Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Alan  Melia

An Garda Siochana

Representatives

N/A

Stephen Hanaphy BL instructed by Bryan MacNamara Chief State Solicitor's Office

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00066156-001

20/09/2024

Following his successful application for the position of Networks and Cybersecurity – Senior ICT Specialist in the Civil Service in a 2023 open competition run by the Public Appointments Service, the Complainant requested a review of his starting salary prior to acceptance of the position because he was employed at a higher pay grade by the Respondent. He stated that the refusal to award him an analogous grade constitutes discrimination on the age ground.  

The Complainant has been employed as a telecoms specialist in An Garda Síochána since 1999 and was promoted to Sergeant rank in 2020. He was recruited in 1999 under Regulation 14 which enabled the Respondent to recruit persons with specialist technical qualifications as members of An Garda Síochána. He was appointed a member of An Garda Síochána pursuant to Regulation 14 even though his role was of a specialist nature and he did not receive any Garda operational training.

The Complaint was successful in a 2023 open competition run by the Public Appointments Service for Networks and Cybersecurity – Senior ICT Specialist in the Civil Service (Higher Executive Officer level). On 25 September 2023, the Complainant requested a review of his starting salary prior to accepting the position due to his current employment as a Sergeant in ICT, An Garda Síochána. The Complainant was seeking to be awarded an “Analogous Grade” before accepting his new role because he did not wish to lose significant pay on moving to the Civil Service.

He stated that the request to be awarded “Analogous Grade” was ultimately refused, which he stated constituted discrimination on the age ground.

The Respondent stated that the request by the Complainant to be awarded “Analogous Grade” was ultimately refused following an exhaustive process which involved both an appeal and a review of the matter by DPENDR, which was communicated to the Complainant on 17 July 2024.

It was also asserted that there was no evidence of any discrimination, including age discrimination, presented by the Complainant.

The Complainant stated that he was discriminated against on the age outlined in Section 6 (1) of the Act because of the refusal to award him an analogous grade as set out above.

For his complaint to succeed, it is incumbent on the Complainant to identify a valid comparator, namely someone of a different age who was treated in a different manner to him and who was awarded an analogous grade.

The next hurdle is that the Complainant, under Section 85 A of the Act must prove on the balance of probabilities the primary facts on which he relies in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination.   The test for applying this section is well settled in several decisions and specifically in Mitchell v Southern Health Board [2001] ELR 201:

“The claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination.  It is only when these primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court, and they are regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, that the onus shifts to the Respondent to prove that there is no infringement of the principle of equal treatment”.

Despite extensive probing at the hearing and having given him the opportunity to provide further written submissions, received by the WRC on 31 March 2025, there was no valid comparator provided by the Complainant nor were any primary facts presented on which to raise a presumption of discrimination on the age ground.

Considering all of the foregoing, I find that this discrimination complaint is frivolous given that there is no valid basis for it.

Section 77 A of the Employment Equality Acts allows me to dismiss a claim at any stage if it is frivolous or vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter or made in bad faith.

I am satisfied that this complaint is frivolous in the sense that it lacks any legal merit in light of the fact outlined above.