Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Rachel  Larkin

Daa Plc

Representatives

Colleen Minihane SIPTU

Michael McGrath Ibec

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-00066878-001

22/10/2024

On 22 October 2024, the Complainant, represented by SIPTU lodged a complaint that she had not received Equal Pay in comparison with two named Comparators John Paul Quinn and Rick Barlow. The context of the claim arose following a restructuring programmed at Cork Airport.

The Complainant is one of four complainants linked to the same set of circumstances at the Airport and in the conjoined cases ADJ 54765, 5464 and 54772. All four complainants presented their cases in this conjoined frame.

The Complainant was represented by Colette Minihane at SIPTU, who filed helpful submissions on her behalf on April 10, 2025.

The Respondent operates Cork Airport and was represented by Michael Mc Grath at IBEC, who came on notice on March 12, 2025. Mr. Mc Grath also filed helpful submissions.

This case came for hearing first in time on 10 April 2025.

On that day, I was struck by the overlap in the party’s prior attendance at WRC Conciliation in October 2023 and the instant claim. The time frame of WRC conciliation over lapped with the instant investigation

 I asked for clarification from the parties as I explained that I had no way of knowing what had been discussed or planned at Conciliation.

The Union reserved their position, while IBEC sought a definitive position calling on the union having adopted “a one foot in and one foot out” approach.

The Union clarified that the WRC Conciliation was adjourned and had not gone up to the Labour Court.

The instant claims have not been referred to the WRC as a Collective Agreement and require four individual Decisions.

Mr. Mc Grath for IBEC objected to the complainant and her three colleagues giving evidence together.

I adjourned the hearing and explained my planned objective for resumption as:

All complainants will present the individual circumstances and facts of their own cases, and I will expect the Respondent to do likewise.

The hearing will be held in public. All witnesses will be invited to take an oath or affirmation.

 I have agreed three complaint forms with the Parties. Ms O Driscoll to follow.

Witnesses have been confirmed.

I would be grateful if both parties could prioritise the UADS asap please as I am keen to resume these cases and bring all to decision.

I have shared the statutory framework of my Investigations on the individual claims for equal pay and the parameters of the burdens of proof required.

I presented a recent Labour Court Decision on Don Culliton and Irish Prison Service as background. Parties may wish to comment on this or any related case law at hearing.

It may be of benefit for me to review live and historical job descriptions which may cover the complainants and their chosen comparators.

I look forward to resuming these cases during June / July 2025.

On 14 April,2025, Union responded indicating that the local Union Rep, whom I had identified as potentially being useful to my Inquiry expressed a preference for questions by correspondence, rather than attend as a witness at the resumed hearing.

 It was of note that this Union representative had lodged a collective grievance on the requested role evaluation on April 5, 2024.

On 22 April 2025, I responded in seeking to follow through on assurances already given.

In response to Mr Clunes invitation to attend the hearing. This is a standing invitation to assist in my investigation in relation to his workplace involvement with the four complainants. I want to explore what work was done at workplace level on pursuance of equal pay in light of the claims. I also want to explore if a collective agreement accompanied the internal transfers that gave rise to these claims.

As this will be an investigation under Employment Equality Acts 1998, you will appreciate that I seek the presence of Mr Clune at hearing to assist in my investigation. I did receive an assurance that he would attend.

Mr Clune attended the resumed hearing.

On conclusion of the hearing, I sought sight of the Complainants EE2 form of 17 July 2024. This was furnished as requested.

The Complainant availed of the affirmation to accompany her oral evidence at hearing.

The Complainant has worked at Cork Airport from 6 June 2000. She currently works as Operations Administrator at AMU. She Works a 30 Hr week in Return For €55, 625 .00 per annum, pro rata.

Her claim before the WRC was outlined as a complaint of unequal Pay on Gender grounds.

The context of the claim centred on the Complainants’ reluctant Covid Related Transfer from The Information Desk to Airside Management Unit (Amu) where she Joined a staff of two Male Members of Staff Who Were “Paid Significantly More Than Female Staff in Amu.”

The Complainant undertook Identical Work to that of her male colleagues and contended that this differential in pay was predicated on her gender and was discriminatory.

The Union sought a job Evaluation, which did nothing to resolve the dispute and details of the Job Evaluation having been withheld from the complainant.

The Complainant Seeks the Remedy of Equal Pay.

By Way Of Written Submission, The Union Outlined That the Complainant Had Worked in an Administrative Grade at The Information Desk Until This Area Closed During Covid 2020. Voluntary Redundancies Were Offered at The Airport. The Complainant did not elect to pursue that avenue.

In October 2020, The Complainant Diversified Following 8 Weeks Training to Become an Amu Officer at The Airside Management Office. (AMU)

She joined John Paul Quinn and Rick Barlow, both of whom were Amu Officers and have been put forward as Comparators for the purposes of this claim.

The Document which underpinned this Redeployment was A 15 October 2020 Memorandum, which confirmed the Transition and Job Title, but was silent On Grade and Job Description.

As this constitutes the Primary Document in The Case, I have inserted details of this Letter from Human Resources.

·         I Am Pleased to Confirm Your Appointment to The Position of Amu Officer, 4 October 2020

·         Report To Operations Manager

·         Terms And conditions will remain unchanged as a result of this role change.

·         Requested To Sign “Acknowledging the Terms as outlined above and return it within 5 working days “

The Complainant signed, acknowledged, and agreed to the “revised terms “on 19 October 2020.  She was unaware of a pay differential with the existing Post Holders at that time.

Administrator €38.75 Per Hour (The Complainant Pay)

Senior Administrator €45.57 Per Hour (The Comparator Pay)

It is of note that   Ms Larkin was requested to acknowledge Terms in the upper body of the letter. However, The Caveat sought To Bind the Complainant By agreeing To The “Revised Terms “.

The Union submitted that the Voluntary Redeployment was enabled by Verbal Assurances received from Line Manager, Eamon O’ Donovan that pay would be increased.

The Company Held a Town Hall Meeting In 2020 And indicated that.

 “Outstanding Pay Issues Would Be Resolved In 2021”

This Prompted a Pursuance of The Pay Increase On 7 May 2021

“Would You Have an Update for Us, Ciara, Siobhan, Kelly Ann, and I About When We May Be Getting Our Pay Increase in Line with Stepping Up and Joining Amu. Mr A Had Been Asked at A Question-and-Answer Session Before Christmas and He Had Said Staff Should Be Getting It After Christmas? We Would Have Been Administrator Grade at The Desk, And the Amu Would Be Senior Administrator Grade? “

On 18 May 2021, the Company Responded and presumed the question related to “Annual Increments “

“In Relation to Your Query Following the Redeployment to The Amu Following the Customer Services Desk Closure. Those Of You Redeployed Will Continue to Be Paid Your Current Rate of Pay as Per the Phase 2 Agreement to Ensure the Terms and Conditions of Redeployment Were Protected “

On August 12, 2022, The Union sought parity for the complainant and remaining 3 Transferees to Amu.

