A supervisor for a world tech firm who argued he was not receiving the identical pay as a feminine colleague has failed in a discrimination declare however has been awarded over €40,000 by the Office Relations Fee for unfair dismissal.
Pádraig McMahon labored as technical assist supervisor with Opentext Eire Restricted, which creates enterprise software program for enterprise purchasers.
He began work in November 2014 but it surely was terminated in June 2020 by purpose of redundancy.
Mr McMahon had complained to the Office Relations Fee (WRC) that this was an unfair dismissal based mostly on his competition of unfair choice for redundancy.
Mr McMahon additional submitted to the WRC that he was discriminated towards on the idea of his gender by not receiving equal pay compared with a feminine work colleague.
He additionally submitted that he was discriminated towards on grounds of incapacity in that Opentext didn’t afford him affordable lodging for his incapacity, which was Publish Traumatic Stress Dysfunction (PTSD).
Mr McMahon named a feminine colleague whom he believed was on the next charge of pay than him, and who he submitted was doing like work.
“A feminine supervisor began on a a lot greater wage scale,” submitted Mr McMahon. “Till the corporate is clear with the WRC and me on this, I am unable to show what I’m saying is right. The corporate wants to indicate how a male supervisor is paid a supervisory wage and never a supervisor wage like the remainder of the managers,” claimed Mr McMahon.
An ex-work colleague of Mr McMahon’s gave proof that the feminine supervisor carried out the identical work because the complainant. Nevertheless, in cross examination, the witness accepted that he couldn’t give the particular job specs, {qualifications}, expertise, or proof to indicate that she was paid greater than the complainant.
Mr McMahon stated that he had PTSD, which debilitated him drastically. He stated that when he got here again from a interval of sickness attributed to his PTSD, he was requested to vacate his workplace and was placed on a Efficiency Enchancment Plan (PIP).
The corporate physician had suggested that he return to work on a phased foundation, which was facilitated by Opentext. Mr McMahon stated the dearth of transparency and unwillingness to analyze his grievances resulted in him being signed off sick because of psychological well being points in September 2019 till January 2020.
In Might 2020, Mr McMahon was knowledgeable by administration he had been chosen for redundancy. He stated he was given no prior warning that his place was below menace and stated he was “fully shaken” by this and caught off guard.
Mr McMahon was made redundant by way of telephone in June 2020 after a session interval which took 13 days over three conferences. Mr McMahon stated that he was too shocked to reply successfully to the respondent’s place and didn’t attraction the choice.
In cross-examination by Mark O’Connell BL, for Opentext, Mr McMahon accepted that there was certainly an actual redundancy scenario and that he didn’t provide options to redundancy at conferences with administration.
Opentext submitted that Mr McMahon had not made out any case on equal pay. The respondent argued that Mr McMahon supplied no proof that the feminine worker engaged in like work, nor that she was paid greater than him.
The respondent additionally submitted that when Mr McMahon returned from work, he was fairly accommodated on the directions of the corporate physician in {that a} phased return to work was organized for him.
A senior supervisor gave proof that the worldwide CEO requested for a 5% employees discount worldwide and that it was determined regionally that six positions ought to go.
The corporate submitted that Mr McMahon had the bottom marks when all standards for redundancy choice have been added up.
In cross examination, the witness stated he was not conscious of Mr McMahon’s psychological well being points and, due to this fact, they weren’t factored into his decision-making.
Relating to the gender grievance, in his determination, adjudicating officer Thomas O’Driscoll stated: “The mere indisputable fact that the complainant is male and the comparator feminine, devoid of every other proof, shouldn’t be adequate in itself for the complainant to succeed. Due to this fact, I discover that he didn’t set up a prima facie grievance below the equal pay provision of the Acts”.
Relating to the complaints on grounds of incapacity and victimisation, Mr O’Driscoll stated that Mr McMahon had not established a prima facie case in both grievance.
Nevertheless, relating to the exams for redundancy utilized by the corporate, Mr O’Driscoll stated “when additional inquiry is made, unsettling information come up”.
“Firstly, no passable element outlining the exams relating to the complainant’s scores when in comparison with others, was given. Secondly, this vagueness was accompanied by an admitted procedural lack of transparency. Candidates being assessed have been by no means knowledgeable prematurely that their jobs have been liable to redundancy, nor have been they conscious that the precise assessments have been being carried out,” stated Mr O’Driscoll.
“I discover that the purported matrix system deployed by the respondent was unacceptably obscure and didn’t meet the usual of transparency as anticipated of an affordable employer,” stated Mr O’Driscoll.
“The complainant gave convincing proof of his fragile frame of mind on the time and the way he remained shocked and incapacitated throughout the conferences, albeit he didn’t take sick go away. A senior supervisor’s proof that he was not conscious of the vulnerability of the complainant was not believable on condition that he facilitated a phased return to work for the complainant, in keeping with medical recommendation.
“I’m happy that although there was a sound redundancy scenario, I conclude that the method was not carried out pretty, transparently nor was there a correct consultative course of the place options to redundancy have been thought of,” stated Mr O’Driscoll, who discovered Mr McMahon had been unfairly dismissed.
“I discover it’s simply and equitable to conclude that the compensatory sum ought to be the equal of 11 months remuneration, much less the statutory redundancy sum paid, which is €41,400,” he stated.
