Disability services provider to pay €44k to social care worker on discrimination grounds
Seán McCárthaigh
A leading provider of services for people with disabilities has been ordered to pay compensation of €44,000 to a social care worker who was discriminated against because she was “not Caucasian and not a man.”
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled that Saint John of God Community Services discriminated against Julie Kelly in breach of the Employment Equality Act 1998, on grounds of both gender and race.
WRC adjudication officer, Catherine Byrne, noted that the charity exercised discretion in terms of the pay scale on which care workers are placed, if the care worker has a relevant qualification.
Ms Byrne said that this discretion has been exercised in the case of two of Ms Kelly’s colleagues.
However, she claimed it was with regret that the only reason the same discretion was not applied to Ms Kelly was because "she is not Caucasian and not a man.”
Ms Kelly, who has worked with St John of God Community Services since 2002, complained to the WRC. She said that her employer had discriminated against her by not recognising her degree in social science and her years of experience as a social care worker.
The WRC heard that the charity operated different pay scales for staff with and without qualifications. These have the same salary, except qualified staff are eligible for a long service increment after reaching the 12th point of the scale.
However, Ms Kelly said she was unaware that she had been placed on the salary scale for unqualified social care workers after she successfully applied for a permanent role in 2006.
The WRC heard that Ms Kelly was never encouraged to obtain training, which indicated the charity had appointed her because she was qualified for the job.
It heard evidence that a male colleague, who was recruited in 2011 and who had the same degree as Ms Kelly, negotiated to be placed on the pay scale for staff with qualifications.
The WRC was also informed that a Polish colleague of Ms Kelly was moved to the pay scale for qualified staff after discovering that she was on the other pay scale. She was also reimbursed for the non-payment of the long service increment.
Ms Byrne said the evidence was sufficient to raise a presumption of discrimination.
A representative of the charity argued that Ms Kelly’s male colleague was “not a true comparator” because he negotiated to be placed on the qualified pay scale on joining the charity.
However, Ms Byrne said there was “an element of deception” by the charity as the complainant was required to submit a copy of her degree certificate when she took up a permanent position.
The charity noted there was a reference in Ms Kelly’s contract that she “may be required to pursue a further 3rd level qualification”, also suggesting she “did not meet the criteria” for being placed on the qualified pay scale.
However, the WRC noted that was a reference to a course funded by Saint John of God, for staff working with people with challenging behaviours, as clarified by Ms Kelly in November 2023. This was therefore unrelated to the two pay scales.
Ms Byrne said if Ms Kelly’s male colleague had been treated as “an anomaly,” there was room for the charity to have another anomaly.
The WRC heard that there were two other female social care workers out of 33 staff with similar qualifications who remain on the unqualified pay scale.
Ms Byrne remarked that they might also have an argument that they have been discriminated against.
She concluded that “for a variety of reasons which were not explained,” some employees were treated differently and more favourably than others.
The WRC also concluded that Ms Kelly had been discriminated against on grounds of race, as it did not accept the charity’s argument that she was less qualified than her female colleague, who had a postgraduate qualification from Poland.
It ordered the charity to pay €34,000 – the equivalent of 26 weeks’ pay – to Ms Kelly for the discrimination as well as €10,000 for the long service increment she had missed out on.
