Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Maria Carmen Poveda Valera v Menclo t/a The Swing Room
Maria Carmen Poveda Valera v Menclo t/a The Swing Room
Published on: 28/01/2014
Issues Covered: Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Bernadette Treanor
Bernadette Treanor
Background

 The complainant was a Spanish national employed as a waitress in the respondent’s coffee shop.  The respondent did not respond to the complainant’s submission nor attend the hearing and therefore the Equality Officer had only the complainant’s evidence to consider. 

A number of incidents were detailed by the complainant where she was allegedly singled out for less favourable treatment.  These assertions were supported by two other waitresses, one in a written submission and one who attended the hearing.  The Equality Officer upheld the complaint of less favourable treatment on the race ground.

Ultimately the complainant was dismissed from her employment and when she approached the respondent some days later she was told that all the staff had been replaced by cheaper staff.  The complainant’s dismissal was pursued through the EAT. 

The complainant also sought equal pay with that of her Irish comparators.  Payslips for the Irish comparators were produced to the Equality Officer.  The Equality Office was satisfied, on the uncontested evidence of the complainant, that the complainant had established ‘like work’ and in such situations it is for the respondent to demonstrate that the difference in pay is on grounds other than the discriminatory grounds.  As the respondent did not engage with the Tribunal there was no such evidence and equal pay was awarded. 

The complainant was awarded €8,500 for the treatment aspect of the complaint upheld, about 6 months pay, in addition to remuneration equal to the comparator with the highest pay.

Why this case is of interest

  • The process undertaken in an equal pay case can be difficult to follow in some cases.  The absence of a rebuttal from the respondent in terms of whether or not it was ‘like work’ in addition to whether or not there were grounds other than the discriminatory grounds that could explain the difference in pay renders the process clear and unambiguous in this case.

Read the Full Case Decision Here:

http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2013/November/DEC-E2013-159.html

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 28/01/2014
Q&A
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →