DEP881

Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEP869 Case Number: DEP881 Section / Act: S8(1)AD Parties: KRUPS ENGINEERING LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION

Subject:
Appeal by the Company against, and by the Union for, the implementation of Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EP8/1986 concerning a claim by sixteen named female Armature Winders for an equal rate of remuneration with a named Injection Moulding Machine Operator.

Recommendation:
13. 1. In considering the question of whether the work of
Armature Winder was equal in value to the work of I.M. Machine
Operators, the Equality Officer drew attention to the fact that
the claim was for equality of basic pay only with Machine
Operators. She pointed out that the work of the operators
incorporated technical and organisational elements and that it was
not possible to exclude these elements from the comparison of jobs
for which plus payments were made.

Section 2(1) of the Act refers to "the same rate of remuneration"
and remuneration as defined in Section 1 "includes any
consideration, whether in cash or in kind, which an employee
receives, directly or indirectly, in respect of his employment
from his employer". Accordingly, an Equality Officer's
investigation must be concerned with total remuneration in the
first instance. The significance of the different elements in the
make-up of the remuneration must then be decided on the facts of
each case.

2. In this case, the remuneration of Armature Winders has
only one element, that is basic pay whereas the remuneration of
Machine Operators is comprised of basic pay, plus payments in
respect of shift working and plus payments in respect of technical
and organisational change and productivity. The question arises
therefore as to what elements constitute the rate of remuneration
of Machine Operators, or in other words, what is paid in respect
of the demands of the whole job actually being done.

3. The Court accepts that it is valid to exclude
shift-premium from the rate of remuneration of Machine Operators
because it is common practice to pay shift premium, not in respect
of the demands of the job, but as compensation for unsocial hours.
The plus payments in respect of technical, organisational and
productivity changes are paid in respect of an integral part of
the job being done by the Machine Operators and therefore form
part of the rate of remuneration for the job.

Accordingly, the jobs to be compared are the jobs for which
Armature Winders are paid basic pay and the jobs for which Machine
Operators are paid basic pay and plus payments in respect of
technical, organisation and productivity changes - in other words,
the full job of the Armature Winders and the full job (excluding
shift) of the Machine Operators. If equal value is established in
respect of the jobs the Armature Winders would then be entitled to
the same pay as Machine Operators, including the plus payments in
respect of technical, organisational and productivity changes and
subject to Section 2(3) of the Act.

4. The Equality Officer carried out an objective assessment
of the full jobs of the Armature Winders and the full jobs of the
Machine Operators and in paragraph 22 of her Recommendation states
that "I consider the work performed by the I.M. Machine Operator
is more demanding in terms of responsibility and to a lesser
extent in terms of working conditions and that the work performed
by the armature winders is more demanding in terms of mental
effort". Other factors used for purposes of comparison were found
by the Equality Officer to be equally demanding. In effect the
Equality Officer's examination of the jobs did not establish
"equal value" under Section 3(c) of the Act and therefore did not
establish "like-work".


The Court examined the relevant jobs on 17th December, 1987 and
found that, while the work of the Armature Winders was more
demanding in terms of skill and mental effort, the work of the
Machine Operators was more demanding under the headings of
physical effort, responsibility and working conditions. Therefore
the Court's review of the jobs confirmed that a "like work"
situation did not exist. As a "like work" situation under Section
3 of the Act has not been established, the claim for equal pay
does not succeed. The Court accordingly upholds the Company's
appeal. The Court considers it unneccessary therefore to deal
with the other matters raised in the appeal.

Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

AEP869 DETERMINATION NO. DEP188


ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT, 1974
SECTION 8(1)



PARTIES: KRUPS ENGINEERING LIMITED

AND

IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION


SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against, and by the Union for, the
implementation of Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EP8/1986
concerning a claim by sixteen named female Armature Winders for an
equal rate of remuneration with a named Injection Moulding Machine
Operator.

BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of a West
German company, was established in Limerick in 1963. It is
engaged in the manufacture of domestic electrical appliances and
scales and currently employs 950 workers in its Limerick plant.

3. The claimants are employed in the Company's Electrical
Assembly (E.A.) Department and the named male worker is employed
in the Injection Moulding (I.M.) Department. The male worker in
common with all Machine Operators in the Injection Moulding
Department, works on 3 cycle shift. His rate of pay is #166.58
plus a 36% allowance. The claimants work on days (8.00 a.m. to
5.00 p.m.) and their rate of pay is #137.64 per week.

4. On 18th October, 1985 the Union requested an investigation by
an Equality Officer of a dispute concerning a claim by Armature
Winders for equal basic pay with a male Machine Operator. The
Equality Officer's investigation of the dispute consisted of
meetings which were held on 4th December, 1985 and 18th February,
1986, with the Union and on 19th February, 1986, with the Company.
A Joint meeting with the parties was held on 27th February, 1986.
On 19th, 26th and 27th February, 1986 the Equality Officer
examined the work in progress. In addition during the period from
November, 1985, to April, 1986, correspondence was exchanged. On
the 17th June, 1986, having completed her investigation the
Equality Officer issued a recommendation. The conclusions and
recommendation of the Equality officer are attached in Appendix 1.

5. On 18th July, 1986, the Union appealed to the Court against
the Company's failure to implement the Equality Officer's
Recommendation. On 24th July, 1986, the Company appealed against
the Equality Officer's Recommendation in accordance with Section
8(1) of the Act. The Court heard the appeal on 3rd February, 1987
in Limerick.



6. At the hearing the Union asked the Court to define its policy
in regard to legal representation at hearings.The Court stated
that its policy was to keep its proceedings as informal as
possible and that this position would be maintained irrespective
of whether either or both parties to the dispute were legally
represented. The Court also stated that members of the legal
profession would have no more or no less powers or privileges than
non-legal spokespersons for the parties at Court hearings.

7. The Union stated that it considered the grounds of appeal
should relate only to the recommendation itself and asked if the
Court would apply the precedent set in the case of Pretty
Polly(Killarney) Limited/ITGWU (DEP 5/1979).The Court stated that
it would study the Equality Officer's Recommendation and the
grounds of appeal. It would also examine all submissions and
evidence carefully and would consider the case on its merits. The
Court was not hidebound as in the case of legal precedent but
considered each case on its merits.

8. The Union stated that the point made by the Company that there
was no dispute was both insulting to the Equality Officer and
frivolous. The Court stated that, while a dispute was not defined
in the Act or in the Employment Equality Act, 1977, in Industrial
Relations legislation generally a trade dispute meant any dispute
or difference between employers or workers or between workers and
workers. In this case it was clear to the Court that the
claimants were in dispute with their employer in the matter of
their pay comparable with that of the Injection Moulding Machine
Operator and that a trade dispute existed.

9. The Company put forward the view that the Equality officer
should have looked at the present situation in the Company and
should not have done a retrospective investigation of the
situation since 1974. There were differences in the work
practices and shift operation since 1974. In any event if a
retrospective investigation was to be made it would be necessary
to look back much further than 1974 at the origins of the
company's wage rates.

10. The Union considered it was necessary to look at the
situation in the period since 1974 as it considered that there had
been discrimination then which had not been corrected. Failure to
look at the situation as it was in 1974 would have the effect of
compounding those past discriminations.

11. The written submissions made to the Court are in Appendices
II and III to this Determination. The parties enlarged on these
submissions at the Court hearing. Additional information and
comments were forwarded to the Court by the parties during the
period from the date of the Court hearing to 19th May, 1987.


12. On 17th December, 1987 the Court visited the Company and
carried out an inspection of the work of the Armature Winders and
of the Inspection Moulders. The Armature Winding area had been
considerably automated since the claim was first lodged. However
one Armature Winding Machine was in operation for the Court's
inspection. Representatives of the parties who accompanied the
Court on its inspection were satisfied that the Court understood
what the process was like when the 16 Armature Winding Machines
were in operation.


DETERMINATION:

13. 1. In considering the question of whether the work of
Armature Winder was equal in value to the work of I.M. Machine
Operators, the Equality Officer drew attention to the fact that
the claim was for equality of basic pay only with Machine
Operators. She pointed out that the work of the operators
incorporated technical and organisational elements and that it was
not possible to exclude these elements from the comparison of jobs
for which plus payments were made.

Section 2(1) of the Act refers to "the same rate of remuneration"
and remuneration as defined in Section 1 "includes any
consideration, whether in cash or in kind, which an employee
receives, directly or indirectly, in respect of his employment
from his employer". Accordingly, an Equality Officer's
investigation must be concerned with total remuneration in the
first instance. The significance of the different elements in the
make-up of the remuneration must then be decided on the facts of
each case.

2. In this case, the remuneration of Armature Winders has
only one element, that is basic pay whereas the remuneration of
Machine Operators is comprised of basic pay, plus payments in
respect of shift working and plus payments in respect of technical
and organisational change and productivity. The question arises
therefore as to what elements constitute the rate of remuneration
of Machine Operators, or in other words, what is paid in respect
of the demands of the whole job actually being done.

3. The Court accepts that it is valid to exclude
shift-premium from the rate of remuneration of Machine Operators
because it is common practice to pay shift premium, not in respect
of the demands of the job, but as compensation for unsocial hours.
The plus payments in respect of technical, organisational and
productivity changes are paid in respect of an integral part of
the job being done by the Machine Operators and therefore form
part of the rate of remuneration for the job.

Accordingly, the jobs to be compared are the jobs for which
Armature Winders are paid basic pay and the jobs for which Machine
Operators are paid basic pay and plus payments in respect of
technical, organisation and productivity changes - in other words,
the full job of the Armature Winders and the full job (excluding
shift) of the Machine Operators. If equal value is established in
respect of the jobs the Armature Winders would then be entitled to
the same pay as Machine Operators, including the plus payments in
respect of technical, organisational and productivity changes and
subject to Section 2(3) of the Act.

4. The Equality Officer carried out an objective assessment
of the full jobs of the Armature Winders and the full jobs of the
Machine Operators and in paragraph 22 of her Recommendation states
that "I consider the work performed by the I.M. Machine Operator
is more demanding in terms of responsibility and to a lesser
extent in terms of working conditions and that the work performed
by the armature winders is more demanding in terms of mental
effort". Other factors used for purposes of comparison were found
by the Equality Officer to be equally demanding. In effect the
Equality Officer's examination of the jobs did not establish
"equal value" under Section 3(c) of the Act and therefore did not
establish "like-work".


The Court examined the relevant jobs on 17th December, 1987 and
found that, while the work of the Armature Winders was more
demanding in terms of skill and mental effort, the work of the
Machine Operators was more demanding under the headings of
physical effort, responsibility and working conditions. Therefore
the Court's review of the jobs confirmed that a "like work"
situation did not exist. As a "like work" situation under Section
3 of the Act has not been established, the claim for equal pay
does not succeed. The Court accordingly upholds the Company's
appeal. The Court considers it unneccessary therefore to deal
with the other matters raised in the appeal.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.

_12th___February,__1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman



APPENDIX 1


EQUALITY OFFICER'S CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

Conclusions of Equality Officer
Unisex Grading Structure

13. Section 2(3) of the Act states as follows:-
"Nothing in this Act shall prevent an employer from paying to
his employees who are employed on like work in the same place
different rates of remuneration on grounds other than sex".

If an Equality Officer is satisfied that the difference between
the rates paid to the claimant and the comparator in an equal pay
dispute is genuinely based on grounds other than sex an evaluation
of the work concerned is not necessary because even if the
claimant and the comparator were found to be employed on like work
an entitlement to equal pay would not exist. Consequently, in the
case here concerned I decided to consider, in the first instance,
the Company's submission in relation to its unisex grading
structure.

14. In brief terms the Company states that both males and females
are employed as I.M. Machine Operators on the same rate as each
other and both males and females are employed as Line Operators on
the same rate as each other. It contends that this demonstrates
clearly that its pay rates are non-discriminatory. It appears to
me, however, that in deciding whether or not different pay rates
for different grades of workers are genuinely non-discriminatory,
and therefore valid within the meaning of section 2(3) of the Act,
it is necessary to have regard to the origins of those pay rates.
In other words, where, for example, a difference in pay rates
between grades was historically due to sex it would not be
reasonable to accept that appointing persons of both sexes to each
grade in recent years automatically eliminated the discriminatory
nature of the difference in rates between the grades. To do so
would be to ignore the possibility that past discrimination may
continue to affect current pay rates.

15. In the case here concerned both males and females were
employed as I.M. Machine Operators, albeit on different shifts,
prior to 1975. The females worked on the late shift i.e. 2.00
p.m. to 10.00 p.m. while the males worked 2 cycle shift, 6.00 a.m.
to 2.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. Obviously, if they were
paid the same basic rate as each other this would lend
considerable weight to the Company's argument that its pay rates
are genuinely based on grounds other than sex. I asked the
Company, therefore, to furnish a copy of the rates which

applied in 1974/75 prior to the introduction of 3 cycle shift in
the I.M. Department and the consequent transfer of the females
from that area. The list of rates effective from June, 1974 show
that the rate for female Machine Operators on the 2.00 p.m. to
10.00 p.m. shift was #20.28 basic and #22.82 effective, and the
Company explains that the difference was in respect of a shift
allowance for working the late shift. The corresponding figure
for male Machine Operators on 2 cycle shift was #29.04 basic and
#36.30 effective. Clearly, therefore, a male rate and a female
rate existed for Machine Operators in 1974. The existing rate for
Machine Operators corresponds to the old male rate.

16. The list of rates also shows that the rate for line
operators, who were all female and who included the Armature
Winders, was #18.44 basic and #20.28 effective, and the Company
explains that the difference was due to a 10% group bonus (which
has since been incorporated into the basic rate). In other words
the rate, exclusive of shift allowance, for both female Machine
Operators and female Armature Winders was #20.28. It appears,
therefore, that historically a higher rate existed in the case of
Machine Operators only because males were employed in that
category. Had all the Machine Operators been female they would
have been paid an equivalent rate, exclusive of shift allowance,
to the rate paid to Armature Winders.

17. In view of the above circumstances I cannot accept that the
current employment of both males and females as Machine Operators
and as Line Operators is sufficient evidence that the difference
in rates is based on grounds other than sex.

Like Work

18. Certain of the claimants no longer work as Armature Winders
but in the dispute here concerned the Union is only claiming
entitlement to equal pay in respect of work performed as Armature
Winders. While working as Armature Winders each of the claimants
performs (or performed) like work with each other in terms of
section 3(a) of the Act. This point is not disputed by the
Company or by the Union. Mr. Madigan performs the same work, in
essence, as the other Machine Operators in the I.M. Department.

19. As already stated the dispute under investigation concerns a
claim for the same basic rate as paid to Mr. Madigan. Therefore,
in deciding whether or not a like work situation exists in terms
of section 3 of the Act only those aspects of the work which are
remunerated in terms of basic pay should be taken into account and
aspects of the work which are paid for by way of allowances should
be disregarded. In the case here concerned the Machine Operators,
including Mr. Madigan, are paid an allowance of 36% which has
evolved through negotiations on a number of different occasions
over the years. The negotiations covered such issues as shift

working, buy-out of certain break periods, keeping machines
running until handed over to next shift, working to agreed
targets, structural changes, co-operation with technical and
organisational changes. (Details furnished by the Company
concerning the evolution of the 36% allowance are attached at
Appendix 5). Where possible, items related to the allowance have
been excluded from the work comparison, for example, shift
working, different break periods and the necessity to continue to
actually operate the machines until they are handed over to the
next shift. It was not feasible, however, to exclude structural
changes and co-operation with technical and organisational change.

20. In considering the work performed by the Machine Operator
account must be taken of the fact that he is required to operate
any of the different injection moulding machines as necessary and
is also required to work in the re-grind area, fill-in for
transport person, work on conveyor belt etc from time to time as
necessary. In evaluating the demands on him in undertaking this
work it appears to me that under the heading of skill account must
be taken of the level of skill required to perform all these
tasks, because, for instance, he requires the skill necessary for
working in the re-grind area whether or not he happens to be
actually working in that area on any particular day. However, the
demands under such factors as physical and mental effort, working
conditions and responsibility only arise when the tasks involved
in each particular job are undertaken and such demands must not be
double counted. For instance, when the I.M. Machine Operator is
working at the conveyor belt he is responsible for the tasks he is
undertaking at that time and is not responsible for operating the
injection moulding machines at the same time. Similarly, when he
works in the re-grind area he is subject to different working
conditions than when operating the I.M. machines but he is not
subject to both sets of conditions at the same time nor is he
subject to the physical and mental demands of the tasks involved
in each area at the same time.

21. Having considered all the submissions of the parties and
having examined the work concerned in the context of section 3(c)
of the Act I have formed the following opinions on the demands of
the work performed by the claimants and by the I.M. Machine
Operator:-


(i) In terms of skill when operating the I.M. machines the
I.M. Machine Operator places inserts in moulds when
required, starts machine by pressing button, removes
the parts produced and checks each part for faults. If
necessary alerts fitter or supervisor to faults so that
machine may be adjusted. Trims, pares, drills and
embosses the parts as required and finally packs them.

He must be capable of dealing with the variety of parts
produced by all the I.M. Machines. From time to time
he also undertakes other duties such as working in
re-grind area, filling in for transport person, working
at conveyor belt and assisting setter-operator.

In operating the Armature Winding machines the Armature
Winder feeds the machine with empty armatures, wires up
the machine with copper wire making sure that the
correct wire is being used (different armatures take
different gauges of wire), checks each wound armature
for a variety of faults and undertakes certain handwork
on the wound armatures. The Armature Winders are
interchangeable between the different winding machines
when necessary.

While the I.M. Machine Operator undertakes a wider
variety of tasks than the Armature Winder in my opinion
each of the tasks concerned is not very complex.

Manual dexterity is required of the I.M. Machine
operator when trimming, paring, embossing and drilling
but a higher level is required of the Armature Winders
in undertaking handwork, particularly having regard to
the small size of the hooks etc. on the armatures and
the need to meet hourly production targets.

Taking into account all aspects of the skill required
by both the I.M. Machine Operator and the Armature
Winders I consider that the level of skill is moderate
in both cases.

(ii) In the areas of responsibility the parts produced on
the machines operated by the I.M. Machine Operators are
not subject to the same degree of checking as in the
case of the Armature Winder. Spot checks are
undertaken in both cases but in the case of the
armatures a 100% check on an oscilloscope is necessary
because it is of critical importance that faulty
armatures are not incorporated in the company's
product. The majority of parts produced on the I.M.
Machines go to the production lines and faults are
likely to be spotted there if they escape the notice of
the I.M. Machine Operator, although if spotted only at
a late stage production time is wasted.

There is more opportunity in the case of the I.M.
Machine Operator to damage equipment and create waste
material through carelessness. However, with certain
exceptions waste material can be re-processed and
damaged equipment can be repaired which lessens, to a
certain extent, the losses which may be involved.

(iii) In relation to physical effort I consider that, in
general, the tasks mentioned by he Company as requiring
physical effort in the case of the I.M. Machine
Operators (paragraph 9 of Appendix 4) are not
undertaken very frequently. However, in addition a
certain amount of physical effort is required in
removing parts produced by machines on a continuous
basis and in drilling, embossing them etc. and in
assembling cardboard cartons and packing parts. In
operating many of the machines the operator is required
to stand.

In the case of the Armature Winders physical effort is
involved in continually feeding the machine, in
undertaking handwork, in lifting completed racks of
armatures onto conveyor belt and in cutting scrap
copper wire from faulty armatures. In relation to
handwork manual effort is involved in pushing back the
tightly wound copper wire and in pushing the slots onto
the armatures. The winder sits while operating the
machine but stands when re-threading broken wires on
machine, lifting racks onto belt, getting empty racks,
and bringing barrels of wire to machine. Hourly
production targets must be maintained. Overall, I
consider that the demands of both jobs are equal in
terms of physical effort.

(iv) In relation to working conditions both the I.M. Machine
Operator and the Armature Winder work in a factory
environment, there is constant noise from machinery,
and both use sharp instruments which can give rise to
cut hands. In overall terms the work is relatively
clean in both areas. In the case of the I.M.
Department, however, the noise level is higher, heat
from the machines can be uncomfortable,particularly in
summer time, and the heated plastic causes fumes.

(v) Continuous visual and mental alertness is required of
both the I.M. Machine Operator and the Armature Winder.
However, the level of hand/eye co-ordination required
of the Armature Winder in undertaking handwork is more
demanding than that required of the I.M. Machine
Operator.


22. In summary, on the basis of the opinions set out in the
previous paragraph, I consider that the work performed by the I.M.
Machine Operator is more demanding in terms of responsibility and,
to a lesser extent, in terms of working conditions and that the
work performed by the Armature Winders is more demanding in terms
of mental effort (hand/eye co-ordination). It is also necessary,
however, to take account of the fact that the Armature

Winders are claiming entitlement only to the basic rate paid to
the I.M. Machine Operator. In comparing the work performed it was
not possible to exclude from the work of the I.M. Machine Operator
aspects related to technical and organisational change i.e.
aspects which have attracted plus payments. Consequently, in the
case of the Armature Winders only work performed in respect of
basic pay was taken into account whereas in the case of the I.M.
Machine Operator work performed in respect of basic pay and in
respect of plus payments for technical and organisation change was
taken into account.

23. In my opinion, in deciding whether or not, in the light of
the differences in demands noted in the previous paragraph, the
work performed by the Armature Winders in respect of basic pay is
equal in value in terms of section 3(c) of the Act with that
performed by the I.M. Machine Operator in respect of basic pay two
questions must be considered viz

(i) Are the differences concerned differences which warrant
a difference in the basic rates of pay ? and

(ii) If the difference in the demands of the work performed
do not warrant a difference in the basic rates of pay
is it reasonable to conclude that the work performed in
respect of basic pay is equal in value in terms of
section 3(c) of the Act?

24. The Act, (sections 2(1) and 3(c), provides an entitlement to
the same rate of remuneration where two persons of different sex
are employed on work which is equal in value in terms of certain
demands. In my opinion, it is reasonable to infer that the value
of the work in terms of the demands concerned is, for the purposes
of the Act, the value which is or which would be reflected in the
rates of remuneration in the absence of discrimination on the
basis of sex. Consequently, in deciding whether or not the work
performed by a female employee is equal in value to that performed
by a male employee one obvious question for consideration is
whether or not the female would be paid the same rate as the male
but for her sex. If she would be paid the same rate as the male
but for her sex then, in my opinion, the work is clearly equal in
value in terms of section 3(c) of the Act and any differences in
demands which may exist are not relevant as they are not
differences which would warrant a different rate of remuneration.

25. In the case here concerned, while it is true that both male
and female I.M. Machine Operators are now employed on the same
rate as each other and that a male Armature Winder has, in recent
years, been employed at the same rate as the claimant I consider,
as explained in paragraph 14, that the origins of the pay rates
cannot be disregarded. Prior to 1975 when both males and females

operated the injection moulding machines, albeit on different
shifts, the Company treated the work performed by the Armature
Winders as being equal in value for pay purposes (exclusive of
shift pay) with the work performed by the female Machine
Operators. It may not always follow automatically that if an
employer does not distinguish between two categories of female
employees for pay purposes that he would have treated male
employees, had males been employed in both of the categories
concerned, as being equal in value with each other for pay
purposes. In the case here concerned, however, having examined
the work now performed by the I.M. Machine Operator and by the
Armature Winders and having taken account of the Company's
submission that the work now performed by I.M. Machine Operators
is more demanding than that performed prior to 1975, I am
satisfied that had males been employed as Armature Winders prior
to 1975 the work performed by them would have been treated as
being equal in value for pay purposes to that performed by male
Machine Operators. Consequently, I am satisfied that the work
performed by Armature Winders prior to 1975 was equal in value in
terms of section 3(c) of the Act to that performed by Machine
Operators.

26. The Company contends that the situation which existed prior
to 1975 is not now relevant on the grounds that, since 1975, the
work performed by the I.M. Machine Operators has changed
considerably and has become more demanding due to the introduction
of new technology. In this regard, however, I must take account
of the fact that the Armature Winders are claiming only an equal
basic rate of pay to that paid to the I.M. Machine Operator. As
already stated, in deciding whether or not the work performed by
Armature Winders is equal in value to that now performed by the
I.M. Machine Operator in respect of basic pay, I consider that
aspects of work remunerated on the basis of basic pay should be
taken into account and aspects remunerated on the basis of
allowances should be disregarded.

27. I note that the changes in the work performed by the I.M.
Machine Operator have not affected his basic rate of pay. Instead
they have attracted plus payments which are now included with
other plus payments in a 36% allowance paid to I.M. Machine
Operators. In other words, the work concerned was equal in value
prior to 1975; changes in the work since 1975 have been paid for
by way of plus payments; consequently, the work performed in
respect of basic pay continues to be equal in value to-day as any
differences in demands have not warranted a difference in the
basic rate of pay. On these grounds I am satisfied that the work
performed by each of the Armature Winders named in Appendix 1 is
equal in value in terms of section 3(c) of the Act to the work now
performed by Michael Madigan, I.M. Machine Operator, in respect of
basic pay.



RECOMMENDATION:

28. In view of my conclusions, and taking account of the
provisions of section 8(5) of the Act, I recommend that each of
the claimants named in Appendix 1, with the exception of Pearl
McNamara and Mary Maher, be paid the same basic rate of pay as
paid to Michael Madigan in respect of any periods worked as an
Armature Winder with effect from 18th October, 1982 i.e. three
years prior to the date on which their dispute was referred to an
Equality Officer for investigation.

I recommend that Pearl McNamara and Mary Maher be paid the same
basic rate of pay as paid to Michael Madigan in respect of any
periods worked by them as Armature Winders with effect from 13th
December, 1982 i.e. three years prior to the date on which their
dispute was referred to the Equality Officer for investigation.


APPENDIX 11





UNION'S SUBMISSION




THIS PORTION OF THE DETERMINATION IS NOT AVAILABLE ON THE
DATABASE,SEE FILE FOR FURTHER DETAILS