Pay difference was objectively justified; no gender or family status discrimination found.

The Complainant had worked at the refinery site since April 2000 (and remained in employment at the time of the hearing). She claimed that she had been denied equal pay on the grounds of gender and family status. She asserted that although she and her male colleague both held the title of Contract Specialist and performed substantially similar duties, she was paid less and graded lower. She contended that she had sought an upgrade from around 2010, and that the expansion of her responsibilities should have resulted in promotion. She argued that her requests for regrading were repeatedly deferred by management and human resources. The Complainant also suggested that her career progression had been adversely affected following maternity leave and family commitments, resulting in financial disadvantage and lower pay.

The Respondent denied that the Complainant had been subjected to unequal pay or discrimination. It argued that the Complainant and her chosen comparator were not engaged in like work or work of equal value. The Respondent maintained that the Complainant managed professional services contracts such as catering, cleaning and facilities, whereas her colleague was responsible for complex construction and maintenance contracts involving significant commercial risk. The Respondent emphasised that her colleague possessed specialised qualifications, including training and experience as a quantity surveyor, which were considered essential for the construction procurement role. The company further relied on the Hay job evaluation methodology, an objective grading system used across the organisation and agreed with the union. Following a formal evaluation process, the Complainant’s role had been reassessed, and the Complainant later received a 10% salary increase in 2022.

The Adjudicating Officer considered the claim under ss.7 and 19 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 and the EU principle of equal pay for equal work. The officer first determined that her colleague was an acceptable comparator on gender grounds. However, the central issue was whether the Complainant and comparator performed like work or work of equal value. After reviewing extensive evidence, including job descriptions, witness testimony and organisational structures, the Adjudicator concluded that the roles were materially different. The Complainant’s duties largely involved administrative and procurement management of service contracts, whereas the comparator managed high-value construction contracts requiring specialist quantity surveying expertise and exposure to greater commercial risk. These distinctions meant the roles were not interchangeable and did not constitute work of equal value. While a pay differential had existed for part of the reference period, the Adjudicator accepted that this difference was attributable to objective factors unrelated to gender or family status. Accordingly, the Complainant failed to establish discrimination.

Employers should:

• Ensure that job grading systems are transparent, consistently applied and supported by clear job descriptions. Where formal evaluation systems such as the Hay methodology are used, employees should understand how roles are assessed and how grading decisions are reached.  
  
  
• Maintain clear procedures for handling requests for regrading or salary review. Long delays in responding to employee concerns may create perceptions of unfairness, even where decisions are objectively justified.  
  
  
• Be mindful of the legal framework governing equal pay under Irish and EU law. Differences in pay must be capable of objective justification unrelated to gender or other protected grounds. Maintaining documented evidence of the skills, qualifications, responsibilities and commercial risks associated with different roles will assist employers in demonstrating legitimate reasons for pay differentials.              
  

The full case can be found here.