THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998-2011
Decision DEC – E2015-010
(represented by IMPACT)
File Reference: EE/2010/190
Date of Issue: 16/03/2015
Employment Equality Acts 1998-2011 - direct discrimination - Section 6(1), less favourable treatment - Section 6(2)(a)- gender) – Section 7 & 19 gender and equal pay, prima facie case.
This dispute involves a claim by Ms. Kathleen O’Dwyer (hereinafter called the complainant) that she performs “like work”, in terms of section 7 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 and 2011, with 2 named male comparators and that she is therefore entitled to the same rate of remuneration paid by the HSE (hereinafter called the respondent) to those comparators in accordance with section 19(1) of the Acts. The complainant also referred a complaint under Section 8 of the Acts in relation to her conditions of employment and promotion. The respondent rejects the complainant’s assertion that she performs “like work” with the named comparators and notwithstanding this argument it was submitted that the complainant was in a subordinate position to one of the comparators and that the second comparator was hired as a Chartered Surveyor and required different qualifications and experience for the position of property manager in the Eastern Region whereas there was no requirement for the complainant to have any such qualifications.
1.2 The complainant referred her complaint under the Acts to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on the 22th of March 2010.In accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2011 the Director delegated the case on 8th of April, 2013 to me, Marian Duffy, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of those Acts. This is the date I commenced my investigation. A written submission was received from the complainant on the 20th of July 2012 and from the respondent on 18th September 2012 and the 11th March 2013. An initial hearing on the equal pay issue was held on the 12th April 2013. The matter was adjourned to allow the parties to mediate on the matter. A further hearing was held on the 9th September 2014 and the final correspondence in the matter was received on the 4th of December 2014. There were further talks between the parties to resolve the matter without success.
2 Summary of the Complainant's case
2.1 In 1999 the complainant was successful in a competition for promotion to grade 1V and in 2000 she was assigned to the position of assistant property manager. From 2001 onwards she reported to Mr. A. who was at the equivalent of Grade VIII. She said that she raised concerns about the grade as the previous occupant of the post was at grade VIII. She got an acting allowance backdated to when she took up the position. She was given extra duties in 2003 and the reporting arrangements changed and now she had total responsibility for the property portfolio of Donegal Community Services. She then got a dual responsibility allowance. She said that she was given a commitment by the Director of Finance that if she took on the extra duties that he would pursue a regarding claim for her. The case was made to HR for an upgrade to grade VII and it was approved, but it never happened. An agreement known as the McDonald Agreement came into operation in 2007. This was an agreement between IMPACT and the HSE was an agreement to sort out a problem in relation to acting up allowances. The complainant could only qualify for one upgrade under this Agreement and she was upgraded to grade V and she subsequently lost her dual responsibility allowance in 2009. The complainant accepted the position on the basis she would pursue her upgrade. She said that the Director of Finance approved her upgrade to grade VII but he retired in 2008 and the new Director reneged on the commitment. She said that she has continued to pursue re-grading to grade VII without success
2.2 The complainant submits that she is entitled to equal pay with her manager Mr. A and Mr. B who is the Property Manager in the Eastern Health Shared Services. The complainant stated that she looked after the property portfolio for Donegal. The complainant submits that she has sole responsibility of for arranging leases, rents, collecting rents, buying and selling property and the valuation of same and has responsibility of work including legal work in relation to about 200 properties in all. She said that Mr. A, who is her line manager, is doing the same work as she is in Sligo, Leitrim and West Cavan. The whole region has a property portfolio in excess of 400.
2.3 In 2005 the HSE set up an Estate Directorate and some functions were centralised and a national property database was set up. She said that she was excluded from the training for this data base and she continued to maintain a database locally. The complainant submits that the essential skills, competencies and knowledge requirements for the post she holds in Donegal are identical to the requirements for the positions held by her two named comparators and for this reason she is entitled to equal pay. The complainant submits that she was discriminated against on the gender ground in that the respondent failed to offer her a re-grading and the same terms and conditions of employment as that offered to the comparator male employees. She claims she is entitled to equal pay in terms of Section 7(1)(a), (b) and (c) in that she performed “like work” with 2 male comparators.
