Case Number: DEC-E2016-034. Workplace Relations Commission

• Judgment Date: 01 February 2016
• Year: 2016
• Docket Number: DEC-E2016-034
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: Vladimir Balaz -V- AES Ireland Limited

EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS DECISION NO. DEC-E2016-034 PARTIES Vladimir Balaz AND AES Ireland Limited (Represented by IBEC) File reference: EE/2012/402 Date of issue: 23 February 2016

HEADNOTES: Employment Equality Acts – Race – Equal Pay

1. DISPUTE

1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Vladimir Balaz that he was discriminated against by AES Ireland Limited on the grounds of race contrary to section 6 (2) (h) of the Employment Equality Acts in that he performs “like work”, in terms of section 7 of the Employment Equality Acts with named comparators and is entitled to equal remuneration in accordance with section 29 of the Acts.

1.2 The complainant referred his claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 26 July 2012 under the Employment Equality Acts. Submissions were received from both sides. On 15 January 2015, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Hugh Lonsdale, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Acts, on which date my investigation commenced. I proceeded to a hearing on 4 March 2015.

1.3 This decision is issued by me following the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015, as an Adjudication Officer who was an Equality Officer prior to the 1st October 2015, in accordance with section 83 (3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

2. COMPLAINANT’S SUBMISSION

2.1 The complainant started work on 10 January 2006 for a company that was taken over by the respondent on 29 March 2010.

2.2 The complainant submits that he was paid €379.20 per week. All other employees also receive a subsistence allowance of €56 or €77 per week. Furthermore, two drivers who transferred from the same company as the complainant and at the same time continued to receive subsistence payment they received prior to the transfer.

2.3 The complainant submits that he performs the same work as his colleagues who receive subsistence allowances on top of their pay, they work under the same conditions and each is interchangeable. He named 18 comparators.

3. RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSION

2.1 The respondent submits that the complainant started work in 1 September 2007 for the other company which they acquired in March 2010. Four employees transferred from the complainant’s original employer. The respondent also acquired another company on the same day. This was a total of 6 employees. 4 were Irish and 2 Slovakians (including the complainant).

2.2 On 26 March 2010 the respondent wrote to the complainant and the others who transferred and confirmed that all their previous terms and conditions applied. The complainant signed an acceptance.

2.3 The respondent submits that other employees, who were not previously employed in the first company in which the complainant worked, had different terms and conditions, which they also transferred.

2.4 The complainant was a General Operative with the respondent and was paid either €420 per week when he worked 5 days or €500 per week when he worked 6 days. He carried out like work with the other General Operatives. In total there were 106 General Operatives employed by the respondent. They are broken down in the following table according to nationality and whether they...