Three Days Later, Eric Nolan, Head of Human Resources at the Airport classified the 4 transferees as having been Red Circled, separate to the now Extinct Senior Grade at Amu. He pointed out that new entrants to AMU now attracted a Composite Rate, which was not as favourable as the red circled Pay By €5, 500 Per Annum.

The Parties did not resolve the pay differential, and the Parties were due to attend WRC Facilitation in November 2022.

By February 2023, the company detailed the company position.

·         Phase 2 Agreement places AMU Officer as SGOO pay band. New recruit.

·         €42,164-€60, 610.75

·         Role evaluated predated the 4 redeployments, now red circled.

·         Only potential for a unitary alignment to grade is SGOO pay band.

A WRC Conciliation conference took place on 17 October 2023, seeking job evaluation.

Disagreement followed on the company’s position on this request for re-evaluation. It is the Unions case that the Respondent avoided the request for re-evaluation. The Union disputed the company reliance on a 2018 job evaluation as no consultation or revised job description followed in Cork.

On April 5, 2024, the Union raised a grievance on Ms Larkin’s behalf.

“Having taken time to consider out position we now wish to raise a grievance as agreed in Phase 2 in regards the role evaluation for our four members in AMU, Cork. We would appreciate any information on how the market rates were applied in this instance and how the new rate for the role was calculated. Can you also inform us of when exactly the re-evaluation took place? “

The Union submitted an EE2 form on Ms Larkin’s behalf in July 2024.

This set out the complainant’s position on equal pay and sought answers to questions regarding the pay disparity. This form captured the complainants understanding that “the higher pay grade would be discussed at a later time “. It contended that the SGOO grade was applicable to new entrants only and the Clerical Agreement 2001 on pay bands stood.

On 15 August 2024, the Respondent furnished an identical response to Ms Larkin and her three colleagues and denied Discriminatory treatment.

Ms Larkin forwarded her claim for equal pay to the WRC on 22 October 2024.

The Union argued that Ms Larkin had established facts of pay disparity with her named comparators in the same role, which demonstrated discriminatory treatment, moving the burden of proof to the respondent to rebut the inference of Discrimination.

The Respondent has avoided a response to the question detailed on when the AMU Officer was downgraded. The Union contends that the downgrading postdated Ms Larkin’s transfer in October 2020.

The Information desk has not reopened at the Airport.

Mitchell v Southern Health Board [2001] ELR 201

In applying Enderby v Frenchay Health and the Secretary of State for Health, the Union argued that the lack of transparency surrounding the system of evaluation placed the respondent in jeopardy in seeking to discharge the burden of proof necessary that gender was not a factor in the treatment complained of by Ms Larkin .

The Union contended that the Senior Administrator grade was the correct grading for Ms Larkin in the three years preceding her claim.

Ms Larkin was engaged in like work with her named comparators and sought the remedy of equal pay and compensation.

Ms Minihan rejected the company reliance of job evaluations to SGOO allegedly concluded in 2018 as while Dublin may have been aware, Mr JP Quinn, a long-standing appointee to AMU in Cork was completely unaware of this evaluation. She argued that Culliton was decided on age and not gender.

Evidence of Ms Larkin by affirmation.

Ms Larkin outlined her role as Administrator at the Information desk until June 2020. During the Covid downturn she had been correlating passenger information forms for incoming passengers.

She had reached the top of her pay scale.

Ms Larkin had operational knowledge of the higher grade of AMU as she had applied for a locum position in 2017. She had also been approached to join in 2018, but the hours on offer did not suit and roster was not viable. She recalled being advised that participation in redeployment was looked on favourably at the business.

She had wanted to avoid redundancy on offer at that time. Four AMU staff left, Ms Larkin and her colleagues replaced them without application, short list or interview.

Ms Larkin confirmed that she had signed the Transfer memo in October 2020.

She recalled Mr Odonovan seeking to meet with her and her colleagues and checked their understanding of the pay rate. She was not informed that she was being red circled or updated on the SGOO rate.

As Ms Larkin was aware of the senior status of the AMU role, she understood that Mr ODonovan had agreed to review pay “when the industry got better “but “not right now “

What followed was a Town Hall zoom meeting in December 2020 where staff from the floor posed a question of the CEO requesting information where staff had filled promotional positions during 2020. The CEO assured the meeting that increased would be addressed for DAA staff in January 2021.

Ms Larkin said she was surprised by May email which distanced the company from those anticipated pay adjustments. she waited for signs of commercial recovery.

Ms Larkin submitted that she had begun to engage with Mr Quinn on the pay disparity and was troubled by the magnitude of different contracts attributed to different parts of the company but felt strongly that she had derived rights from her DAA contract as opposed to inferior rights with DASL contract.

She was certain that she was engaged with identical work with Mr Quinn and this crystallised at the WRC Conciliation.

During cross examination, Ms Larkin responded to M r Mc Grath’s question of whether Mr Odonovan had given her a verbal assurance of upward alignment in pay in conversation? Ms Larkin responded “not specifically “but he knew there would be increases down the road. She was uncertain on what he had said exactly.

There were no minutes of the December Town Hall Meeting.

Mr Mc Grath took issue with the absence of a look back to earlier discussions when Ms Larkin wrote the email of May 7. Ms Larkin confirmed it was a request for an update on a past discussion.

Ms Larkin restated that as a female she knew that she had been denied the senior grade relevant to the job she was doing.

She was unaware of the SGOO grade and presumed it was Dublin only.

In redirect, Ms Larkin confirmed that she had not been advised of the grade on redeployment. She appreciated that the offer of AMU was beneficial but remains disappointed at the unequal pay.

In clarification, the complainant confirmed that the redeployments were individualised.

Evidence of Andrew Clune, SIPTU Union Official, affirmation.

Mr Clune was the Union official who had referred the breach of the company Agreement to the WRC Conciliation service as a breach of phase 2 in accordance with the Industrial Relations Act.

He recalled that the issue of gender arose during an impasse at WRC.

He disputed that any prior Role evaluation relied on by the Company for Dublin could not have currency in Cork as any mobility into AMU had not attracted the SGOO grade in 2018 /2019.

