Anonymised parties

An Engineer

An IT Resource provider

Representatives

In person

Employers Federation Northern Ireland

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-00068777-001

22/01/2025

The complainant is employed by the respondent as a Technical Specialist Engineer and has been employed since 22nd November 2022. The complaint alleges that the complainant does not receive equal pay because of his age and race.

Naming of the parties

As the within complaint addresses the personal information of the complainant and his comparators and as this information has the potential to identify individuals, I have decided to use my discretion and anonymise this adjudication decision.

Correct respondent

The correct respondent’s name has been clarified at adjudication and is reflected in this decision.

The complainant contends that he is being discriminated against on the grounds of age and race as he is not in receipt of equal pay by comparison to other colleagues who are engaged in like work and/or work of equal value.

The complainant asserts that there is a wide variation in the salaries being paid to newly hired employees and it is his view, in respect of his own employment, that this is down to race and age. The complainant asserts that white irish employees who are older are paid more and employees who may be of irish nationality but perceived to be a different race or ethnic origin and are younger (such as himself) are paid less.

The complainant asserts that he has established facts from which an inference of discrimination can be drawn and therefore has established a prima facie case of discrimination. The complainant stated that in those circumstances the burden of proof has shifted to the respondent.

The central points of the complainant’s case are that there are colleagues who perform the same role as him being paid more than him and white irish employees in a lower tier and hired after him who are being paid more. The complainant also asserts that there are older people than him being paid more and that his requests for a pay review are being ignored or delayed and other new employees are paid significantly higher than the salary fitment grid used by the respondent.

While acknowledging the salary fitment grid at commencement and accepting up to a point the conversion salaries of third party contractors to direct employees, the complainant stated that this does not justify his continued lower rates of pay while he moved from a tier 2 role to a tier 3 role as well as taking on team lead responsibilities while he continued to be paid significantly less than comparable employees on his team. The complainant stated that he repeatedly raised the issue without it being addressed by the respondent.

The complainant acknowledges the salary increase paid to him in October 2025 to rectify the unfairness and unjustified difference in earnings but in his view, it does not remedy the underpayment since his commencement in 2022, the failure of the respondent to address his concerns over a long period of time and the stress and hardship he has endured as a result of being paid less than his colleagues over a prolonged period of time.

 Evidence

The complainant gave sworn evidence at the adjudication hearing. The complainant’s evidencewas that he accepted the initial salary as it was in line with his expectations and the salary grid. The equal pay issue arose because of his dissatisfaction in the pay disparity which has been ongoing for three years despite his respectful requests for engagement on the issue.

The complainant stated that it is discriminatory in his view that he is doing work of the same value and in some cases of greater value than others on his team and other teams and yet he is paid less. The complainant asserts that this is because of his race and age. The complainant stated that he was managing multiple command centres while working from home and this was all under the remit of repair. He also stated that he was removed from his position as team lead despite his efforts and experience. The complainant stated that he has satisfied the burden of proof under the legislation and the respondent has failed to rebut the inference of discrimination raised by him.

It was put to the complainant in cross examination that one of the complainant’s team members is older than him but is paid less. It was put to the complainant that his age is therefore not a relevant factor in his level of earnings. It was also put to the complainant that he did not raise any grievances in respect of the issue and has had pay increases each year on the anniversary of his commencement and a 25% pay increase in October 2025 to address the perceived unfairness raised by him. It was also put to the complainant that in respect of the team lead position that this was a developmental opportunity which is rotated amongst the staff so that everyone could develop equally for the team lead position.

The respondent refutes that the complainant’s age and race/nationality are a factor in his level of earnings. The respondent’s position is that the complainant was hired as a direct employee following standard recruitment practices and with the salary matched to the complainant’s expectations and in line with its established salary grid.

In respect of the complainant’s five comparators, the respondent accepts that while they all carry out broadly the same work, it is the recruitment method of the comparators that explains the difference in their rates of pay. The respondent’s position is that the comparators were previously independent contractors provided by third parties, had previous experience with the client and  required higher levels of earnings to “convert” and become direct employees of the respondent.

