The complainant, a Home Help Manager, brought a complaint on grounds of gender in relation to her conditions of employment. She argued she performed “like work” with a named male comparator and was therefore entitled to the same remuneration.

The complainant was on a gross annual salary of €55,000, whereas her named comparator was paid €74,000, something she became aware of inadvertently. She confirmed the role of Home Help Manager did not have a designated pay scale and when she raised the complaint regarding the pay disparity, the respondent moved her comparator to another area of the business.

The complainant maintained there was no justification for the difference in pay, or for the payment of different rates of pay or grading structures. She argued she should be entitled to the same remuneration as her comparator relying on section 19 of the Employment Equality Act 1998:

“it should be a term of the contract under which A is employed that, subject to this Act, A shall at any time be entitled to the same rate of remuneration for the work which A is employed to do is B who, at that or any other relevant time, is employed to do like work by the same or an associated employer.”

The complainant sought an order for equal pay and an order for the payment of arrears.

The respondent argued that the difference in pay was in effect due to the red circling of the male comparator (where an employer "freezes" the pay of an existing employee who is paid more than colleagues doing equivalent work until such time as their colleagues' pay reaches the same level). This, it argued, was based on objective criteria, and did not amount to discrimination. The red circling of the comparator’s salary had come about after a restructuring exercise and, in accordance with national agreements, his pay and conditions were “red circled”. The Respondent advised that the male comparator has subsequently moved to a substantive Grade VIII role.

The Adjudicator had to consider whether the respondent had directly discriminated against the complainant and whether she was in fact engaged in “like work.”

The Adjudicator held the respondent did not discriminate against the complainant in relation to her pay. He stated that whilst she was engaged in “like work,” the established practice of red circling was applied to the male comparator. Accordingly, the adjudicator decided there was not a valid comparator for the purposes of establishing less favourable treatment and dismissed the complaint.
http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2018/June/ADJ-00009162.html