3. Summary of Respondent’s case
3.1 The respondent denies that the complainant was discriminated against in relation to her pay or conditions of employment. It was submitted that the complainant’s claim in respect of her conditions of employment were made outside the statutory time limit. In respect of the claim for equal pay it was submitted that the complainant was not engaged in “like work” or work of equal value with the named comparators and are not valid comparators for the purpose of claiming equal pay. It was submitted that the complainant’s Manager, Mr. A, took up duty as a Property Manager in the North West Health Board in 2001 and previous to that he was an Environmental Health Officer and he has overall responsibility for the region. The complainant is an Assistant Property Manager and reports to Mr. A. and only has sole responsibility for the work in the absence of Mr. A. Prior to the establishment of the HSE, the processing of the property portfolio transactions were dealt with by individual Health Boards in different ways. Following the setting up of the HSE, an Estate function under the National Director of Estates was established and responsibility for all matters relating to HSE property portfolio was transferred to the Directorate and the dedicated property staff were transferred to the Estates Function and continued to deal with property matters. It was submitted that the complainant is not solely responsible for all property transactions in Donegal as the Estate Function has overall responsibility and has bought and sold property without the involvement of the complainant.
3.2 The complainant was the only Assistant Property Manager in any of the Health Boards. The complainant was in receipt of a responsibility allowance since 1st March 2000 in respect of the level of management duties associated with her post in property management. In 2003 she requested additional clerical assistance and sought to have her post re-graded. She was successful in getting a dual responsibility allowance. The respondent stated that they have no evidence that the complainant sought to have her job evaluated under the national job evaluation scheme. In December 2004 the complainant’s boss Mr. A sought a review of her grading structure and subsequently sought the back dating to January 2004 of her Dual Responsibility Allowance. In response in April 2005 the complainant was told that she needed to complete a Job Evaluation form which would then be sent to the Department of Health for inclusion in the list of posts to be evaluated.
3.3 On the 31st of May 2005 an agreement was reached nationally between the HSE and IMPACT to regularise acting allowances for clerical/administrative grades. The agreement known as the Mc Donald Agreement came into effect in 2007. As a result of further negotiations on this Agreement it was agreed that any clerical/administrative staff in receipt of allowances before 1st of January 2004, their positions would be regularised in an upgraded post without competition. The complainant was upgraded from grade 1V to grade V and the dual responsibility allowance she was in receipt off ceased in or around June 2009. The complainant continued to seek to have her position re-graded to grade V11 and requested retention of the allowance until the issue was resolved. At a meeting on the 28th of August 2008 with HR the complainant accompanied by her union an agreement in principal was reached. The Senior IRO committed to recommend the upgrading of the complainant’s post as part of an industrial relations settlement. However the complainant did not complete the job evaluation form at any stage despite being advised to do so. The upgrading did not proceed for two reasons, the McDonald agreement from which the complainant benefitted provided for only a single grade move and there was no approval through the job evaluation scheme that the post should be at a higher level.
3.4 On the 14th of August 2009 Mr. A submitted a business case for the continuance of the dual responsibility allowance for the complainant. The complainant continued to pursue her claim for the continuation of the dual responsibility allowance. A recruitment moratorium was introduced by circular 10/2007 and this circular set out that high level approval at National level was required for any pay adjustments outside the norm and it also imposed a ban on promotions unless approval was granted at National level. Furthermore the job evaluation process was put on hold as part of a cost containment measure. Following the referral of the case negotiations between the complainant and management on re-grading took place but the matter was not resolved. It was submitted by the respondent that the complainant has failed to establish discriminatory treatment in relation to her re-grading claim or her claim to the reinstate the dual responsibility allowance.
3.5 In relation to the equal pay claim the respondent stated that the complainant was not engaged in like work or work of equal value with either of the named comparators. Mr A was the complainant’s manager and he had overall responsibility for the management of the property portfolio for the North West Region and he in turn reported to the Estate Function. In relation to comparator B, the respondent submitted that he was recruited to the position in 2002 and he was required to have qualifications and experience in the property area. Mr. A is a Chartered Surveyor and is a property manager for the Eastern Region which includes Dublin Wicklow and Kildare; he reports to the Estate Function and has 3 staff reporting to him. He manages a property portfolio of nearly 800 properties 70% is owned and the remainder leased. It was submitted that Mr A, who has responsibility for a far larger area, had far greater responsibility in relation to buying selling and leasing, renting, valuing and advising on property transactions than the complainant.
4. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
In this case, I must consider the complainant's claim that the respondent directly discriminated against her on the gender ground in terms of section 6(1)(a) and 6(2)(a) of the Employment Equality Acts, in contravention of sections 7 and 8 of the Acts in relation to conditions of employment, promotion/regarding and equal pay. I must also decide if the complainant was engaged in like work under section 7 of the Acts with two named comparators and entitled to equal pay in accordance with section 19 of the Acts.
4.1 The first matter I have to consider is whether the complaint was referred within the statutory time limit and is validly before me. The respondent’s representative submitted that the complaint did not submit all her complaint within the statutory time limit for referring the complaint to the Tribunal. Section 77(5)(a) of the Act provides that a complaint has to be referred within six months of the most recent occurrence of the alleged act of discrimination. I note that the complainant referred the complaint to the Tribunal on the 22nd of March 2010 stating that the alleged discrimination was ongoing. I note that the complainant and her union had ongoing discussions and contact with the respondent regarding re-grading/maintaining the dual allowance. The complainant referred the matter to the Right’s Commissioner under the Industrial Relations Act and in a response to a communication from the LRC the respondent objected to having the matter investigated by a Right’s Commissioner on the 2nd of October 2009. I am satisfied that the claim for re-grading was still being actively being pursued by the complainant and that the latest occurrence of the alleged discriminatory treatment occurred on that date. Therefore the complaint received on the 22nd of March 2010 was referred within the six month period. I find therefore that the complaint was referred within the statutory time limit and accordingly it is validly before me. In relation to the equal pay claim Section 77(5)(c) provides that the time limits in 77(5)(a) and 77(5)(b) do not apply to equal pay claims.
I am now going to consider the evidence in the light of the above and to determine whether the complainant has established a prima facie case.
4.2 Section 6(1) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 and 2011 provides:
6.—(1) For the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to its
provisions relating to discrimination occurring in particular circumstances,
discrimination shall be taken to occur where—
(a) a person is treated less favourably than another person is,
has been or would be treated in a comparable situation
on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this
Act referred to as the ‘‘discriminatory grounds’’)
Section 6(2)(a) provides that as between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds are, inter alia:
(a) that one is a woman ant the other is a man (in
this Act, referred to as ‘‘the gender ground’’),
Section 8 provides:
“8(1) In relation to—
(a) access to employment,
(b) conditions of employment,
(c) training or experience for or in relation to employment,
(d) promotion or re-grading, or
(e) classification of posts,
an employer shall not discriminate against an employee or prospective
employee and a provider of agency work shall not discriminate
against an agency worker.”
(4) A person who is an employer shall not, in relation to
employees or employment—
(a) have rules or instructions which would result in discrimination
against an employee or class of employees in
relation to any of the matters specified in paragraphs (b)
to (e) of subsection (1), or
(b) otherwise apply or operate a practice which results or would
be likely to result in any such discrimination.”
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), an
employer shall be taken to discriminate against an employee or prospective
employee in relation to access to employment if the
employer discriminates against the employee or prospective
(a) in any arrangements the employer makes for the purpose of
deciding to whom employment should be offered, or
(b) by specifying, in respect of one person or class of persons,
entry requirements for employment which are not specified
in respect of other persons or classes of persons,
where the circumstances in which both such persons or
classes would be employed are not materially different.
(6) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), an
employer shall be taken to discriminate against an employee or prospective
employee in relation to conditions of employment if, on any
of the discriminatory grounds, the employer does not offer or afford
to that employee or prospective employee or to a class of persons of
whom he or she is one—
(a) the same terms of employment (other than remuneration
and pension rights),
(b) the same working conditions, and
(c) the same treatment in relation to overtime, shift work, short
time, transfers, lay-offs, redundancies, dismissals and disciplinary
as the employer offers or affords to another person or class of persons,
where the circumstances in which both such persons or classes
are or would be employed are not materially different.
