Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Carlos Molina

AP Haslam Ltd

Representatives

Self-represented

The Hr Suite

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00072791-001

25/06/2025

The complainant referred a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 that he was subject to discrimination by the respondent on grounds of race when he was denied equal pay to Irish employees.

The complainant received less money by way of a bonus payment in April 2025 than two Irish employees.  The complainant had been working with the respondent for 12 months and was paid a bonus of €250.00.  The two Irish employees, who had 3 months service, were paid €450.00 by way of bonus payment.  The complainant contested the bonus as performance based when he was one of the few employees capable of operating the machine he worked on.

The respondent secretly paid the two Irish employees €100.00 to top up their bonus payment.

The complainant does not establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The complainant was paid a higher hourly rate of pay than his comparators.

The bonus payment was discretionary based on company performance and capped at €1,000.00. It was paid via a rewards card, with the first half of the bonus paid in November and the second half paid in April.  The minimum bonus payment was €250.00. 

The two comparators were paid an amount greater than what was due to them by way of bonus payment because of an error in uploading an incorrect amount to a rewards card.  The complainant did not receive a lower rate of pay or bonus to other team members on grounds of race; rates of pay are based on experience and the role. 

There was a separate discretionary bonus payment for employee performance in May 2025.

Legal Framework

Section 6(1) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 (the “Acts”) provides that discrimination shall be taken to occur where:

“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) ...”.

The ground of race is specified in section 6(2) of the Acts and defined as:-

“that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins”.

Relevant to the within claim is the entitlement to equal remuneration provided for in section 29 of the Acts as follows:-

“(1) It shall be a term of the contract under which C is employed that, subject to this Act, C shall at any time be entitled to the same rate of remuneration for the work which C is employed to do as D who, at that or any other relevant time, is employed to do like work by the same or an associated employer.

(2) …

(3) …

(4) Section 19(4) applies in relation to C and D as it applies in relation to A and B, with the modification that the reference in it to persons of a particular gender (being As or Bs) is a reference to persons (being Cs or Ds) who differ in a respect mentioned in any paragraph of section 28(1) and with any other necessary modifications.

(5) Subject to subsection (4), nothing in this Part shall prevent an employer from paying, on grounds other than the discriminatory grounds, different rates of remuneration to different employees.”

Section 19(4) and section 29(4) concerns indirect discrimination.  ‘Like work’ for equal pay purposes is defined in section 7 of the Acts. 

In terms of the burden of proof, section 85A of the Acts provides:-

“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.”

I find that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination in relation to pay.  The complainant is a Spanish national.  In April 2025, the respondent distributed a bonus payment to warehouse operatives.  The complainant received a bonus payment of €250.00.  In the same bonus distribution, two Irish national warehouse operatives, with less service than the complainant, each received a bonus payment of €300.00.  It was not in dispute that the complainant and identified comparators were engaged in like work. Although the complainant and comparators may have operated different machines, they were all warehouse operatives performing the same work under the same or similar conditions.

I find that the respondent’s evidence rebuts the inference of discrimination raised by the complainant, and I am satisfied that race was not a factor in the bonus payment amounts.

Mr Haslam gave evidence supported by documentation listing all employees who received a bonus in April 2025. He identified warehouse operatives, their start dates, and their nationality. This evidence showed that an Irish national hired around the same time as the complainant received the same bonus amount as the complainant, and Irish nationals hired after the complainant who received lower bonus amounts than the complainant. The complainant did not dispute this evidence. The complainant referred to the fact that two non‑Irish national warehouse operatives and two Irish national warehouse operatives received higher bonus payment amounts than the complainant.

The evidence before me demonstrates that Irish nationals received bonus amounts both higher and lower than the amount received by the complainant, and one Irish national received the same amount as the complainant. The respondent explained that bonuses were calculated based on company performance and service.

While I accept that the complainant was not given clear and transparent information during his employment regarding how bonuses were calculated, the information before me established that race did not have a bearing on the bonus payment amount. Accordingly, the inference of discrimination on the ground of race has been rebutted.

I therefore find that the claim of a contravention of section 29 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 is not well founded.

For the reasons set out above, I find that the claim of discrimination in contravention of the Acts is not well founded.

Equal pay – Race – Grounds other than race