EDA2565

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00039180 (CA-00050541-004).

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the decision of the WRC Adjudication Officer under Section 83 (1), Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2015 on 5 January 2024.

Labour Court hearings took place on 17 September 2025.

The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:

1. Background to the Appeal: -

This is an appeal of a decision of an Adjudication Officer in relation to a complaint made by Jack Cuddy under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015 (“The Acts”) that he was subject to discrimination by his former employer, Ballyfin Demesne Limited, on grounds of his gender when he was denied equal pay to a female colleague.

The Adjudication Officer did not uphold his complaint. Mr Cuddy appealed that decision to the Labour Court.

The Court heard his appeal together with other linked appeals UDD2534 and HSD2516 on 17 September 2025.  During the hearing, Mr Cuddy withdrew his appeals of decisions made under the Terms of Employment Information Act 1994, the Protection of Employees (Part-time Work) Act 2001 and the Employment Equality Acts 1998 (in respect of allegations of discrimination the gender, age and family status grounds)

The Court heard evidence from Mr Cuddy (the Complainant), and from Mr Peter White (former General Manager), Fiona Diffney (HR Manager) and Josephine Boles (external investigator). 

For ease of reference the parties are given the same designation as they had at first instance. Hence, Jack Cuddy is referred to as “the Complainant” and Ballyfin Demesne Limited is referred to as “the Respondent”.

2. Submission and Evidence of the Complainant: -

The Complainant worked for the Respondent in a part-time capacity as a Food and Beverage Assistant from September 2019 to 29 May 2022.

On 12 November 2021 the Complainant sought a meeting with the General Manager, Peter White, to discuss a pay increase and other work-related matters, including concerns about health and safety standards in the workplace.  The Manager refused his request for a pay increase citing a need to prioritise employees with families and mortgages. The Complainant subsequently learned that a female colleagues “Ms X”, who was employed in the same capacity was awarded a pay increase in August 2021. 

The Complainant lodged a formal grievance into the matters that he raised at the meeting of 12 November 2021. As part of the internal investigation process, the respondent acknowledged the pay discrepancy and agreed to backdate the Complainant’s pay to the same rate as by Ms ‘X’.  The backdated pay has yet to be received.

The Complainant submits that he was subject to discrimination on the ground of his gender. He was treated differently to Ms ‘X’ who had the same role. The Complainant was entitled to receive the same rate of pay as Ms ‘X’. The only difference between them was their gender.

3. Summary of the Respondent’s Case: -

The Respondent rejects that the Complainant was subject to discrimination and denied equal pay to Ms ‘X’, a female colleague.

Pay increases are applied annually to all staff on a percentage of salary scale, budget permitting. Increases are not based on individual performance, but on revenue performance of the hotel. On a rare occasion, an out of cycle pay increase occurs.

The Complainant’s comparator received an out of cycle pay increase in August 2021. The out of cycle increase arose in exceptional circumstances. The Comparator’s manager sought a pay increase, on her behalf, as she had taken on additional supervisory and front of house duties. There were objective, non-gender-based reasons for awarding a pay increase to her at that time, as she was an outstanding performer who repeatedly went above and beyond for guest and showed consistently high standard of service. The increase was awarded as the budget permitted it. No other male or female food and beverage assistants received an out of course payment.

The Complainant lodged a formal grievance about his request for a pay increase and other workplace matters following a meeting with the General Manager on 12 November 2021. His formal grievances were investigated and the outcome issued to him on 1 December 2021, in which he was advised that a review of all pay rates had been undertaken and that he would receive a pay increase in January 2022. The Complainant took issue with the report and alleged bias on the part of the HR manager who conducted the investigation, an allegation that is denied.

The Respondent appointed an external independent investigator to investigate all claims and allegations made by the Complainant. The external investigator found no evidence that the Complainant was denied equal pay with a colleague based on his gender. She noted that out of cycle pay increases should have a solid business case. She was of the view that there was ‘ambiguity’ in respect of roles and responsibilities in the organisation and, for that reason, recommended that the Complainant’s pay be backdated to August 2021, the date that the Comparator received her pay increase.

The Complainant resigned his position 19 hours after the recommendation was made and so the Respondent was not given an opportunity to consider let alone provide the back payment.

The Respondent denies that the Complainant was refused a pay review on the ground of his gender.

4. Relevant Law: -

Like work

7.— (1) Subject to subsection (2), for the purposes of this 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 regard to such matters as skill, physical or mental requirements, responsibility and working conditions.

Valid Comparator

19.-(1) 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 particular time.”

Burden of Proof

85A.— (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 him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

5. Deliberations of the Court: -

Section 85A provides that where a Complainant establishes facts from which discrimination may be inferred it then falls to the Respondent to prove that the principle of equal treatment was not infringed. Once these facts are proved, and if the Court regards them as being of sufficient significance to raise an inference of discrimination, then the onus of proving the contrary shifts to the Respondent.

It is for the Complainant in the first instance to establish surrounding or primary facts which could lead to an inference that discrimination has occurred before the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent.

In this case, it is accepted that the Complainant identified an appropriate comparator, as Ms ‘X’ was of different gender to him, and they were engaged in ‘like work.’

It is accepted that the Complainant was subject to less favourable treatment than his comparator, as pay differential arose between the two of them when the Comparator was awarded an out of course pay increase in August 2021.

The issue in contention is whether the Complainant was paid a lower rate of pay than his Comparator on the ground of his gender.

The Court heard evidence from the general manager that he informed the Complainant in November 2021 that he was eligible for a pay rise in January 2022, when budgetary processes had concluded. Mr White said that he approved a pay increase for the comparator in 2021 as her manager had made out a case that she had provided exceptional service over and beyond what was expected of her and the budget permitted the increase at the time. His evidence was that the pay rise had nothing to do with her gender.

The Court notes that the independent investigator, Ms Boles, found no evidence that the Complainant was treated less favourably than his comparator on the ground of gender.  Her report records her view that the Complainant made a valid point when he stated that the differences in roles was not clear. She recommended that, given the ambiguity between the roles, the Respondent backdate the Complainant’s pay increase to the same date as his comparators increase.

In the view of the Court, the Respondent provided a rationale and credible explanation as to why the Complainant’s comparator received an out of course pay increase in 2021, which was corroborated by the findings of an independent investigator.  The lack of transparency around the application of an out of cycle  payment clearly gave rise to a perception of unfairness in this case.

The Court is satisfied that the Respondent provided a justifiable explanation for the difference in treatment between the Complainant and his comparator that was not linked to the protected ground of gender.

Having regard to the evidence tendered and submissions made, the Court is satisfied that the Respondent did not discriminate against the Complainant in paying him less than his nominated Comparator.

6. Finding: -

For the reasons set out above, the Court does not uphold the complaint that the Complainant was subject to discrimination and denied equal pay to a female colleague.

Accordingly, the Court finds the complaint under the Act is not well founded.

The Adjudication Officer’s decision upheld.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
TH	______________________
19 December 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be in writing and addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.