Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A FEMALE BOSS who was paid €97,666 less than a male colleague over a 15-month period has won her action for equal pay.
This follows the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ordering the General Manager’s former employer, a company engaged in the wholesale purchase and sale of video games, to pay her the €97,666 in arrears under the Employment Equality Act.
WRC Adjudication Officer, Brian Dalton determined that the GM was discriminated against on the ground of gender and her entitlement to equal pay, based on the absence of transparency relating to pay determination at the un-named company.
Dalton stated that the video game sales distributor has failed to provide an adequate explanation for the difference in remuneration for the relevant 15 month period between the female GM and her male comparator.
The male comparator, a marketing executive contractor, was paid €14,000 per month, or €168,000 per annum, by the company.
In comparison, during an 11 month period from January to November 2018, the female GM received monthly pay, including a commission, of €7,970.
Dalton determined that the woman was paid €7,834 less per month over a four-month period than her male comparator and €6,030 less per month for an 11-month period.
The woman was appointed GM of the business in September 2017 on a basic salary of €69,000.
She told the WRC that her work was of equal value to the male marketing executive contractor, yet remunerated significantly less for the work she performed.
The GM told the WRC that during the period January 2018 to July 2018 she completed €5.24 million in sales.
The male executive contractor was primarily involved in sales and marketing while the female GM had responsibility for governance; Revenue relationship; overall company oversight and accountability; day to day management of the company at all levels and direct liaison with owner concerning all key business to business relationships, decisions, sales and profit performance
On 4 October, 2018 the GM gave notice to her employer of her intended resignation because she was underpaid for the responsibilities she was expected to carry out.
The newly hired male executive contractor left the company during October 2018 and in a bid to hold onto the services of the female GM, the company offered her in November 2018 a €135,000 basic salary, 7% commission on gross profit excluding deals made by the owner and a retrospective payment of €50,000.
However, the GM terminated her employment on 30 November. The woman presented her own case against her former employer at a recent one day hearing of the WRC while the company was legally represented by a barrister and a solicitor.
Dalton stated that new terms offered in November “tends to show that the company at that time accepted that the complainant was underpaid when compared to the comparators”.
Dalton stated that only when the GM handed in her notice of resignation was any serious attempt made to address the factual inequity in her remuneration and the absence of any transparency in pay determination in relation to the male comparators – an inequity she attributed to discrimination based on gender.
The company denied her claims.
Dalton found that while evidence was given principally based on the job duties to justify the difference in pay between the contractor and the GM, “I have determined that they do not reasonably explain the difference and adequately provide a transparent and objective explanation to demonstrate how the remuneration for the marketing/sales comparator was determined and so markedly different for the work that he performed when compared to the work being performed by the GM, who was the most senior executive in the company”.
In relation to the female GM’s separate pay discrimination claim concerning the pay made to the previous male GM, Mr Dalton found that the complainant was not discriminated against on the ground of gender as the previous GM had performed work of greater value.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Good.. if good enough to do the job then pay should be equal.
@Rory Murphy: 97 grand each sounds fair.
@Rory Murphy: On the front of it, this has absolutely zero to do with gender. Two completely different roles and one of them was an outside contractor, who is completely free to set their own rate of pay as they have no job security. It is insane and a stupid precedent that has been set here. Their is now no reason why every single male/female nurse in the country can now have back dated wages because a contract nurse that was male/female was on the ward at higher pay for 6 months. Absolute madness
@Tom Cullen: What are you on? And… Did you run out???
@Tom Cullen: her responsibilities way outweighed his too!
@Tom Cullen: of course there’s a man who thinks he knows better than the WRC…
@Tom Cullen: on the surface you are spot on. Typically a contractor has no security or benefits, needs to pay their own business costs, accounts insurance etc. However if they are fixed term contractor working solely for that company then the gap seems grossly unreasonable. To me it seems that he was grossly overpaid given his role and she grossly underpaid given her responsibilities.
@Sirius: The irony that you highlight that I am a man sharing his view on the case outcome being everything but about gender, is inherently sexist. You do realise that?