During cross examination, Mr Clune restated the breach of phase 2 of the company agreement. He rejected Mr Mc Grath’s declaration that this formed a pay claim for parity with AMU.

He outlined that the Union was seeking re sizing / evaluation and was met with “roadblocks “.

Options to progress to employment equality was only option left.

In response to clarifications, Mr Clune tied his involvement to the aftermath of the relocation from 2023. He was uncertain if phase 2 was equality proofed.

He outlined that a collective agreement had not been concluded in the move from information desk to AMU in the complainant’s case.

He explained the RDA, now incorporated as a composite pay rate.

Evidence of JP Quinn, Senior Administrator, by affirmation. (Comparator)

Mr Quinn outlined that he is currently employed at DAA Cork. Historically, he was employed by Aer Rianta from 2004 and moved to the Operations Control Centre in 2006. He took on the role of Operations Officer graded as Senior Administrator. Further service amalgamation followed into AMU in 2014. Invoices went to Shannon.

Mr Quinn confirmed that the work was ad hoc involving live operations, aviation standards, and statistics. He did not know if the role as executed in Cork mirrored Dublin.

Mr Quinn told the hearing that this was his first time hearing of the SGOO grade being the operative grade at AMU as he had no recollection of the role being assessed in 2018.

He confirmed that a new colleague was covering his absence and paid, SGOO rate.

He confirmed that a 280 hrs allocation had reduced to 210 rostered hours. Changes that followed 2014-2018 reflected training and private jet transportation at the Airport.

He did not have a job description.

He recalled a 2006 adjustment in his salary which he described as personal to holder, increased allowance, and RDAs over 5 days.

During cross examination, Mr Quinn confirmed that the role at AMU had grown over the years when Billing was taken out and now “Live operations “forms the main responsibility over 4 shifts.

He could not identify any impact from 2018 as he did not know any evaluation had occurred. The Cork section was not visibly linked to Dublin.

In final remarks, the Union restated that the complainant had not been paid the same as her named male colleagues and this amounted to gender discrimination.

The Respondent is a commercial semi state company which operates and manages Dublin and Cork Airports. It comprises a number of subsidiary companies such as DASL and ASC and together the Group DAA PLC group employs 3,400 employees with collective bargaining represented by SIPTU, Fórsa and Mandate.

Cork Airport, the setting for this case serves over 3 .1 million passengers and is home to 300 employees across the spheres of emergency services, security, customer service, and technical roles.

The Respondent came to hearing and refuted the claim of discrimination in relation to pay on gender grounds in “its entirety “. Accepting there was a differential in pay, the Respondent sought to justify the differential by factors “wholly unrelated to gender “and instead framed the context of the differential as arising from

1 A red circling arrangement and pre -existing contractual entitlements

2 redeployments on existing terms and conditions during the Covid pandemic

The Respondent in their written submission outlined the earlier trajectory of a collective Industrial Relations claim for “pay parity “lodged locally and processed through the WRC. The Complainant was participant in this claim.

Unusually, the Union did not take the next step process to the Labour Court, and the respondent had no prior knowledge of the diversification to 4 separate claims of Discrimination on gender grounds (equal Pay)

The Respondent accepted that the complainant did serve an EE2 form which outlined a reference to Discrimination on pay in July 2024. However, they were strident in their contention that the instant claim was opportunistic “as an alternative to following a conventional Industrial Relations route for a pay parity “

It was common case that the Complainant commenced work as an Administrator in Cork Airport in 2002.

The original permanent contract for Administrator was exhibited and signed on 5 November 2002.

The Complainant was one of 6 employees, 5 female and one male who worked on the Information desk.

July 29, 2020, marked a notification of closure due to organisational restructuring.

On 16 August 2020, the Complainant was offered options on redeployment or voluntary severance. These discussions involved all 6 staff attached to the Information desk.

The Complainant agreed to redeployment to AMU alongside her three colleagues, who wished to stay together. The Complainant commenced this role on 4 October 2020.

The Respondent exhibited a templated version of the position from October 2018 at Cork Airport and described the position as “a critical role in supporting the operation in the professional management, operating and development of Cork Airport “

On 15 October 2020, the Complainant was issued a memo which confirmed preservation of her terms and conditions in the move to AMU Officer. The Complainant signed acceptance on 19 October 2020.

The remaining two employees stayed at the business. The male staff went to a training role and the remaining female staff to an ID office. All transferred on their existing terms and conditions of employment in line with DAA/ SIPTU Phase 2 Collective Agreement.

Mr Mc Grath in his written submission set out the chronology on the evolution of market rates-based pay in 2008 which prevailed in the most recent Phase 2 Agreement.

Job Evaluation can be triggered by either company or union on the basis of the evolution of a role or changes to a role.

The AMU role was evaluated in 2018 and was set as a composite pay band €46, 756.63 -€67, 216.18.

Grade SGOO

As the AMU/ SGOO grade was lower than the Complainants pay, Ms Herlihy was redeployed on her existing pay and red circled, inclusive of RDAs.

In August 2022, some two years post redeployment, the Union sought parity of pay with AMU staff (the comparators) Gender Discrimination was not mentioned.

The Company responded and confirmed that the complainant was “red circled “following her redeployment. It would not be feasible to place the complainant on what had become an elusive historical pay scale which had been overtaken and replaced by SGOO pay band, which amounted to a less favourable pay.

The Dispute progressed to the WRC Conciliation service and was unable to meet the Union request for “resizing “.

The Head of Human Resources wrote to the Union on 28 November 2023 on the union request for “resizing “of the complainant’s role.

“… notwithstanding the above DAA will fulfil our obligations to size the role and to engage with SIPTU at the appropriate time in relating to same ….

The email went on to seek either a withdrawal of the claim or progression to the Labour Court.

The Respondent set out details of the comparators.

1 Rick Barlow, commenced in role 2004. Administrator Senior Grade, 2006

Salary €83,096, RDA, composite. (rostered duty allowance)

2 John Paul Quinn, commenced in role 2006. Administrator Senior grade 2010

Composite salary €83, 400

There is a significant Industrial Relations backdrop to the circumstances of the case.

Operations Control Centre merged with Aviation standards to form AMU in or around 2010.

Earlier in 2004, Staff in OCC entered an agreement to move to Senior administrator over a two-year window.

In 2014, the comparators alongside a female colleague, Ms OS were reclassified as Average Dublin with a raised RDA. This action was not replicated “to any member of Cork AMU since that date.”

The comparators retain that arrangement and co-exist with the more recent SGOO grade.