The respondent cited Section 29(2) of the Employment Equality Act 1998which provides as follows:

Nothing in this part shall prevent an employer from paying, on grounds other than the discriminatory grounds, different rates of remuneration to different employees

In relation to the complaint and the comparators cited by him, the respondent contends that there are Irish people who are paid less than the complainant and there are at least two of the comparators who are older than the complainant and are being paid less than him. On that basis the respondent contends that the complainant has not shown facts from which an inference of discrimination can be drawn in relation to his age. In respect of the race ground, the respondent contends that it has approximately 300 employees in Ireland plus another 100 third party contractors. More globally, the parent company of the respondent has approximately 250,000 employees and is present in approximately 62 countries. The suggestion that race would be a factor in salary levels at the respondent is refuted in the strongest possible terms.

Evidence

Ms Nora O’Connor Group HR Manger provided two statements of evidence at adjudication. Much of the witness statement from Ms O’Connor reiterated the respondent’s position that age and race are not factors in the determination of salary levels. The different salary levels apply because of the higher level of earnings required to convert an experienced third-party contractor to a direct employee of the respondent and is also based on previous experience with the client.

In respect of the other five engineers on the complainant’s team, Ms O’Connors statement confirmed that three of the team are Irish, had previously been third party contractors that were converted to direct employees and are paid more than the complainant. The three comparators are 34, 35 and 49 years of age. The comparator cited by the complainant is also Irish and is 34 years of age. Given that the complainant and the comparator are broadly the same age and the same nationality, the respondent sees that no evidence of any discriminatory treatment has been demonstrated.

The other two team members are of Brazilian and Indian nationalities and aged 35 and 37 years of age. One is paid less than the complainant and the other is paid more. Ms O’Connor in her witness statement acknowledged the complainant’s perception of unfairness in relation to his earnings level and confirmed a 25% pay increase was paid to him in October 2025 to address same.

In her supplemental witness statement Ms O’Connor addressed the issue of race and while initially the complainant addressed nationality as the relevant characteristic of race, for the purposes of his complaint, Ms O’Connor stated that the complainant has changed the characteristic from nationality to skin colour/ethnic origin for the first time. On this point Ms O’Connor noted that other engineers on the team are black and Asian black and are being paid more, while the complainant is claiming that he is being paid less because he says he is perceived as being non white. Ms O’Connor also pointed to a Brazilian team member who is white and isbeing paid less than the complainant.

Ms O’Connor concluded her witness statements by stating that the respondent applies a system of fair and objective salary determination as outlined which is not in any way discriminatory.

The within complaint relates to equal pay. The complainant and respondent have provided written and oral submissions and direct evidence as well as statements of evidence. For the complainant to succeed he must satisfy the burden of proof that the reason he did not receive equal pay by comparison to his colleagues was due to his age and race.

Much of the complainant’s presentation related to his dissatisfaction with the different level of earnings on his team and the reasons for same. It is worth noting that the complainant’s general dissatisfaction with his rate of pay or the method by which the respondent decides on its salary levels are not within my jurisdiction to adjudicate on in a discrimination complaint. The matter for me to consider is if the complainant has established facts that leads to an inference of discrimination in respect of his salary and if the respondent rebuts that inference.

There is no dispute that the complainant was initially satisfied with his salary level at the commencement of his employment. The complainant’s position is that despite taking on additional work and responsibility that he remained earning less than others who were either at the same level as him and in some cases were at lower levels within the organisation.

In relation to salary levels, I note that the complainant’s earnings increased in October/November of each year in line with the anniversary of commencement. I further note that in acknowledgement of his dissatisfaction as outlined and to address the perceived unfairness and bring him in line with others, the respondent increased his salary in October 2025 by a further 25% per annum.

Nationality

The parties are also in dispute in relation to the discriminatory grounds that the complaints are based on. The complainant is an irish national but by his own description is not white irish. The complainant states that he is perceived to be of a different race due to his skin colour and ethnic origin. His complaint is based on his race whereas the complainant asserts that that the respondent seeks to address his nationality as irish and limit it to that consideration only in respect of his comparators.