(8) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), an
employer shall be taken to discriminate against an employee in
relation to promotion if, on any of the discriminatory grounds—
(a) the employer refuses or deliberately omits to offer or afford
the employee access to opportunities for promotion in
circumstances in which another eligible and qualified person
is offered or afforded such access, or
(b) the employer does not in those circumstances offer or afford
the employee access in the same way to those opportunities.”
Section 85A of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2011 sets out the burden of proof as follows:
“(1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or
on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that
there has been discrimination in relation to her or her, it is for the
respondent to prove the contrary.”
4.3 The complainant has claimed that she was discriminated against on the gender ground in relation to her conditions of employment in that the respondent failed to upgrade her position or reinstate her dual responsibility allowance pending the outcome of her upgrade request. The respondent denies that the complainant was discriminated against in relation to her request for an upgrade.
4.4 In order for the complainant to ground a complaint of direct discriminatory treatment, she must show that the treatment complained off, in relation to her treatment, was less favourable treatment on the gender ground than that afforded to a male employee in similar circumstances. I note that the complainant was upgraded to grade V as a result of the McDonald agreement and the dual responsibility allowance discontinued in accordance with the agreement. There was no evidence put before me that the application of the agreement was applied more favourably to male employees than female employees. Furthermore there was no evidence that the refusal of her application for a further upgrade and the continuation of the dual responsibility allowance pending the outcome of her application for an upgrade are connected to her gender. I am satisfied that there were reasons unconnected with the complainant’s gender for not following through on the upgrade in that the complainant did not complete an evaluation form and then the evaluation system was suspended and a moratorium on recruitment, upgrades and cost increasing claims was introduced. There was no evidence presented that any male employee was treated more favourably than her. I find therefore that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment in relation to this aspect of her case.
5 Equal Pay
5.1 The complainant states she was directly discriminated against on the grounds of gender in relation to her pay in that she performs like work or work of equal value with two named male comparators.
Like work is defined in Section 7 of the Act:
...in relation to the work which one person is employed to do, another person shall be regarded as employed to do like work if-
(a) both perform the same work under the same or similar conditions or each is interchangeable with the other in relation to the work
(b) the work performed by one is of a similar nature to that performed by the other and any differences between the work performed or the conditions under which it is performed by each either are of small importance in relation to the work as a whole or occur with such irregularity as not to be significant to the work as a whole, or
(c) the work performed by one is equal in value to the work performed by the other having regards to such matters as skill, physical or mental requirements responsibility and working conditions
Section 19 (1) provides that where A and B represent two people of the opposite sex that:
It shall 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 as B who, at that or any other relevant time, is employed to do
like work by the same or an associated employer.
(2) In this section ‘relevant time’, in relation to a particular time, is
any time (including a time before the commencement of this section)
during the 3 years which precede, or the 3 years which follow, the
5.2 The existence of “like work” between a complainant and a named comparator is required to establish any entitlement to equal pay under the Acts. Therefore, I will first examine whether like work exists.
I have examined the evidence and the job descriptions of the complainant and her 2 named comparators (Mr. A. and Mr. B) provided by both the complainant and the respondent. I also heard evidence from the complainant and comparators in relation to the work they carry out. In order to see whether or not the work of the complainant and the named comparator in their various roles is equal in value as per Section 7(1) (c), I have examined same under the headings of skill, physical or mental requirements, responsibility and working conditions. As the complainant has also claimed like work within the meaning of Section 7 (1) (a) and (b), I have also considered whether each of roles constitutes like work as per those subsections.
I am of the view in this case that the skills required by the complainant are not equal to those required by the Comparator A who is the complainant’s manager and has far greater management responsibility than she has. While the skills required to manage the property portfolio are the same in terms of renting and leasing, the complainant has responsibility for Donegal only whereas Mr A has responsibility for the larger property portfolio of Sligo Leitrim and West Cavan, in addition to having overall responsibility for Donegal and management responsibility and supervisory responsibility for staff including the complainant. The complainant carries her role in consultation with Mr. A.