@Motherofthree: I believe it lies somewhere in the middle. A marketing exec with years of experience would hoover up a 6 figure plus base with any large tech company in Ireland. As a contractor he would be looking for that salary plus premium. I definitely think she was underpaid, but she was not forced to take that job. This seems to be more that she was a poor negotiator and he was good, there was nothing mentioned in the article that substantiated gender discrimination apart from the #GenderPayGap at the end. Does this make everyone who retrospectively shafted themselves on a job offer they could have rejected, eligible for compensation? Honest question.
@Tom Cullen:
Nurses have the *skills* to fulfil their job. Do you think that a nurse with good negotiating skills at their interview should get a 6 figure salary? While a less confident or poor negotiating nurse gets a 5 figure salary?
Sounds to me a lot like exploitation of employees’ insecurities, even though they both have the skills to do the job.
I’m sure this employee did negotiate for a higher wage, otherwise she wouldn’t have brought it to WRC. But systematic pay inequality can make things more challenging for some.
@Dean: pure stupid behavior. But if that’s what you want that is what you get
@Tom Cullen: Contract Nurses usually come through agencies – not directly employed – totally different arrangement…
@Dean: Insecurities? Where did it state that the claimant was insecure, presumption? I’ve met plenty of great negotiators that on a personal level are insecure. Systematic pay inequality, evidence of pay inequality being systematic? Pay grades are systematic within pretty much every business and not a single factor is gender. Negotiation makes up the final 10%. By far the biggest factor is demand in the industry and the availability of workers in the job market. On the front of it, someone who works in HR has a significantly bigger list of roles and responsibilities than most software engineers and with longer hours. But they get paid many factors less due to higher demand for software engineers with lower availability of qualified candidates.
@Gerry Savage: I’m afraid from a corporate point of view, they are the exact same. Company A contracts external Company B to fill a job shortage within their business. Company B sets rates for said services and for what amount of time. Company A receives and pays invoices with VAT issued by Company B. The only difference is a nurse may or may not be a share holder of Company B. If any business found they could get a superior candidate, to work on a full time basis as opposed to the contractor, for significantly less, they would drop the contractor in a heart beat.
@Tom Cullen: Your mansplaining
@Tom Cullen: Your mansplaining
@Tom Cullen: Your mansplaining
Yes good enough to do the job. Playing devils advocate here, but it was her responsibility to negotiate her salary. Male counterpart obviously did. She agreed to do the job for said money. If I was employing someone and they didn’t kick up a fuss about salary. Why would I pay more then asked for. Is it just not the case that she didn’t negotiate her contract very well and didn’t know her worth?!!
@Caoimhín O’Cheallacháin: Yes I think when she realized this she took the case. Also what’s interesting is if she wasn’t female she wouldn’t have any grounds for discrimination.
@Caoimhín O’Cheallacháin: should also be noted the guy was a contractor who usually command more money because they cover all their own pension/social contributions etc. One of the last weekly salary diary yokes was a software contractor on 110 grand or there abouts.
@Caoimhín O’Cheallacháin:
Is it fair or necessary for employees to have to negotiate for equal pay?
They could have strong skills for the job, but weak negotiation skills (as not every job needs negotiation skills).
@Caoimhín O’Cheallacháin: how do you know she didnt kick up a fuss, the article is mute on that matter? It would be unusual to jump straight to resignation, and to continue with that resignation even when a substantial pay increase was offered, suggests frustration, and hence she had made efforts previously. But, none of us were at the hearing so such matters may have been presented, including the non pay remuneration of employees over that of a contractor.
@Dean: yes it is fair. It’s businesses. If she was working happily for the money. Why would any employer be like…..oh no I need to give u more!!! It’s her responsibility to know her value
@D Mems: possibly…. As I was said initially just playing devils advocate. If she continued to work for a year plus knowing she was being underpaid…. She’s at fault. She should have resigned a year earlier and there would have been none of this!
@Caoimhín O’Cheallacháin: of course it’s all her fault…
@Sirius: yes it is
@Caoimhín O’Cheallacháin: well the WRC who have knowledge of the whole situation obviously disagree with you.
