€6,696 WRC Equal Pay Award: Why Employers Need Evidence Behind Pay Differences

Different employees do not always have to be paid exactly the same rate.

Experience, qualifications, responsibility, working patterns and differences in the role can all potentially explain why one employee earns more than another.

But if that difference is challenged under equality legislation, the employer may need more than an explanation given after the event.

It may need evidence.

That is one of the clearest lessons from a recent Workplace Relations Commission decision involving a foreign worker employed by a construction company.

The employee claimed that he had been paid less than an Irish colleague despite carrying out the same or similar work.

The employer disputed that.

It said the employee had initially been engaged as a cleaner, while the comparator had greater experience and held a teleporter licence.

However, the WRC found that the employer had not produced sufficient documentary evidence to support the distinction between the two roles or adequately explain the difference in pay.

The equal-pay complaint was upheld.

The employee was awarded:

€6,696.04

For employers, the wider lesson is straightforward:

Different pay rates may be explainable. But the reason needs to be clear, consistent and capable of being evidenced.

WRC Case Reference

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00059634
Equal Pay Complaint: CA-00072601-001
Legislation: Employment Equality Act 1998
Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Decision Date: 11 September 2026
Outcome: Equal-pay complaint upheld
Award: €6,696.04 gross

A separate complaint concerning terms of employment was outside the statutory time limit and the WRC therefore found that it did not have jurisdiction to investigate it.

What Happened?

The employee said that when he started working for the construction company he was initially paid €12 per hour.

After approximately seven weeks, his rate increased to €14 per hour.

He subsequently received the correct rate of €17.50 per hour from September 2024, when he was issued with a contract.

His complaint concerned the earlier period.

He identified an Irish employee as a comparator and maintained that they performed the same or similar duties.

The comparator was earning €17.04 per hour.

The employee told the WRC that although the employer described him as having initially been employed as a cleaner, he also carried out general construction duties including lifting slabs, using tools and machinery and occasionally driving construction vehicles.

The employer maintained that there were legitimate differences between the workers.

It said the Irish comparator:

• had more experience;
• had a different role;
• and held a teleporter licence.

Those factors could potentially provide an explanation for different rates of pay.

The problem was the evidence available to support them.

1. Equal Pay Does Not Mean Every Employee Must Earn the Same

Employers can legitimately have different rates of pay within the same organisation.

There may be objective reasons for those differences.

For example:

• length of service;
• qualifications;
• specialist licences;
• experience;
• additional responsibilities;
• different working hours;
• different duties;
• supervisory responsibility;
• shift arrangements;
• or other material differences between roles.

The issue arises when two employees appear to be performing like work but are being paid differently and the difference coincides with a protected characteristic.

In this case, the employee relied on the race ground, comparing his pay with that of an Irish employee.

The practical HR question therefore becomes:

What explains the difference?

And:

Can we prove it?

2. Job Titles Do Not Decide an Equal-Pay Claim

One of the most useful findings from the case concerns the employee’s job title.

The employer’s evidence was that he had originally been employed as a cleaner.

The employee disputed that description and said that, although he carried out some cleaning, he also performed general operative duties.

The WRC made an important practical point.

What matters in an equal-pay claim is not simply what somebody is called.

It is what work they actually perform.

For HR teams, that means job titles should not be relied upon in isolation.

Consider:

• the employee’s day-to-day duties;
• responsibilities;
• physical requirements;
• equipment used;
• decision-making responsibility;
• skills required;
• qualifications;
• working conditions; and
• whether employees are interchangeable in practice.

Two employees can have different job titles but still potentially perform like work.

Equally, two people with the same title may have materially different responsibilities.

The actual role matters.

3. If Experience Justifies Different Pay, Record It

The employer also relied on differences in experience.

Again, this can be a perfectly legitimate factor.

But HR should be able to show:

What experience was required?

How much experience did each employee have?

Was experience assessed when they were hired?

Did it form part of the pay-setting decision?

Was the same approach applied to other employees?

In this case, there was disagreement about the employee’s previous construction experience.

The WRC heard that he had previous experience and qualifications, but there was limited documentary evidence available concerning what had been provided or considered when he commenced employment.

That is an avoidable HR problem.

If experience affects starting salary, record that when the salary is set.

Do not wait until an equal-pay complaint is received to reconstruct the reasoning.

4. Qualifications Can Explain a Pay Difference — If They Actually Explain It

The employer also referred to the comparator holding a teleporter licence.

A specialist qualification or licence may provide an objective reason for additional pay where it is genuinely relevant to the work.

But HR should consider:

• When was the qualification obtained?
• Was it required for the role?
• Was the employee regularly using it?
• Did the organisation’s pay structure attach a premium to it?
• Was that premium applied consistently?
• Did it actually explain the pay difference during the period being challenged?

The employee disputed the significance and timing of the comparator’s licence.

The WRC ultimately found that the employer had not provided sufficient evidence and reasoning to explain the different pay rates.

The lesson is not that qualifications cannot justify higher pay.

It is that the connection between the qualification and the pay difference should be capable of being demonstrated.

5. The Employer Needs to Know Why the Rate Was Set

Many businesses build pay rates gradually.

One employee joins at one salary.

Another joins during a recruitment shortage.

Somebody negotiates a higher starting rate.

Another receives an increase after taking on additional responsibilities.

Years later, HR discovers several employees performing similar work at different rates.

That can create risk.

A basic pay-governance question is:

If an employee asked today why their colleague earns more, could we explain the difference clearly?