Comparator B was recruited to manage the portfolio of property in the Eastern Region Health area. He was required to have a recognised qualification in Chartered Surveying. I note the property portfolio, which has an insurance value of about 1.7 billion, managed by the comparator B in the Eastern Region is far larger than that managed by the complainant in Co. Donegal. He is involved in making recommendations for buying, selling and leasing property and valuing the said property. He is required to watch the market to ensure the price either selling or buying is within the current market range. He also surveys properties and makes recommendations in relation to the findings. I find that comparator B requires greater skill to carry out his duties than the skill required by the complainant. For these reasons, I am satisfied that in this particular case that the skill required from the complainant are not equal to that required by either comparator A or B.
5.4Physical or Mental Requirements:
Similar levels of mental effort are required by both the complainant and comparator A in relation to the property portfolio. However I find that Mr. A has greater physical demands made on him given the wider area of the property portfolio he looks after and the fact he has far greater management responsibility than the complainant .
I am satisfied that the mental requirements of Comparator B are greater given that he is required to survey, measure property and make decisions and recommendations in relation to the outcomes of the survey and assess the property suitability and value. He also has to report to the Property Review Group of the Estate function and make decisions and recommendations in relation to the disposal or acquisition of properties and advise on the best options having regard to the current market value. Mr. B also has to ensure that the legal issues such as title, planning permission etc. are in order. I find that that the physical and mental demands made on the complainant are not equal to those made on the comparators as both have management responsibility for a far greater property portfolio including management of staff than the complainant.
The complainant is solely responsible for the property portfolio in Donegal Comparator A has overall responsibility for the property portfolio of the whole area including Donegal. In addition he has staff responsibility. Comparator B has responsibility for the Easters Region (Dublin Wicklow and Kildare) property portfolio where the greatest number of the population live and consequently where the greatest demands are made on the respondent’s services. He also has far greater responsibility in relation to the management of these properties than the complainant has and in addition he has staff management responsibility. Therefore I find the comparators A and B have higher levels of responsibility than the complainant.
The working conditions are similar for both the complainant and the comparator A and B. While both the complainant and her comparators are office based they all have to attend meetings outside the office.
5.8 Therefore I consider that the demands made on the named male comparators in terms of the level of skill, physical and mental requirement and responsibility are greater than those made on the complainant. Consequently, I find that the complainant did not perform 'like work' with a named male comparators in terms of Section 7(1)(c) of the Acts.
5.9 In relation to Section 7(1)(a) and (b) I also find that all work done by the complainant and comparator was not similar in nature and interchangeable. While the duties of the complainant and comparator A were similar to the extent that they both carried out duties in respect of the property portfolio for the North West Region, the complainant did not carry out all the management duties associated with the comparator A’s job and therefore the work is not interchangeable. In relation Comparator B, I am satisfied that the duties carried out by the complainant were not interchangeable with the duties of B. He required far greater qualifications than she had. He is a chartered surveyor and was required to survey properties the respondent was either buying or renting or leasing. Therefore, I find that the complainant did not carry out “like work” within the meaning of Section 7 (1) (a) and (b) of the Acts with either of the named comparators.
Notwithstanding my finding above in relation to direct discrimination I have also considered whether the complaint has picked the correct comparators in relation to her claim
The complainant picked two male property managers at grade VIII as comparators for the purposes of establishing ‘like work’ or work of equal value. However I note that at that time the comparator group (property managers) consisted of both male and female employees. I note that there are eight property managers (4 male and 4 female) heading up property management units for the respondent. Of these there are two males and one female are grade VIII and there are 2 males and 3 females at Grade VII. In considering whether the complainant can select and formulate a group of male property managers only from whole group of property managers which consist of both males and females, I have considered this point in the light of the Supreme Court Judgement in the case of National University of Ireland Cork -v- Ahern & ORS  SC IE 40. This was a case under the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act1974 (now repealed and re-enacted by the Employment Equality Acts) where a group of male security officers claimed discrimination in relation to equal pay and they chose two job sharing female switch board operators as comparators who were paid the same as the full-time switch operators. The full time switch board operators were mainly female and it was accepted that they performed like work to the male security officers. In relation to the composition of the comparators McCracken J. in delivering the Supreme Court Judgment stated:
The question at issue here is whether the differing rates of remuneration are based on the grounds of sex or whether there are other reasons for the differential. This involves a different approach to the position of the comparators, and in particular of the context in which they were employed. I accept the arguments on behalf of the Appellant that for this purpose the Labour Court ought to have looked at the position of the comparators, not only in isolation, but also in the context of the other persons in the same grade who had not been chosen as comparators, namely the remaining switchboard operators.