@Caoimhín O’Cheallacháin: it sounds like she found out she was underpaid when they offered her a massive boost in salary to keep her. Regardless she won her case and while it is her responsibility to negotiate a better wage it is the company’s responsibility to ensure they are not paying a man more than a woman for doing the same job. Same happened in the U.K. with tv presenter pairs and in House of Cards where Kevin Spacey got significantly more than his equally talented co-star Robin Wright. In that case she was told for years that her salary matched his. It didn’t.
@Sean: With the TV presenters case, the guy was a bigger household name and had presented more flagship shows over a longer career than the woman. That result also raises questions about the basis for the decision, which admittedly, I’ve no idea how the WRC decide these things. Is it a case of on paper they do the same thing so should earn the same and are negotiating skills, personality and other intangible aspects ignored? Anyone with an inside track as to how the WRC decides? As for Spacey, he was the major star and draw for the show and so rightly earned more. However, telling Wright she was on the same money was just a ridiculous decision.
@Chris Linehan: that one for Wright was done because it was in the public eye! Wouldn’t be a good look if there was any sense of sexism. Mob rule decided that!
Not sure if it’s the article but a couple of things seem strange to me.
He was a contractor she was an employee, contractors are paid less, have fewer rights no holiday entitlements and employment is at will.
They say they did the same job however he was working in sales and marketing, a revenue generating role and while she was looking after governance and day to day management. Sounds extremely different to me?
@Joe: *contractors are paid more
@Joe: Contractors are paid more as they don’t have the benefits package and employment security that PAYE employees get. Your other points are interesting and valid
@Joe: Did you read the article? She was in a revenue generating role. She did over €5m in sales. The governance and other duties were on top of her sales role
I don’t understand, “The male comparator, a marketing executive contractor”
She was a General Manager.
The two jobs are not the same.
Contractors usually make a lot more because they are only there for a short period of time. Also, marketing executives generally have a short lived role even when permanent so get paid very well because of that. The roles were also very different.
Just because she was the GM doesn’t mean she had to automatically be the highest paid person in the company, even among her subordinates.
There are plenty of companies, even semi-states where the highest position such as MD doesn’t make as much as certain subordinates, even if it’s just because that subordinate may be in the company 30 years.
@Reuben Gray: I don’t get that part either. I am a contractor and get paid more than people I work along with. They have benefits I don’t have but still not an issue as I do get paid much more. Could you imagine if the civil service tried that with the contractors rates?
And here’s me delighted with my €1400 per month.
@Big bad bull: Stay healthy. Wealth isn’t everything.
Allowing for the comparison of employee and contractor pay sets a dangerous precedent. A recent “How I Spend My Money” article on here showed an engineering contractor earning 125k/year. His permanent employee counterparts might only have a base salary of half this amount. But its apples and oranges as a few have pointed out – job security, benefits etc.
@Ned Gerblansky: try a quarter in many cases especially the civil service
Equality is the name of the game well done .
I have recently found out that a guy on my team who was 2 levels below me was getting paid a few thousand more than me. Same age and similar amount of experience. However, these kind of things are really hard to bring to HR or escalate, especially when in Ireland companies are not obliged to share their average salaries, even with their own staff. To me this promotes inequality. Fair play to this woman for standing her ground! It’s sad to see so many comments of people saying she didn’t deserve it. The court clearly had enough evidence to support her claims.
@Victoria Harlamova: the gymnastics from all the men in these comments is quite entertaining
@Victoria Harlamova: no one said she didnt deserve the salary. The majority pointed out the difference between a direct employee and a contractor. People really shouldnt care less what the next person is earning as long as they feel they’re earning enough to satisfy their own needs. If John Doe feels he needs four times my salary to be happy doing the same work as me and he can negotiate that, then fair fücks to him. This lady was apparently content with her lot until she saw someone was earning more.
@Chris Linehan: I doubt you actually believe what you’ve just written. If someone on your team doing similar work with the same level of experience was earning €97k more, you would honestly think “fair fücks to him”?
@Siofra Cronin: well it would be nobody’s fault but my own if i was happy to trundle along at 97 grand less. If i then decided to kick up stink and request the same money as an external contractor, what if the company said nope, sorry we dont have the budget, je negotiazed better than you. What are my grounds for discrimination?
