An Egyptian engineer has lost a claim that he suffered discrimination because he should have been paid a higher rate by his employer because he was a male, married and had more dependents and work experience.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled that complaints by Omar Hemdan that his employer, Carlow-based engineering firm, Meica Consulting Engineers, had breached the Employment Equality Act 1998 were not well-founded.
Mr Hemdan claimed he had not received equal pay because of his gender, civil status, family status and age.
The electrical engineer also contended that he was discriminated against and harassed on grounds of religion and race as well as suffering victimisation.
Meica Consulting Engineers denied all the complaints and said Mr Hemdan’s claim was misconceived, frivolous and vexatious as he enjoyed a better remuneration package than his colleagues.
The company also claimed he had no locus standi to make such a claim as the legislation was designed to protect employees who are paid less on discriminatory grounds.
Mr Hemdan provided details of three work colleagues with different ages, gender, civil status and work experience who were all on the same pay level as him.
He argued this was discriminatory as he was a married male with three children and had over 20 years of experience in the industry.
Mr Hemdan claimed he should have received a higher rate of pay because he had dependents.
He also could not understand why he would receive the same level of pay as someone with less experience.
Mr Hemdan identified a female colleague who was on the same pay rate but with less relevant job experience.
He claimed that males in Egypt were normally paid more than females and that people were paid more for having more dependents.
In the case of another colleague with a different nationality, Mr Hemdan claimed that although they had the same qualifications and rate of pay, he should be paid more because of his work experience and membership of Engineers Ireland.
However, when asked what the other colleague got that he did not, Mr Hemdan replied: “I do not know.”
Cross-examined by Katherine McVeigh BL for Meica, Mr Hemdan said women did not have the same obligation as men to support their family in his home country.
He accepted that he was not being paid differently because of his age, but objected to receiving the same rate of pay as single people and those with less experience.
The WRC heard he was on an annual salary of €40,000 with a company vehicle and medical insurance.
He also received further benefits, which had not been provided to other employees on the same grade, which included relocation expenses and paid flights from Egypt to Ireland and a refund of his work permit fee as well as medical insurance for his family.
Ms McVeigh said the company had “bent over backwards” to accommodate his request for additional benefits, while Mr Hemdan had failed to discharge the burden of proof that he had been discriminated against.
The WRC heard that Mr Hemdan also claimed he suffered discrimination, harassment, and victimisation as a result of a dispute with another colleague, identified as Mr E, which he claimed resulted in him not being able to work on-site on a major capital project in Dublin.
He claimed the company’s director, Martin Kealy, had described him in October 2023 as “a typical Arab” – a claim disputed by Mr Kealy.
The WRC was informed that Mr Hemdan refused to participate in an investigation by the company into his claims of being bullied and harassed.
He was told he was being dismissed at a meeting on February 14th, 2024, for repeated breaches of company confidentiality.
A standoff developed between the parties for several hours with Mr Hemdan only leaving the building after gardaí attended the workplace.
Under cross-examination, Mr Hemdan accepted that his complaint about Mr E’s behaviour had nothing to do with his race or religion.
Ms McVeigh noted that he had never once mentioned the alleged comment by Mr Kealy during any part of the investigation.
In her ruling, WRC adjudication officer, Bríd Deering, said Mr Hemdan had failed to establish facts to indicate he had experienced discrimination and noted he had accepted he had received a better overall remuneration package than his three colleagues.
In relation to the alleged discrimination on grounds of race and religion, Ms Deering said she preferred the evidence of Mr Kealy as the complainant had not once made a reference to the alleged comment about “a typical Arab” during the investigation.
She observed that Mr Hemdan had varied his evidence during the WRC hearing about the number of times Mr Kealy had allegedly made the comment.
The WRC also rejected a complaint by Mr Hemdan that he was subjected to veiled threats by his employer after leaving the company as the contact with Mr Kealy related to the firm’s attempt to recover a company vehicle.
Ms Deering noted Mr Kealy had gone out of his way to try to meet the demands of his former colleague.
An application by Mr Hemdan to have the case anonymised because it might impact on his prospects of securing employment in the future was rejected.
The WRC heard he had now secured alternative employment.