The Respondent argued that there were a historical context and background to the Comparators salary differential, not related to the complainants’ gender.

The comparators pay scale has not been applied to any other incumbents to AMU.

Mr Mc Grath expanded on the example of Ms OS who was graded as an Administrator senior on arrival by transfer to AMU in 2012 -2020. She retained that grade.

Mr DM 2018 -2020 at AMU. He was paid a guaranteed-on transfer Administrator Senior rate, albeit lower RDA.

Mr KC seconded to AMU in 2011, arrived Admin senior.

Ms CH seconded to AMU in 2017 on €40,000

Mr POD seconded to AMU in 2014 on €40,000

The Respondent recognises both the complainant and her cited Comparator as respectively red circled employees, separate and distinct to the SGOO grade, currently the market rate for the job.

The AMU comprises, the Complainant, her three conjoined colleagues for the purposes of this case, both comparators and a Mr BM, graded as SGOO on an annualised salary of €45,403.

In drawing a comparison with Dublin and the analogous role of Airside Operation and Safety Officer:

5 males and 11 females on divergent salaries.

10 remain in senior admin category. 7 female, 3 male, salary €83.500, which mirrors the cork comparators.

By relying on Southern Health Board v Mitchell DEE011[2002] ELR 201, Melbury Developments v Arturs Valpeters EDA 0917 and Margetts v Graham Anthony and Co ltd EDA038, the Respondent disputed the complainant’s accession to the obligatory burden of proof in the case.

The Respondent accepted that the complainant is engaged in like work with her pro offered comparators as defined in Section 7(c) of the Act.

However, there are grounds other than gender as to why the complainant is paid differently to her comparators as permitted in section 19(5) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

The complainant comes to the case as a red circled employee as do the comparators, albeit through different circumstances.

The Labour Court in LCR 23020 placed red circled employees in a unique category of

“… It is long established that such agreements, when concluded, are not the basis for sustainable comparator or follow on claims. “

Kenny v Minister for Justice

Cadman v HSE

These cases serve as permitting a tolerance for historical contractual protections in pay disparity where they are applied neutrally and serve a legitimate business aim.

Brinks Security Services v Durrani EDA 1624

Where genuine reasons unrelated to race informed a pay differential was permitted

 Apple Operations Europe ltd v Paul OSullivan EDA 2329

Where reasons other than gender informed a pay differential

The Respondent concluded that the complainants pay followed a historical and industrial relations trajectory which has since crystallised as red circled pay which stands separate to the new entrant grade of SGOO. The differential between her and her named comparators was informed by history, industrial relations, and red circling.

Ms Larkin agreed to move on her existing terms, and these were honoured by the company. The pay differential is not gender related. Mr Mc Grath submitted that had a male colleague on Information desk had transitioned to AMU, he would have been treated the same as the complainant in retention of his terms and conditions. The complainant and her colleagues were paid at top of their scale.

Mr Mc Grath concluded his written submission by emphasising the objective reasons for the difference in pay in this case. He identified that the case was on point with Donnellan and Culliton and sought a rejection of the claim.

Evidence of Mr Eamon O’ Donovan, Operations Manager by affirmation.

Mr O’ Donovan outlined the trading backdrop at the Airport within the Covid pandemic in 2020. He told the hearing that there had been an 80% reduction in flights. During this time, one Friday, Dublin made the decision to close the Information Desks in Dublin and Cork. Acutely aware of the impact of this news he reached out to the complainant and her colleagues.

He met with the staff and found that it was a very emotional and tense encounter, where criticisms were levelled at the management team for allowing the closure to proceed. It was difficult to get a clear picture.

Redundancy was offered and rejected. Redeployment to Security services and Terminal coordination was proposed and rejected.

The Complainant and her colleagues sought” meaningful roles “.

As the service predicted three potential leavers from AMU (1 mal2, 2 females), interest focussed on this area as a potential for redeployment. By July, Mr O’ Donovan outlined that 4 positions could be offered at AMU.

The position of terminal co -Ordinator was taken off the table as it had not sparked interest and the tenure was uncertain.

He submitted that job descriptions were issued for each area of offer. There were some corridor-based discussions, but he was unable to identify with whom of the four complainants exactly.

The topic of grading for AMU position did not arise. The plan was to “retain and redeploy “No other service closed at the airport.

Ms O S departure from AMU provided scope for a seamless transfer, otherwise the airport would have to have held a selection / suitability process.

No notes were retained on encounters with the complainant or her colleagues. He denied raising the complainants hopes on accessing the higher grade. He said that “he did not have the bandwidth to do so “The airport was financially challenged.

He clarified that the Complainant moving to AMU was a lateral and not a promotional move. Probation was not inherent in the move. The Complainant settled in well to her new role.

Mr ODonovan had no response for why Phase 2 was not used. He recounted three classifications for DAA employee’s vis a vis DASL “new entrant status “and Personal contracts.

From 2019 onwards the change agenda intensified at the airport where the Airport operation system was deemed out of date. A new system was to go live in February 2020 where tasks were to be downsized at administration.

The named comparator had their pay determined historically and was unrelated to the complainant’s gender.

During cross examination,

Mr O Donovan re affirmed the airport objective for redeployment. He accepted that the redeployment was not linked to the document from phase 2.

He denied giving any reassurance that pay would be revisited. He did not know why the job design on page 45 did not carry a name or grade.

He was not present at WRC Conciliation. He had no recollection of engaging with the complainants EE2 form.

He accepted that the area ID and AMU constituted work of equal value.

In redirect, Mr O Donovan accepted that the AMU grade is SGOO and the complainant pay scale was €6,0000 in excess on the composite scale.

 Evidence of Gareth Lyons, Operation Support, by oath

Mr Lyons outlined that he had been in post since 2022. He had commenced in service in 1993.

He detailed the progression of a continuous system of improvement through income generation at the Airport 2000-2010, where technology marked radical change in systems management, replacing reliance on paper and shared services were centralised. The AMU took on a live service interface, statistics, and ad hoc issues.

By 2014, billing and invoicing had moved to Shannon.

He recalled a major change due to the impact of the covid pandemic in 2020, which had been signalled as a significant year.

By 2022, the Airport started getting busier again. He was aware of the AMU based comparators who were paid an Administrative senior rate on a personal holder basis.

Mr Z commenced SGOO in January 2025 and Ms Z in June 2025.

He explained that specific qualifications were not a prerequisite for AMU roles.

During cross examination, Mr Lyons confirmed that 90% work was done at live desk.? He was unaware of rates of pay or grades at AMU. He first learned of SGOO during the WRC Conciliation.

He disputed that AMU was more complex than the now extinct information desk area.

He confirmed that AMU closes between midnight and 6 am daily.

He understood the historical red circled posts.

Gender breakdown was 13 male and 6 female.

Evidence of Eric Nolan, Head of Human Resources by Affirmation

Mr Nolan has been head of human resources since June 2022. He had formerly been a Worker director at the business for 8 years.

He told the hearing that he was aware that he had been identified as the person who advised the employment equality route, but he could not recall giving this advice. He said he may well have given the advice but “was not privy to all the facts “

He recalling looking into the AMU disparity in grading in Cork as one of his first activities in post. He did explore viability of a resolution. He learned about the SGOO regarding and realised that any concession outside of that structure “could break the pay structure of the entire company “

He was not informed that the job was resized. He was aware that different rates prevailed for jobs in AMU.

Pay was determined in accordance with annual agreements.

Mr Nolan submitted that he thought the dispute was over following the October 2023 WRC Conciliation.

He accepts that the resizing of AMU post occurred prior to Ms Herlihy’s redeployment.

He confirmed the respondent operated an Equality Policy, not exhibited.

When gender was raised at third party, he viewed this as a standalone pay claim, which he said the company would have been confident in defending as a cost increasing claim at the Labour Court.

He depicted the respondent as family friendly.

He did not hear back from the complainant following completion of the EE2 response.

The ratio of DAA; DASL employees is 50 :50 in Cork.

During cross examination,

Mr Nolan denied advising the complainant that “you have a pay gender issue “

The DAA: DASL distinction centred on unpaid breaks.

In re direct

Mr Nolan confirmed that he had hoped to be able to resolve the issue at AMU for the complainant by securing an increase.

Evidence of Ms Angela Donegan, Human Resource Partner by oath

Ms Donegan outlined that information on pay bands at the business are maintained at the library depository.

Normal practice for pay determination in front line operations is found by Collective Agreement.

There are 34 Senior Administrative at Air side Operations. 29 Dublin, 5 in Cork.

17 male, 17 female

There are 7 female and 5 males in receipt of excess of €83,000, working alongside those earning €46,000.

The breakdown in 5 Senior Admin in Cork rests on 1 Human resource, 2 AMU and others.

Ms Donegan detailed that 2018 centred on an external benchmarking process on “the current state of the role “as an “actual evaluation “The process was triggered by the Union on “role sizing “

By October 2020, 15 had moved into the SGOO by redeployment as front line roles were changing.

Nobody had been appointed into the senior admin grade since 2013 at the business.

Gender had nothing to do with the movement in this role as Equal Opportunity has an elaborate focus within DAA. The Company was committed to Equal Pay.

Change was ever present and complexity intensified.

During cross examination

Ms Donegan confirmed that she was aware of the complainant redeployment, and she knew that the moves were to occur under the umbrella of phase 2.

She contended that the Union were au fait with the job evaluation that led to the SGOO grade and had been involved in that evaluation.

Evaluations had the potential to pitch higher in outcome also.

I connect is an information tool available to all. Ms Donegan clarified that the grade for a position was not listed on this.

In conclusion, the Respondent submitted that the claim was without basis. The Company operates on varying rates of pay. The Company acknowledged the strength of feeling associated with the optimism in seeking the same pay as the named comparators, however, it was not possible to concede this, and separate pay rates were not discriminatory on gender grounds.

The Respondent accepts that the compliant and her comparators are engaged in like work. However, the Union has not taken account of the participative evaluation concluded in Dublin and Cork where entry to AMU was accepted as SGOO by the Union.

When redeployments were proposed and accepted by the complainant in 2020, this occurred within the climate of preservation of her existing terms and conditions. The Complainant was not aligned to the SGOO grade as her preexisting pay was much higher and was red circled in protection.

The Respondent did not commit to increase Ms Larkins pays.

Where a differential in pay rates existed, it was objectively justified by the historical legacy of red circled senior administrative grade and market forces.

The Respondent did not discriminate against the complainant by denying her equal pay with her named comparators

I have been requested to make a decision on whether the complainant has been denied equal pay in her role of AMU Officer, due to her gender?

In coming to my decision, I have listened carefully as the parties gave evidence. I have read and re read the written submissions and most important, I have considered the evidence in the case.

The Complainant has worked for the respondent since 2002, firstly as a Clerical Office/ Administrator grade and latterly since October 2020 as an AMU Officer on a part time basis.

This case centres on a claim for equal pay centred on Ms Larkin’s named comparators and work colleagues.

Mr JP Quinn and Mr Rick Barlow, the latter did not attend the hearing.

The Respondent has opposed the claim for equal pay and has centred the defence of the claim on the material factors which accompanied the redeployment of Ms Larkin on her existing terms and conditions, the company’s red circling of both comparators and a 2018 historical re-evaluation of grade for AMU to a lower graded SGOO.

The Respondent case was built on an insistence that there were objectively justifiable reasons other than gender which had cast and sustained the complainant into her AMU terms and conditions, which were separate and distinct from those of her comparators. The Respondent accepted that the complainant and her submitted comparator were engaged in like work. NUI, Cork v Ahern [2005] IESC 40 decided under the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, on a com. pensive ““under the bonnet “analysis of pay, my emphasis.

Industrial Relations Context and Background:

This case has at its heart an Industrial Relations Dispute with its genesis during the Covid Pandemic 2020. The Parties did not progress this claim for parity with the senior Administrators after November 2024 and initiated claims under Equal Pay before the WRC instead.

The complainant, a permanent part time worker, had committed to and invested in a career she loved at the Information Desk at the Airport. She had not envisaged closure and compulsory redeployment.

Market forces prevailed. I accept Mr O’Donovan’s evidence on the work climate that prevailed at the airport during the Summer of 2020. It was stark and uncertain. I also accept Mr O’Donovan’s evidence that the declaration of closure of the information desk was exceedingly difficult and fraught with disappointment and remonstration.

This was not a climate where mutual trust abounded. However, it was a climate where mutual trust, candour, and a shared understanding of the “lie if the land “should have abounded as the employment was supported by an excellent works agreement designed by Janet Hughes as Facilitator with large working group support during 2018/19.

I am slow to accept the parties’ submissions that the complainant’s redeployment in Autumn 2020 did not constitute a Collective Agreement as described in Section 86(1) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

The parties are at one that the redeployment was an individualised execution of redeployment under phase 2 of the change management agreement. Mr ODonovan, in evidence confirmed the relocation was not framed on phase 2. For my part, I found a certain residual confusion surrounding this extraordinary period in Irish history, which manifested as the respondent recording a redeployment on consensus and existing terms and conditions, whereas the Complainant saw it as a recorded agreement to move which ought to boost an upwards pay adjustment as a quid pro quo.

Mr O Donovan’s email of 18 May 2021 referenced phase 2 agreement, which added to the ambiguity.

What now amounts to a glaring omission is that neither party reflected that in real time records. Instead, what I am left to consider is the Memo of 15 Oct 2020 signed by the Complainant and her colleagues.

1 The Respondent confirmed they were pleased to appoint the complainant from Administrator to AMU Officer. (This is not the language of redeployment), my emphasis.

2 Terms and conditions were to remain unchanged “As a result of the role change “

3 request to acknowledge the terms which was then altered to bind the complainant in

“I hereby acknowledge and agree to the revised terms as specified above “

I have not established just where a legitimate expectation followed that this role change comprised an upward alignment to a higher grade. It was an aspiration rather than an assurance.

I accept from the evidence, that Rachel Larkin made application for the post much earlier in 2017 when it was circulated as a senior position. This stands in conflict with the Respondent stated position that no employee in Cork had received senior Admin garde since 2014. I am left with an unfortunate view of regional disparity.

The Respondent had concluded a comprehensive Agreement on change management 2018/2019, which ought to have served the parties much better than it did.

For me, it was regrettable that the parties had not inserted at the very minimum a template to govern redeployment within this Agreement as both parties came to hearing with separate beliefs on the currency of the 2001 Clerical Agreement vs the most recent Agreement which actually incorporated a redeployment protocol.

Regrettably, this redeployment occurred without any visible reference to Phase 2 Agreement in the correspondence. For me, this meant that the valuable and pertinent monitoring and option for appeal were not actioned by the complainant in the case.

Having spent considerable time listening to all parties in this case, I must conclude that the respondent omitted to capture the real circumstances of the lateral redeployment in the October 2020 letters. This void allowed the mistaken classifications of “step up” “higher responsibility ““pay would be addressed and paid “scenario to unfold and has done the complainant wrong.

I will return to the EE2 submission and unsatisfactory response shortly.

I can appreciate that the lateral redeployment occurred in the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic and the virtually closed Airport service in Summer 2020.

However, I have serious reservations regarding the gap in time in seeking to revitalise this issue.

It is not my place to offer an opinion on this Dispute as the issue has now expanded into an employment equality matter. The Respondent has been critical of this as “forum shopping “.

However, I believe I am obliged to comment on two emails of correspondence I reviewed in the course of my investigation.

On 20 November 2023, the Union sought a resizing of the AMU Officer post in the complainant case. On 28 November 2023, the Respondent sent a response and agreed to “fulfil our obligation to size the role … “and to engage with the Union.

Mr Clune was unable to explain what if any resizing activity followed this undertaking. The Respondent confirmed that the resizing from 2018, which resulted in SGOO constituted the sole record of job sizing at AMU.

In my opinion, this issue was parked when the complainant decided to explore an equal pay claim from which this case now flows.

This may be something the parties may wish to reflect on.

Claim for Equal Pay:

The right to Equal Pay on gender grounds is set out in Section 19 of the Act and Section 29 on all other grounds.

Firstly, I will set out the law in the area of Equal Pay from where my jurisdiction derives.

Section 19 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, sets out.

Entitlement to equal remuneration.

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.

…..

 (c) In any proceedings statistics are admissible for the purpose of determining whether this subsection applies in relation to A or B.

…….

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

Section 7 of the Act addresses 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.

I accept on the Complainants evidence, supported by Mr Quinn and not countered by the Respondent that the complainant is undertaking like work for the purposes of the Act, in the same conditions, equal in value, skill and responsibility with her chosen comparator, Mr Quinn.

Both parties undertake the work at a long desk with 2 chairs.

I also accept that the complainant is receiving less pay than Mr Quinn.

Rachel Larkin €55,625.00 pa pro rata, 30 hrs per week.

JP Quinn      €83,000, top of scale

I have now established that the complainant has secured the necessary burden of proof as set down in Section 85 A (Mitchell) to raise an inference of unequal pay and it falls to the Respondent to rebut this argument.

In this, I draw on the reasoning of the then ECJ in the Enderby case, a landmark case in the UK, where Dr Enderby, A Speech Therapist channelled her 40% pay disparity between her, hospital pharmacists, and psychologists.

The then ECJ determined:

16. However, if the pay of speech therapists is significantly lower than that of pharmacists and if the former are almost exclusively women while the latter are predominantly men, there is a prima facie case of sex discrimination, at least where the two jobs in question are of equal value and the statistics describing that situation are valid. … 18. Where there is a prima facie case of discrimination, it is for the employer to show that there are objective reasons for the difference in pay. Workers would be unable to enforce the principle of equal pay before national courts if evidence of a prima facie case of discrimination did not shift to the employer the onus of showing that the pay differential is not in fact discriminatory (see, by analogy, the judgment in Danfoss, cited above, at paragraph 13). 19. In these circumstances, the answer to the first question is that, where significant statistics disclose an appreciable difference in pay between two jobs of equal value, one of which is carried out almost exclusively by women and the other predominantly by men, Article 119 of the Treaty requires the employer to show that that difference is based on objectively justified factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.

C-127/92, Dr. Pamela Mary Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Secretary of State for Health [1993] ECR I-5535

I understand the Union submission where they attributed the perceived lack of transparency on the 2018 SGOO process as lacking in transparency.

IHREC, in this Jurisdiction have published a very succinct Code of Practice on Equal Pay. It shows cases   Council Directive 2006/54/ EC Recast Directive, which implements the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in employment. Article 157, TFEU refers.

At para 31 it states

In some cases pay differential may have an explanation not related to a protected characteristic , such as length of service , working hours , differing levels of responsibility , a typical working patterns , key role differences but where the differential impacts adversely on an individual with a protected ground ( gender in this case ) then an inference of discrimination may be appropriate .

Having inferred Discrimination on gender grounds occurred, I must now move to explore, what, if any reason exists for this pay differential and whether the pay differential can be attributable to the complainant’s gender.? I must also examine the respondent contention that the difference in pay is objectively justified.

Section 19 (5) addresses the scope permitted to a Respondent under the Act.

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

Ms Larkin has claimed that she was treated in a discriminatory manner when she was paid less than Mr JP Quinn, Senior Administrator. She has argued that she is engaged in like work with Mr Quinn, who is currently away from the business on sick leave and replaced by the SGOO grade.

She attributes this difference in treatment was caused by her gender, contrary to Section 6(2) (a) of the Act.

The Respondent has accepted that Ms Larkin and Mr Quinn are engaged in like work, but that is where the similarity ends.

Mr Rick Barlow was also put forward as a comparator, but he did not file a statement or attend the hearing.

I cannot accept Mr Barlow at a viable comparator for the purposes of the Legislation. He did not attend the hearing or submit a particularised submission.

It is noticeably clear at this early juncture of my opinion, that this is a company that has undergone seismic change in recent years. I found Ms Donegan’s evidence very illuminating in that regard.

There has been a flurry of activity through secondments, step ups, redeployments, and voluntary exits. The 2018/2019 Agreement was clearly focussed of chasing a collective equilibrium at the business.

Red Circling as a defence in unequal pay. O

The Respondent has relied on the defence for unequal pay of red circling for Mr Quinn, whose grade of Senior Administrator is now extinct at the business.

The Respondent has also relied on the protection of terms and conditions within the change Agreement which has saved the complainant from being placed on the lower grade of SGOO following the role evaluation in 2018 as red circling.

It is this term” red circling” that I must now examine. What is it and can it defeat a claim for equal pay?

The term emerges from the Industrial Relations landscape and is not specifically delineated in the Act as a notifiable defence such as Section 14(A) (2) on Harassment.

(2) If harassment or sexual harassment of the victim by a person other than his or her employer would, but for this subsection, be regarded as discrimination by the employer under subsection (1), it is a defence for the employer to prove that the employer took such steps as are reasonably practicable—

(a) in a case where subsection (1)(a) applies (whether or not subsection (1)(b) also applies), to prevent the person from harassing or sexually harassing the victim or any class of persons which includes the victim, and

(b) in a case where subsection (1)(b) applies, to prevent the victim from being treated differently in the workplace or otherwise in the course of the victim’s employment and, if and so far as any such treatment has occurred, to reverse its effects.

The defence lives in section 19(5) of the Act.

Red Circling can be described as protective clothing for a historical arrangement where terms and conditions are fixed at a moment in time in response to external events such as health changes, organisational change, or as quid pro quo on the way to agreeing Collective Agreement. It is an Industrial cloak of many colours.

It is a band of protection for equilibrium and an Industrial Relations tool of stability. It is not meant to be disturbed.

In reflecting on the terms, as in Ahern, I reviewed a very insightful review by my colleague Michael Mc Namee on a High Court, appeal on a point of law in Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications v Campbell and Ors [1996] ELR 106

This is a historical case like Ahern, decided on the 1974 Act which referred to an Equal Pay claim on behalf of 4 Communication Assistants against 2 Radio Officers on a higher pay rate.

At first instance the Equality Officer, in finding for the complainants had sought to explore the genesis of just what prompted the radio officers’ transfers to the accounts dept?

“She was told however that the assignments were made on foot of application to vacancies advertised within the Civil Service and were made on grounds of suitability.”

It was on appeal to the Labour Court that “red circling “as a defence was introduced but was rejected and the Equality Officer finding upheld.

I was drawn to the arguments of Counsel , Tom Mallon BL who sought an objective justification  for the difference in pay and   countered that in the absence of  a universal knowledge and awareness of “ basis of admitted discrimination “ the Tribunal exploring like work and equal pay could not be persuaded to release the respondent from that burden of proof .

Justice Keane in the High Court narrowed the legal principles with speed when he drew from Lynch J in Irish Crown Cork Company ltd v Martina Desmond and others [1983] ELR 180 who captured the Labour Court obligation in equal pay as

“What the Labour court must consider under section 2(3) is whether the difference in rates of pay between the claimant and the defendants is or is not genuinely attributable to grounds other than sex “

Keane J went on to flag incisively that the “subsection cannot be used to uphold a practice which seeks to conceal discrimination on sex grounds “

Justice Keane did not share the view that the universality of recognition and acknowledgement of “red circling “should prevail to achieve the defence sought and interpreted it as seeking a pre-condition not enacted at that time. He returned the case to the Court and said the “Labour Court are entitled to take account of all the facts surrounding the reassignment. “

I appreciate this is a historic case, but a useful insight into the views of a number of experts on a latter-day declaration in a defence of “red circling “

It cannot be a shroud of concealment for Discrimination. This requires an Inquirer such as I to examine the defence carefully, coming as it did outside of the moment of redeployment.

It is not unreasonable for a category of employee who has been singled out for red circling to have in their possession a “letter of comfort “an individualised red circling.

The Company possessed the currency, authority, and scope to include “red circling “in the 15 October 2020 letter to Ms Larkin. It goes to the very heart of this case that they did not exercise that discretion.

In addition, they failed to explain that Ms Larkin was joining a dept with a historical protected pay grade and a recent re-evaluation at a much lower grade. She was unwittingly entering a multi pay zone, knowledge of which should have been shared.

I have tried to find notes of these meetings in June / July 2020. I was unsuccessful.

Cadman v HSE (UK) [2007] 18 ELR 139

Relied on by the Respondent, referred to the application of service-related pay being accepted by CJEU as generally justified for rewarding experience, save exceptions of “serious doubt “

The justification given must be based on a legitimate objective. The means chosen to achieve that objective must be appropriate and necessary for that purpose (see, to that effect, Bilka Kaufhaus v Weber von Hartz case 170/84 [1986] E.C.R. 1607, paragraph 37).

I appreciate the historical context of Mr Quinns pay grade but found no clear organisation record of its extinction.

In Apple Operations Europe ltd and Paul O’ Sullivan EDA 2329, 2023, the Chair of the Labour Court examined a claim for equal pay with female permanent assemblers.

The Court evaluated the Respondent defence of red circling.

Traditionally the Respondent had two categories of workers, permanent staff, and fixed term workers. The fixed term workers were employed on fixed term contracts of maximum duration 23 months. However, after a break in service they could be re-engaged on a further fix term contract. The Complainant was initially employed on that type of contract.

Following discussion with SIPTU in 2015 in respect of how the fix term contracts were operating amongst other things, it was agreed that a new category of employment contract would be put in place, a long-term flexi contract which is a contract of indefinite duration, creating stability and permanence for the staff involved. As part of the negotiation process it was agreed that the existing permanent worker’s terms and conditions of employment would be red circled to the staff in that category at the time of the agreement. New terms and conditions of employment were agreed for the new LTF contracts and fixed term employees could apply for an LTF contract. The Complainant applied and was successful in December 2015 in obtaining an LTF contract.

