Why HR policies must go beyond fairness and withstand legal scrutiny
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has ruled that a pay discrimination claim against leading HR firm Peninsula Business Services (Ireland) Ltd will proceed to a full hearing, despite the company’s efforts to have it dismissed.
The case brought by saleswoman Amanda Ball, alleges that a new lead allocation system introduced in 2020 unfairly favoured male colleagues, slashing her annual earnings by tens of thousands of euro.
Although the employer argued the complaint was speculative and lacked legal grounding, the WRC has determined there is sufficient evidence to proceed.
Case Snapshot
- Claimant: Amanda Ball, senior saleswoman
- Respondent: Peninsula Business Services (Ireland) Ltd
- Allegation: Discriminatory pay practices based on gender
- Key Figures: Earnings fell from €128,500 (2020) to €59,000 (2021)
- Status: WRC has admitted the claim for a full hearing
- Legislation Invoked: Employment Equality Acts – Pay Discrimination
What Employers Need to Know
1. Equal Treatment Must Be Evident, Not Just Claimed
Even where systems appear neutral (e.g. sales lead allocation), they can indirectly disadvantage one gender, triggering a discrimination claim.
Action: Conduct impact reviews on any changes to pay structures, commissions, or work allocation systems to ensure no unintended bias exists.
2. The Burden of Proof Can Shift Quickly
The WRC does not need full proof at the preliminary stage. If the facts give rise to an inference of discrimination, the employer must disprove it at hearing.
Action: Maintain clear, written criteria for all performance-based systems, and document how opportunities (like leads or bonuses) are assigned.
3. Representation Isn’t Everything
Despite being a major HR provider, Peninsula’s efforts to dismiss the case early were unsuccessful, a reminder that no organisation is immune to challenge.
Action: Review your own internal policies through a third-party audit to ensure legal robustness, including gender equality, flexible working, and pay transparency.
4. Claims Don’t Need a “Smoking Gun”
The employee’s claim is based on earnings patterns and the structural effects of policy changes not on overt discriminatory statements or behaviour.
Action: Remember: Discrimination can be systemic or indirect, and it’s the employer’s responsibility to ensure fairness in effect, not just intent.
Employer Takeaway
This case hasn’t been decided yet, but it’s already a critical lesson:
HR policies must be transparent, monitored, and defensible. If your system results in a pattern of adverse impact on one gender, that alone may be enough to justify a hearing, and potentially a ruling against you.
How Bloom Consultancy Can Help
We help employers prevent discrimination claims through:
- Equal pay audits and bonus scheme reviews
- Policy evaluations before restructuring sales or performance systems
- Defensible lead allocation frameworks
- HR support for WRC preparation, representation, and training
Contact Bloom Consultancy today to proactively protect your policies, before they’re tested.
This article is based on public decisions of the Workplace Relations Commission and reported case summaries from Irish media sources. It is intended as a commentary on HR compliance issues relevant to employers and HR professionals in Ireland.