The Applicable Law

The complainant asserts that he is not receiving equal pay on the grounds of race and age in contravention of Section 29 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

Burden of Proof

Section 85A of the Employment Equality Act 1998 provides as follows:

85A (1) Where in any proceeding’s 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.

(2) This section is without prejudice to any other enactment or rule of law in relation to the burden of proof in any proceedings which may be more favourable to a complainant.

(3) Where, in any proceedings arising from a reference of a matter by the Authority to the F156[Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission] under section 85(1), facts are established by or on behalf of the Authority from which it may be presumed that an action or a failure mentioned in a paragraph of that provision has occurred, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

(4) In this section "discrimination" includes—

(a) indirect discrimination,

(b) victimisation,

(c) harassment or sexual harassment,

(d) the inclusion in a collective agreement to which section 9 applies of a provision which, by virtue of that section, is null and void.

Melbury Developments

The Labour Court elaborated on the interpretation of Section 85A in the case of Melbury v Valpeters EDA0917where it held that Section 85A:

"…. provides for the allocation of the probative burden in cases within its ambit. This requires that the Complainant must first establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred. What those facts are will vary from case to case and there is no closed category of facts, which can be relied upon. All that is required is that they be of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination. However, they must be established as facts on credible evidence. Mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn. Section 85A places the burden of establishing the primary facts fairly and squarely on the Complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exceptions to that evidential rule.”

Conclusions

I have considered the submissions and evidence of both parties to this complaint and the relevant case law cited. The complainant feels his age and race are the reasons he does not receive equal pay by comparison to his team and a named comparator. The complainant contends that he is perceived to be non-white and non-irish due to his skin colour even though he is Irish. The complainant is also the youngest on his team. These are the reasons he says he receives a lower salary. The complainant asserts that he has carried out roles at Tier 3 level, managed a command centre and taken on a temporary assignment as team lead without any corresponding increase in pay except for annual increases and a further substantial increase in pay when he submitted complaints to the WRC. As already mentioned, the complainant’s dissatisfaction or the pay determination methods of the respondent are not within my remit to consider, it is the assertion that there are discriminatory reasons for the complainant’s earnings level that are the focus of this adjudication decision.

Age

The complainant is 29 years of age and is the youngest on his team. The team of six are aged 29, 34, 35, 35, 37 and 49. The complainant asserts he is paid less due to being the youngest on the team. Apart from asserting this to be the case, the complainant has not shown any facts on this point that would lead to an inference of discrimination. No facts are presented that show the respondent pays people under 30 years of age less than those over 30 years of age based solely on age. It is also the case that one of the team who is older than the complainant is paid less than him, which informs my view that age is not a determining factor in the complainant’s salary level.

Race

The race ground itself was disputed between the parties. The respondent contended that it was the complainant’s nationality (Irish) that was the stated reason for not receiving equal pay. The respondent countered this by confirming that there were Irish people that were paid more than the complainant and therefore being Irish was not the reason for his rate of pay. The respondent contends that the complaint should fail. When it was then suggested that it wasn’t nationality and instead it was skin colour and perceived ethnic origin that was the reason for the lower rate of pay, the respondent confirmed that there were black and Asian black staff members who were earning more than the complainant and colleagues of Brazilian and Indian ethnicity who were earning less. The respondent argued that this shows that none of the cited characteristics of race were a factor in the determination of salary levels.

While the complainant is dissatisfied with his level of earnings, and while I empathise with the perceived unfairness of same, I find that he has not provided any evidence that infers he has been discriminated against on the grounds of age and race or at all. The unsupported assertions of the complainant are insufficient to establish an inference of discrimination. Accordingly, I find that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination.

For the reasons stated above, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

Equal pay

Cases cited:

Madarassy v Nomura International plc [2007] IRLR 256

Kenny and Others v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2013] IRLR 463

National University of Ireland v Ahern [2025] ILRM 435