The Court permitted the defence relied on by the Respondent in Section 19(5)

The Complainant does not dispute that at the time he received an LTF contract that the terms of the existing permanent staff were red circled. He confirmed to the Court that he understood in the context of this complaint what red circled meant, and he offered no reason as to why this arrangement should not be considered to fall within the defence provide fore in section 19 (5) of the Act.

The Court having given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties both written and oral, determines that the payment of a higher rate of pay to a cohort of workers for the reasons set out above, even if the cohort is predominantly female is for reasons other than gender and therefore does not constitute discrimination on the ground of gender.

In Irish Prison Service and Don Culliton, on appeal at the Labour Court in EDA 256, the complainant summarised his claim for equal pay as

• The Claimant is engaged in like work/work of equal value when compared to his named comparator as confirmed in the Grant Thornton report.
• There is a significant difference in pay amounting to approximately €32,000 per annum.
• There is no objective reason for the difference in pay.
• The advertisement for the Comparator’s post was discriminatory on the grounds of age as it excluded younger [applicants], and this criterion was a determining factor in setting the individual pay rate for the Comparator which has resulted in the ongoing less favourable treatment.
• The Claimant is 5 years younger than the named Comparator and 80% of Directors were younger over the relevant period.
• The pay determination mechanism utilised to set the Comparator’s pay was not transparent.

I gave this case to the parties as I could see an apparent overlap on the pursuance of clarity on how comparators pay had been determined and how the defence of red circling did not emerge immediately in the workplace discussions.

The Respondent accepted the relevance of the case; the Union distinguished it as Age Discrimination.

In this case, the Court held that Discrimination on age grounds had not occurred.

In summary the position outlined by Mr Purcell was as follows. The Respondent had a vacancy to fill in 2007 arising from the incumbent’s (Dr Dooley) decision not to relocate to Longford as part of the decentralisation programme; a particular salary level for that position had been sanctioned for many years having regard to the need to ensure that the position remained attractive to an appropriately qualified medical practitioner and was commensurate with the salary such a person could command elsewhere within the public sector; in the context of decentralisation – and having regard to the nature of the working environment in the prison service – the Respondent was acutely aware of the challenge it faced in seeking to attract a suitably qualified clinician to take up the Director of Healthcare post being relocated to Longford and, therefore, decided to specify an alternative eligibility criterion (i.e. 7 years’ managerial experience in a healthcare/health services or related field) to that of ‘a third level/professional qualification in the healthcare field’.

Having regard to the foregoing, and in particular to Mr Purcell’s evidence, the Court concludes that the Respondent did have a bone fide objective reason for the inclusion of an alternative eligibility criterion in the 2007 advertisement and that that alternative criterion was reasonably regarded by it as being objectively commensurate with the initial criterion to which it was an alternative, having regard to the nature of the responsibilities that would fall on the successful applicant following his/her appointment. It follows that the Court does not accept that the Complainant has made out the case that the 7 years’ experience criterion was a proxy for age-related discrimination. In fact, it appears to the Court that the Complainant has misunderstood and/or misapplied that term as used by McKechnie J.

The Court accepted the objective reasons relied on by the Respondent that difference was prompted by objective reasons and thus not a discriminatory practice.

In the instant case, I have found the completion of the redeployment in 2020 to be lacking in candour, precision, and a visible reliance on the Company Agreement. However, I cannot identify a safe basis for me to conclude that the complainant was assured of a pay rise. For me, it was a hope rather than a guarantee. There were mixed messages which proved ambiguous and were too long awaiting challenge.

I must balance this with the climate of the pandemic, which marked by uncertainty.

Of course, the company should have declared the multi layered pay disparities in this dept where like work and work of equal value has been established.

I would have liked to have sign letters of comfort issued to those who now identify as red circled. I appreciate that may be a traditional perspective. However, it would dive tail with the transparency requirements of pay determination on gender grounds, the essence of the Legislation.

I was struck by the apparent lack of total organisational knowledge of garde tenure, extinction, and re-evaluation. I asked myself is Dublin categorised differently to Cork. Could the SGOO grade have emerged as the Respondent said it did.?

I accept the SGOO grade has evolved, but this is not red circled.

I accept that the Complainants role was red circled in Industrial Relations terms in October 2020, but this was not explained or justified at that key time.

I accept that the Senior Administrator post became extinct at AMU. There may well have been some locum in 2017, however, I accept that Mr Quinn, as comparator in the case has been replaced by SGOO grade during his sick leave.

I would request that the parties return to cast an eye over the EE2 process from July 2024 and the August 2024 response.

Section 76 of the Act entitles a prospective complainant to “material information “to consider a job description or rate of pay of a potential comparator. Inaccuracies or omissions can lead to inferences being drawn of Discrimination, Irish Ale Breweries ltd v Noeleen OSullivan EDA0611

I was dissatisfied with the EE2 response completed by Mr Nolan, who had initially sought to resolve the claim.

I have established that Ms Larkin approached this case with an honest belief that she had been treated differently because she was female. Her queries should not have been categorised as “surprising and disappointing “by the Respondent as that response could be off putting in the absence of representation.

His comments of the complainant being fortunate to avoid application of the SGOO grade was also misplaced.

There were fundamental flaws in the manner the redeployment was conducted by both Parties. I will leave it at that.

I would also recommend training in Equality is considered for this workplace.

I am also mindful of the forthcoming transposition of the Equal Pay Directive into Irish Law which may assist this complex workplace.

Having taken all matters into consideration, I must conclude that the Respondent has proved that gender was not the reason for the unequal pay between Mr Quinn and Ms Larkin.

It was necessary for me to wade through an extraordinarily complex workplace thwarted by pandemic. I am satisfied that the Complainant was engaged in like work with her chosen comparator from October 2020. However , the Respondent is entitled to rely on the defence that the Comparator held a historical and now extinct grade , while the complainant accepted a preservation of her terms and conditions on redeployment , which could reasonably viewed as a “ red circling arrangement “and thus saved, following much scrutiny  by the defence in Section 19 ( 5) of the Act . O’Sullivan applied.

The Complainant was not discriminated on grounds of gender regarding her pay.

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.

 I am satisfied that the Complainant was engaged in like work with her chosen comparator from October 2020. However , the Respondent is entitled to rely on the defence that the Comparator held a historical and now extinct grade , while the complainant accepted a preservation of her terms and conditions on redeployment , which could reasonably viewed as a “ red circling arrangement “and thus saved, following much scrutiny  by the defence in Section 19 ( 5) of the Act . O’Sullivan applied.

The Complainant was not discriminated on grounds of gender regarding her pay. The Respondent has objectively justified the disparity in pay.

Redeployment, Red Circled, Equal Pay.