5.11 I note that in an appeal on a point of Law from a decision of the Labour Court concerning an equal pay claim, the High Court in the case of Margaret Kenny & others and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform & others, referred a number of questions to the CJEU. Following the delivery of the CJEU’s Judgment (C-427/11) in answer to the questions posed, Mr. Justice Patrick McCarthy delivered his Judgement in the case on the 13th of January 2014  IEHC 11. McCarthy J. in considering the choice of comparators in equal pay cases quoted the following passage at para 44 from the CJEU Judgment: “…a comparison is not relevant where it involves groups formed in an arbitrary manner so that one comprises predominantly women and the other predominantly men with a view to carrying out successive comparisons and thereby bringing the pay of the group consisting predominantly of women to the level of that of another group also formed in an arbitrary manner so that it consists predominantly of men …..”
In providing guidance for the Labour Court, McCarthy J stated inter alia the following at para 24:
“For the guidance of the Labour Court, and at the risk of repetition, I summarise the law as follows:
(ii) The comparators are valid comparators only if they cover enough individuals, do not illustrate purely fortuitous or short term phenomena and in general appear to be significant.
(iii) Valid comparators cannot be based upon groups formed or individuals chosen in an arbitrary manner, or on an artificial or unrepresentative basis. In this context it is, of course, to state the obvious that the choice must be made from the whole cohort of persons with whom one seeks parity.
(iv) One cannot simply discard a succession of persons or classes in the cohort to arrive, by process of elimination, at classes within the whole group whose members are performing the same work.”
5.11 While these judgments involve indirect discrimination cases, direct discrimination cases also require a valid comparator. In applying the above jurisprudence to the case in hand, it would seem to me that I have to look at the whole comparator group that is the property manager group including the 4 females in the group and not just at the male comparators chosen by the complainant.
In the Ahern case cited above the Supreme Court states that I cannot look at the comparator group in isolation, but in the context of other people in the group and the CJEU states that a comparator group “cannot be formed in an arbitrary manner so that it consist predominately of men.” And the High Court states I have to look at the whole cohort of persons in the comparator group. I note that there were two groups of property managers one at Grade 7 and the other at Grade 8 consisting of males and females as outlined above. The complainant chose two males from the Grade 8 group which also consisted of a female at grade 8. Applying the jurisprudence above I am satisfied that the comparators chosen by the complainant were chosen in an arbitrary manner, the whole group which consists of male and female is the correct comparator group. In order to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment in relation to pay on the gender ground the complainant firstly has to compare her work to that of a male comparator in accordance with section 19(1). It is a matter for the complainant to select her comparator. However a valid comparator has to be selected and I find that the valid comparators consists of the whole group and cannot select just a group of males from a group which consists of both male and female doing like work for the purposes of making out a case. The complainant cannot compare her work to the work of a female comparator so therefore she cannot establish less favourable treatment in relation to her pay. Therefore the complainant cannot establish a prima facie establish a prima case of pay discrimination.
6.1 I have concluded my investigation of the complaints and I hereby make the following decision in accordance with Section 79(6) of the Act. I find that
(i) The respondent did not discriminate against the complainant regarding her conditions of employment on the gender s ground contrary to Section 8(1) of the Acts.
(ii) The complainant was not engaged in “like work” with the named male comparator in terms of Section 7(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Acts and therefore she is not entitled to the same rate of remuneration as the comparator in accordance with Section 19 of the Acts.
(iii) the group of comparators selected by the complainant were not valid comparators for the purposes of establishing “like work” in terms of Section 7(1)(a), (b) and (c) and less favourable treatment in terms of 19(1) of the Acts.
16th March 2015