A pay differential between employees performing like work was objectively justified by historical red circling and preserved contractual terms, so the equal pay claim failed.

The Complainant had worked at Cork Airport since April 2002 and was redeployed during the Covid-19 restructuring from the Information Desk to the Airside Management Unit (AMU) in October 2020. She claimed that, after joining AMU, she performed like work with two male comparators, who were paid significantly more. She maintained that the AMU role carried greater responsibility and that she had understood from management assurances and later discussions, that pay would be addressed. She argued that the 2020 redeployment memorandum confirmed her appointment as AMU Officer but was silent on grade and job description. SIPTU sought role evaluation and pay parity, but the dispute remained unresolved. The Complainant submitted that she was engaged in equal or like work with male colleagues, that the pay differential was gender-based, and that she was entitled to equal pay and compensation.

The Respondent denied discrimination and accepted only that a pay differential existed. It argued that the difference was wholly unrelated to gender and resulted from historical industrial relations arrangements, red-circling and protected contractual entitlements. The Complainant had moved from the Information Desk to AMU during the pandemic on her existing terms and conditions, which were preserved under the redeployment arrangement. The male comparators, by contrast, held historical Senior Administrator grades which had become extinct and were retained on a personal-to-holder basis. The Respondent said the AMU role had been evaluated in 2018 and assigned to the lower SGOO pay band, but the Complainant’s existing pay was already above that scale and was therefore protected. It stated that no employee had been appointed to the Senior Administrator grade since 2013, and that the difference in pay reflected history, red-circling, redeployment and market-rate structures, not sex.

The Adjudicating Officer rejected the equal pay complaint. She accepted that the Complainant and her chosen comparator were engaged in like work from October 2020 and that the Complainant was paid less. This was sufficient to shift the burden to the Respondent to explain the differential. The Adjudication Officer was critical of the redeployment process, finding that it lacked candour, precision, transparency and clear reliance on the Phase 2 agreement. She also found the EE2 response unsatisfactory and accepted that the Complainant honestly believed she had been treated differently because she was female. However, the Respondent established that the difference in pay arose from historical, red-circled Senior Administrator grades and the preservation of the Complainant’s own terms on redeployment. Applying section 19(5), the pay differential was objectively justified on grounds other than gender. The complaint failed.

Employers should:

1. Ensure that redeployment arrangements are recorded with precision. Where an employee is moved laterally, promoted, red-circled or transferred on protected terms, the letter should state clearly whether the move affects grade, pay scale, allowances, job title, progression and comparator status.
2. Maintain a clear historical and evidential record explaining why pays vary. Red-circling may justify a pay differential, but only where it is genuinely unrelated to the protected ground and can be explained by objective factors such as historic contractual entitlement, collective agreement, restructuring, redeployment or market-rate transition. Employers should be able to produce job evaluations, pay bands, collective agreements, red-circling communications and comparator histories.
3. Treat equal pay queries seriously. Defensive / dismissive responses may assist an inference of discrimination, even where the underlying explanation is ultimately lawful.

The full case can be found here.