Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEP841 Case Number: DEP887 Section / Act: S8(1)AD Parties: AN BORD TELECOM EIREANN - and - IRISH WOMEN WORKERS BRANCH;FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Appeal by the Union against Equality Officer's Recommendation No. E.P. 28/1983 concerning a claim by twenty-nine named female factory workers for equal remuneration with one named male worker.
Recommendation:
1979
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEP841 DEP788
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT, 1974
DETERMINATION NO.
PARTIES: AN BORD TELECOM EIREANN
and
IRISH WOMEN WORKERS BRANCH
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Equality Officer's Recommendation
No. E.P. 28/1983 concerning a claim by twenty-nine named female
factory workers for equal remuneration with one named male worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employees or pensioners of An Bord
Telecom (formerly the Department of Posts and Telegraphs). The
claimants were employed at the Bord's factory at St. John's Road,
Dublin and were engaged in dismantling, cleaning and reassembling
telephones and related apparatus, cutting and sewing material for
mailbags, toolbags, flags, etc and in engraving objects such as
medals and switchboard facings. On 3rd June, 1982 the Union
requested an investigation of an Equality officer of a dispute of
an equal pay claim on behalf of the female factory workers with a
named male worker (a Stores Labourer) who was engaged in cleaning,
collecting and delivering various items in the different workshops
and in lending general assistance as required.
3. The Equality Officer considered the claimants' work to be of
higher value taken as a whole than that of the male worker and
that it was not therefore like work within the meaning of section
3(c) of the Act. The conclusions and recommendation of the
Equality Officer issued on 5th December, 1983 are attached at
Appendix I.
Labour Court Investigation:
4. On 15th December, 1983 the Union appealed the Recommendation
of the Equality Officer to the Labour Court. The Union's grounds
of appeal were as follows:-
(a) That the interpretation of the Equal Pay Officer
contravenes the spirit and meaning of the Act, and also
contravenes the intention of the legislators in passing
the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act 1974.
(b) That the Equal Pay Officer's judicial interpretation of
Clause 3(c) is incorrect and must be struck down.
(c) We also appeal the Recommendation on all other matters
of fact and law.
5. The Court heard the appeal on 24th February, 1984. The
determination of the Court (DEP-6-84) which upheld the Equality
Officer's Recommendation is attached at Appendix II.
6. This determination was subsequently referred to the High
Court. That Court in its judgement of 4th March, 1986 referred
three questions to the Court of Justice of the European
Communities for a preliminary ruling, under Article 177 of the EEC
Treaty. The questions related to the interpretation of Article
119 of the EEC Treaty and Article 1 of Council Directive
75/117/EEC of 10th February, 1975 as follows:-
"1. Does the community law principle of equal pay for equal
work extend to a claim for equal pay on the basis of
work of equal value in circumstances where the work of
the claimant has been assessed to be of higher value
than that of the person with whom the claimant sought
comparison?
2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative is
that answer dependent on the provisions of Article 1 of
Counsel Directive 75/117/EEC of 10th February 1975 on
the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to the application of the principle of equal
pay for men and women?
3. If so, is Article 1 of the said Directive directly
applicable to Member States?".
7. On 4th February, 1988 the European Court of Justice gave its
judgement. Having found that it was unnecessary to reply to the
second and third questions, it ruled as follows:-
"Article 119 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as
covering the case where a worker who relies on that
provision to obtain equal pay within the meaning thereof is
engaged in work of higher value than that of the person with
whom a comparison is to be made."
8. The case subsequently resumed in the High Court and in its
judgement of 11th April, 1988 the Court remitted the case to the
Labour Court" ...... with a direction that the applicants' claim
be determined on the basis that they and the male employee are
employed on "like work" within the meaning of S2(1) and S3 of the
Act of 1974....."
9. The Court re-heard the appeal on 17th October, 1988 on the
basis that the applicants and male employee are employed on 'like
work' within the meaning of the relevant sections of the Act and
that the remaining question to be determined was whether section
2(3) of the Act applies. The written submissions made to the
Court at this hearing are attached as Appendices III and IV.
DETERMINATION:
10. The European Court of Justice has ruled that "Article 119 of
the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as covering the case where a
worker who relies on that provision to obtain equal pay within the
meaning thereof is engaged in work of higher value than that of
the person with whom a comparison is made."
The High Court has remitted the case to this Court with a
direction that "the applicants' claim be determined on the basis
that they and the male employee are employed on "like work" within
the meaning of S 2(1) and S 3 of the Act of 1974."
The claimants are therefore deemed to be employed on like work.
The only question which the parties have brought before the Court
on this occasion is the question which arises under section 2(3)
of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974.
It is agreed by the parties that at the time the claim was lodged
the pay of the claimants was determined by reference to the pay of
Grade 1 workers in the Radio and TV manufacturing industry as
increased by nationally negotiated increases in the public sector.
It is accepted that Grade 1 workers were predominantly female.
The pay of the male employees was based on comparison with "a
broad range of Stores grades" in the Civil Service. The employees
in these grades were predominantly male.
In the view of the Court the difference in the pay of the
claimants and the male employee is based on the difference between
the pay rate applying to a predominantly female grade in outside
employment and the pay of a predominantly male grade in the Civil
Service. This, in the Court's view, does not constitute "grounds
other than sex".
The Court therefore determines that the 29 claimants named in the
Appendix 1 to the Equality Officers recommendation are entitled to
equal remuneration with Mr Denis Dunne with effect from 3rd June,
1979.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
15th December, 1988 -------------
U.M./U.S. Chairman