This case relates to claims of discrimination and for equal pay made by three employees of Latvian nationality.  The claim relating to the third complainant was dispensed with as the complainant did not show up for the hearing.  The remaining two complainants attended to pursue their claims and presented evidence in relation to less favourable treatment on the race ground in comparison with Irish employees.  What is interesting in this case is that it shows how a claim will be upheld where the Equality Officer finds the complainant’s evidence compelling even in the apparent absence of documentary or other supporting evidence.  Once the complainant establishes such a prima facie case, then in circumstances where the respondent’s responding evidence is unavailable for whatever reason, the claims will be upheld.  In this case the respondent was in liquidation and the liquidator provided pay information to the Tribunal before the case was assigned to an Equality Officer.

The complainants, who were employed as drivers, asserted that their Irish colleagues only worked day shifts and were never asked to work Saturdays.  In addition they, the Irish colleagues, had better trucks called electric pallet trucks which were easier to load and unload.  One complainant stated that “on occasion, his back muscles were so strained from the physical effort of loading and unloading his more old-fashioned truck, that he had to stay away from work for a few days rest.  He would not be paid for those days, so essentially lost income as a result of his less favourable conditions of employment.”  These assertions were accepted by the Equality officer in their entirety who was satisfied that “both complainants are entitled to succeed in their complaints of discrimination in their conditions of employment.”

The Equality Officer then looked at the claims for equal pay and used the information previously provided by the Liquidator to assist in that. Based on the information received from the Liquidator the Irish employee had significantly higher pay than the other three, including the second complainant, who were non-Irish nationals.  The Equality Officer found, based on the assertions of the complainants, that they were engaged in like work with the comparators and that there was no satisfactory explanation for the difference in pay in respect of the second complainant.  On that basis the Equality Officer decided that it was “so obviously connected to the workers’ nationality” and equal pay was awarded on that basis to the second complainant.  The first complainant started his employment around the same time as three Irish drivers one of which started on the same day and on the same rate of pay.  That was found to be fatal to his claim for equal pay.

Both complainants were awarded €7500 for the discrimination in respect of their conditions of employment, slightly more than three months pay.  The complainant awarded equal pay had been earning €10.50 per hour and was awarded €19.73 per hour for the period from 6 July 2009 to the end of his employment which, presumably was sometime during the six months prior to the lodgement of the claim.  He was therefore awarded equal pay amounting to €9.23 per hour for between 18 months and two years although it should be noted that the respondent is in liquidation.

Why is this case of interest?

• In this case the Equality Officer accepted the assertion that the first and second complainants were engaged in like work because the Liquidator (in the absence of the employer) did not dispute it.
  • The evidence of the complainants was accepted in respect of their conditions of employment.  The complainants must have been very convincing witnesses to elevate their assertions to a factual basis from which an inference of discrimination can be drawn.  This topic is handled in the Labour Court’s decision Melbury Developments v Arturs Valpetters, EDA0917