The answer should ideally be supported by records rather than memory.

Useful records may include:

• contracts;
• offer letters;
• job descriptions;
• CVs;
• recruitment assessments;
• qualification records;
• documented salary bands;
• salary review records;
• promotion letters;
• responsibility changes;
• market adjustments; and
• written reasons for exceptions.

6. Documentation Became Central in This Case

The lack of documentary evidence is what makes this case particularly useful for employers.

The WRC had witness testimony and the employee’s payslips.

But there were no relevant job descriptions or equivalent documents establishing a clear distinction between the work carried out by the employee and his comparator.

The employer said the workers were different.

The employee said they performed effectively the same work.

The Adjudication Officer found the employee’s evidence about the work he performed convincing.

Once an inference of discrimination had been established, the employer needed to rebut it.

The WRC concluded that it had not done so with sufficient evidence.

This is the practical risk.

The organisation may believe there was a perfectly legitimate reason for the difference.

But if that reason cannot be demonstrated later, the employer may struggle to defend the decision.

7. Pay Decisions Should Be Made Consistently

HR teams should also look beyond individual disputes.

If qualifications justify a higher starting salary for Employee A, ask whether the same approach would be applied to Employee B.

If experience attracts additional pay, there should be some consistency in:

• how experience is measured;
• how much additional pay it attracts;
• who approves the rate;
• and when it is reviewed.

Perfect uniformity is not always realistic.

Businesses need flexibility.

But unexplained exceptions become more difficult to defend when they affect workers differently across protected equality grounds.

8. Conduct Pay Reviews Before a Complaint Arrives

Employers do not need to wait for an employee to bring an equal-pay complaint before identifying unexplained differences.

A periodic pay review can look at:

• employees performing the same role;
• employees performing materially similar work;
• starting salaries;
• recent hires compared with longer-serving employees;
• salary progression;
• qualifications;
• responsibilities;
• discretionary allowances;
• bonus arrangements;
• and protected equality characteristics.

The purpose is not automatically to make everybody’s salary identical.

It is to identify differences that the organisation cannot readily explain.

Those are the ones that need examination.

9. Starting Pay Deserves Particular Attention

Many unexplained pay gaps originate at recruitment.

One manager negotiates individually.

Another follows a fixed salary.

A candidate asks for more.

A difficult vacancy results in a higher offer.

Another employee accepts the advertised minimum.

Over time, those individual decisions accumulate.

Employers should therefore consider setting clear parameters around:

• salary bands;
• starting points;
• permissible negotiation;
• qualifications premiums;
• experience;
• market adjustments;
• approval of exceptions;
• and documentation.

Where somebody is placed above or below the normal range, record why.

10. Do Not Wait Until the WRC Hearing to Build the Explanation

This may be the biggest practical lesson from ADJ-00059634.

An employer faced with an equal-pay complaint needs to explain why two people doing allegedly similar work received different rates.

That explanation will be considerably stronger if the supporting evidence already existed when the decision was made.

For example:

Employee A started at €17 because the role required Licence X, they held Licence X and the salary band provided an additional €2 for that qualification.

That is different from trying years later to remember why Employee A happened to earn more.

Good HR records help demonstrate that the difference was connected to the role rather than a protected characteristic.

A Practical Equal-Pay Review for Employers

HR teams should be able to answer the following questions.

Like work

Are employees doing the same, similar or work of equal value?

Job descriptions

Do the documents reflect what employees actually do?

Starting salary

How was each employee’s starting rate determined?

Experience

If experience affects pay, how is it assessed?

Qualifications

Do additional qualifications genuinely explain higher remuneration?

Responsibility

Are there material differences in responsibility between the roles?

Consistency

Are the same pay principles applied across the workforce?

Exceptions

Who can approve pay outside the normal range?

Records

Is the reason for each significant pay difference documented?

Equality

Could an unexplained pay differential adversely affect employees sharing a protected characteristic?

The WRC Outcome

The WRC found that the employee had provided sufficient evidence to raise an inference that he had received unequal pay on the race ground.

The employer relied on:

• a different job title;
• greater experience on the part of the comparator;
• and the comparator holding a teleporter licence.

However, the WRC was not satisfied that sufficient evidence had been provided to explain the difference in pay.

The equal-pay complaint was upheld.

The WRC calculated the difference in remuneration during the relevant period and ordered the employer to pay:

€6,696.04 gross

WRC Reference: ADJ-00059634

The separate terms-of-employment complaint was outside the relevant statutory time limit, and the WRC therefore had no jurisdiction to investigate it.

The Practical Lesson for Employers

Different employees can legitimately earn different amounts.

But where employees are carrying out like work, employers should be able to answer:

Why is there a difference?

And importantly:

What evidence supports that answer?

A different title is not necessarily enough.

A general statement about experience may not be enough.

A qualification may not be enough unless the organisation can show how it actually influenced the role and rate of pay.

The strongest position is a pay structure where differences are:

Objective.

Consistent.

Documented.

And capable of explanation.

If the organisation cannot explain a pay difference internally, explaining it later at the WRC may be considerably more difficult.

How Employment Matters Can Help

Employment Matters supports employers with practical workplace and HR processes, including:

• policy and procedure reviews;
• workplace investigations;
• performance management;
• workplace mediation;
• redundancy and dismissal processes;
• defending employment claims; and
• manager training and workshops.

Reviewing pay structures, job responsibilities and decision-making processes before a dispute arises can help employers identify areas of risk early.

This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.