A human resources (HR) company has failed to get a pay discrimination claim thrown out by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) after being accused of giving men “preferential treatment” in its sales department.
The tribunal has decided to hear evidence from saleswoman Amanda Ball, who claims her earnings were reduced by tens of thousands of euro a year after Peninsula Business Services (Ireland) Ltd changed its system for allocating sales leads in 2020.
Lawyers acting for the international human resources company, which represents scores of employers every year in cases before the WRC, called the claim “speculative” and argued it ought to be rejected without proceeding to a full hearing.
Legal papers filings on behalf of Ms Ball in 2023 stated that her annual earnings were “drastically reduced” when the company brought in a new system for assigning sales leads in 2020.
70% of Dublin’s ‘new’ private rented sector housing has no sustainability rating
Who gets the house: have you spoken to your parents about happens when they die?
Institutional investors can help to bring an end to Ireland’s housing crisis
US stockpiling sees Irish exports spike and mortgage arrears on the rise again for some
“While seemingly egalitarian [the system] favoured the claimant’s male colleague,” the papers stated.
“My male colleagues were given significant preferential treatment with regards to opportunities to sell and ultimately earn a living,” Ms Ball wrote in her complaint to the WRC in 2022.
Ms Ball’s annual earnings averaged €145,300 from 2015 to 2020, but dropped from €128,500 in 2020 to €59,000 in 2021, it was alleged. The legal filings were quoted in a decision document published by the WRC today (MON) giving an adjudicator’s preliminary ruling and admitting the claim.
Ms Ball’s case had been put back once already in October 2023, and she was asked at that time to provide “further and better particulars” so that the company could prepare a defence. She represented herself at a preliminary hearing last month.
Rosemary Mallon BL, appearing instructed by solicitor Peter Murphy of McInnes Dunne Murphy for Peninsula, argued Ms Ball’s complaint was misconceived.
“The fact that one party is male and the other party is female and the outcome favours one gender over the other is not a ground for giving rise to an inference of discrimination,” she argued.
She compared the situation with two engineers, one male and one female, applying for a promotion. “If ... the female is successful, the fact that the male is unsuccessful does not give rise to an inference of discrimination,” she submitted.
“If the claim is about the opportunity to earn a sales bonus, there must be something to link the adverse treatment to that ground,” counsel further submitted – calling the claim “speculative”.
In his decision, adjudication officer Brian Dalton concluded that he could not find that the complaint was legally misconceived on the basis of what was before him at that point.
He decided that a hearing on the substance of Ms Ball’s complaint should be scheduled.
