court found that the Complainant was entitled to succeed with her complaint. Accordingly, the court ordered that the Complainant be awarded equal pay dating to the date of her appointment to the Professional Grade VII position.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2020/april/adj-00024040.html