She knocked out 5.24m euro of sales between Jan 2018 and Jul 2018 and they paying her 69k a year. Regardless of gender she was being shafted here. In all fairness if you had someone knocking out those kinds of sales figures you would look after them.
Let’s call a spade a spade , the majority of women would prefer to stay at home , have a good natter with the neighbors over a nice cup of tea .
@Ken Healy: thank you for speaking up for the majority of women Ken, finally someone truly representing us on here
@Victoria Harlamova: On a serious note Victoria, we don’t know the ins and outs of the case , but if I was her employer looking at those sales figures …. I’d have been expecting a knock on my door every morning. You negotiate your own salary , it sounds to me she’s better off without them. Anybody with a good business brain would snap this person up!
@Ken Healy: funny if it where true
The female GM was found to be underpaid when compared to her comparator, a male and a Contractor to the business, not an employee.
Thought contractors contracts would be confidential and always outside scope of WRC!
But she was found not to be discriminated against on grounds of gender as previous GM, a male, earning more than her for that role and like herself a full-time employee of firm was deemed to be carrying out work of greater value.
If lady had strong proven sales and marketing skills – bringing home the bacon to the tune of €5 m + in Sales in a shortish interval, what other work of a GM trumps that in terms of value?
Answers on a postcard to WRC!
Define “boss” in the context of this item. How many “bosses” do you need to run a business. Apples and oranges from what I can see, they were working in different areas and under completely different terms. But hey, who am I to judge
@Spot the d0g: you’re right, that’s why the WRC exists to adjudicate on these matters.
She going to pay 50% of it in income tax to the state?
@Dave Connolly: If you dont earn it, you cant pay it. I’m sure she will be glad to pay it.
@Dave Connolly: redress under employment equality acts usually tax free
Seems that cost them a lot of money and a good profitable GM.
Penny wise and pubs foolish.
I hate discrimination of all sorts including the so called positive type. Best person for the task should be paid the going rate. The concept of discrimination is totally bizarre and unacceptable.
So, what’s different. In my career I was always paid much less than my male counterparts. Indeed, I one job I was promoted 5 times, yet my salary never increased from the salary I got when I joined, there was always some excuse…
@Jane Alford: perhaps you should contact the WRC so, you may have a case?
@D Mems: The WRC didn’t exist in those days, indeed equal rights for women employees, didn’t exist.
@Jane Alford: I get fewer contracts than my female counterparts and I’m paid far less for the ones I do get. I suspect it’s purely because of my gender but there aren’t many supports in place for us bikini models.
He was a god damn contractor. Well she has made herself unemployable to future jobs. No company would touch her
@James Smart: 5 million plus sales? I’d snap her up in the morning!
@James Smart: why do you think that?
@James Smart: not named though.
@James Smart: how do you know she’s not working elsewhere? She left that company 18 months ago, I very much doubt she’s been sitting at home twiddling her thumbs.
I just had a look at contractor versus full-time comparisons online. The lack of holiday pay, sick pay, employer pension contributions, employer prsi contributions, car allowance / mileage etc. for contractors added to the lack of job security is amazing when compared to full time employees. I’d really love to see a proper breakdown on the figures. I’m not saying she was underpaid but I’m not seeing the full picture and it’d be nice to see it.
@Niall Bourke: it would appear the WEC did see the full picture and adjudicated accordingly.
It seems GameStop continues to implode. They won’t be around this time next year.
The point here is that this company paid a man way more than a woman when clearly the woman here was an incredible performer and was outperforming the man. It is hard to find out salaries. Delighted she won and impressed she represented herself. This kind of carry on is rife. The boys looking after the boys and circling their wagons around each other. Plenty of man whinging on here. Sick of it.
Okay, he might have been a good programmer wanting to set up his own business!
What about the Theachers not getting equal pay for Equal Work
97000 nine years wages for a lot people in country, taxes taken into consideration before the name sayers start spouting
Why is the company not named?
Any salary over 100k is ludicrous!
@Aidan Conway: the companies are rarely named in these reports.
@Aidan Conway: GameStop
have your say