Female DAA employees at Cork Airport have gender pay discrimination case thrown out by WRC

Four women employed by the DAA at Cork Airport have had gender pay discrimination complaints against the semi-state company thrown out by the Workplace Relations Commission.

In the four conjoined cases, the context of the complaints centred on four women - Ciara Daly, Rachel Larkin, Siobhan Herlihy and Kelly Ann O'Driscoll - and their "reluctant" covid-related transfer from the information desk to the DAA's airside management unit (AMU), where they joined two male members of staff who were "paid significantly more than female staff."

Representing all four women, Colleen Minihane of the trade union Siptu said they undertook identical work to that of their male colleagues and contended that the pay differential was predicated on gender and therefore discriminatory.

Siptu said the women had worked in an administrative grade at the information desk until this area closed during the pandemic. Voluntary redundancies were offered at the airport but were not pursued by the four women.

In October 2020, the complainants diversified after eight weeks' training to become AMU officers, joining two male colleagues, both of whom were AMU officers and were put forward as comparators for the women's claim.

Ms Minihane of Siptu said their redeployment was confirmed in a memorandum that outlined their transition and job title but did not mention the role's grade or job description.

Each woman agreed to "revised terms" by signing the memorandum, but was unaware of the pay differential with the existing post holders at that time.

While the women were given a wage of €38.75 per hour as administrators, the two male colleagues were paid €45.57 per hour as senior administrators, the WRC heard. After complaints to senior management, the head of human resources at Cork Airport, Eric Nolan classified the four women as having been "red circled," which was seperate to the now extinct senior grade at the AMU.

Mr Nolan said new entrants to AMU now attracted a "composite rate," which was "not as favourable" as the red circled pay By €5,500 per annum.

Raising grievances

The parties did not resolve the pay differential, with the union later raising grievances on the four women's behalf before forwarding them to the WRC.

Refuting the claim of gender pay discrimination, the DAA said the differences in pay were "wholly unrelated to gender" and instead framed the context of the differential as arising from a red circling arrangement and pre-existing contractual entitlements, as well as redeployments on existing terms and conditions by the covid pandemic.

The DAA further submitted that the complainants did not serve an EE2 form - a form sent to an entity an employee claims has discriminated against them - outlining their grievances before referring the case to the WRC.

The WRC also heard that 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."

The DAA said the four women agreed to redeployment to the AMU and wished to stay together, a claim that the complainants refuted.

The company further added that there were a historical context and background to the comparators' salary differential, which was not related to their gender. It noted that the comparators' pay scale was not applied to any other incumbents to the AMU.

Red circling

In their decision, WRC adjudicator Patsy Doyle said the DAA possessed the currency, authority, and scope to include “red circling" in the initial redeployment letters to the four women.

"It goes to the very heart of this case that they did not exercise that discretion," she said.

In addition, she said the company failed to explain that the women were joining a department with a historical protected pay grade and a recent re-evaluation at a much lower grade. Ms Doyle also noted that the women "unwittingly entering a multi pay zone, knowledge of which should have been shared in advance."

The adjudicator added that the women approached this case with an "honest belief" that they had been treated differently because they were female, noting that their queries should not have been categorised as 'surprising and disappointing' by the DAA as that response 'could be off-putting' in the absence of representation."

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

However, Ms Doyle ultimately found that the DAA proved that gender was not the reason for the unequal pay between the four women and two comparators.

"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,' Ms Doyle concluded.