Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEP886 Case Number: DEP894 Section / Act: S8(1)AD Parties: LEAF LIMITED - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Appeal by the Company and Union against Equality Officers Recommendation No. EP10/1988 concerning a claim on behalf of 49 female employees for equal basic remuneration with 10 named male comparators.
Recommendation:
DETERMINATION IS IN FULL TEXT ONLY.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEP886 DETERMINATION NO. DEP489
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT, 1974
DETERMINATION NO. DEP489
PARTIES: LEAF LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company and Union against Equality Officers
Recommendation No. EP10/1988 concerning a claim on behalf of 49
female employees for equal basic remuneration with 10 named male
comparators.
BACKGROUND:
2. The background to this case is set out in Equality Officer's
Recommendation No. EP10/1988 which is attached as appendix 1 to
this Determination.
3. The Union by letter dated 24th November, 1988 advised the
Court of its intention to appeal against the Equality Officers
Recommendation and to appeal for implementation on the following
grounds:-
Appeal against Recommendation
The Federated Workers' Union of Ireland wish to appeal the
above recommendation as it applies to two claimants namely:
Ms. Bernie Flaherty
and
Ms. Lily Edwards
The grounds for appeal are as follows:-
1. The Equality Officer erred in not finding that the work of
these claimants was equal in value under section 3(c) of the
Act to the work performed by 3 of the listed comparators
namely:
Mr. N. Murphy
Mr. D. McDonald
and
Mr. S. Carney
2. The Equality Officer erred in not taking fully into
account the experience required and the full range of duties
and responsibilities inherent in the claimants work.
3. The Equality Officer may have been misled by erroneous
comparisons with a male colleague working in the same section
as the claimants but with far less responsibility.
4. The Equality Officer erred in interpreting section 3(c) of
the Act too narrowly.
5. Further or other grounds which may be advanced at the
hearing of the Appeal.
Appeal for Implementation of Equality Officer's Recommendation
The Federated Workers' Union of Ireland seeks a determination
to give effect to the Equality Officer's Recommendation (No.
EP10/1988). The Respondent (Leaf Ltd) has failed to implement
the terms of that recommendation in respect of any of the
claimants named on the attached list.
4. The Company by letter dated 25th November advised the Court
that it was appealing against the Equality Officer's
recommendation on the following grounds:-
1. The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in holding
that the Claimants or any of them are entitled to be paid
the same rate of remuneration as any of the comparators
named in the claim.
2. The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in holding
that the Appellant discriminated in respect of the
remuneration or rates of pay of the Respondents or any of
them within the meaning of the Act.
3. Without prejudice to any other grounds of appeal the
Equality Officer acted without authority or alternatively
in excess of jurisdiction in holding that the Respondents
or any of them were entitled to be paid the same rate of
remuneration as any named comparator from any date earlier
than the date of the said Recommendation and specifically
the Equality Officer had no power to recommend such rates
of pay from a date three years prior to the dates of
reference of their disputes to the Equality Officer.
4. Without prejudice to any other ground of appeal the
Equality Officer erred in law and in fact and acted in
excess of jurisdiction in holding that the Respondents are
entitled to retain a Group II rate of pay when performing
work of lower value.
5. The Equality Officer erred in law in holding that any of
the Respondents is entitled to equal pay during any period
when such Respondents is or was engaged in work which is
not or was not like work within the meaning of the Act.
6. The Equality Officer's Recommendation is against the
evidence or alternatively inconsistent with the evidence
as adduced by the Appellant.
7. The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in failing
to compare the work of the Respondents and the Comparators
having regard to the factors set out in Clause 11(b) of
the Company/Union Agreement.
8. The Equality Officer's evaluation of the work of the
Respondents and the named Group II Comparators having
regard to the matters set out in Section 3(c) of the Act
is fundamentally flawed and invalid.
9. The Equality Officers finding, as set out in paragraph
51(iii), that the work of the Respondents engaged in
certain named duties is as demanding as the work of each
of the Group II Comparators is against the evidence or
alternatively inconsistent with evidence as adduced.
10. The Equality Officer misinterpreted the provisions of the
Act and particularly Sections 2(3), 3(b) and 3(c) thereof.
11. Without prejudice to the foregoing the Equality Officer
erred in law and in fact in failing to hold that
differences in rates of remuneration between the
Respondents and Comparators were due to reasons other than
sex.
12. The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in finding
that Group IV gum inspection duty is work which is equal
in value to that performed by any of the Group II
Comparators.
13. The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in finding
that the Respondents are performing like work, within the
meaning of the Act, to that performed by each of the Group
II Comparators when the Respondents are engaged on packing
machine duties, gum inspection duties, quality central
duties or freeze packing.
14. The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact by seeking
to establish the nature of the work performed by the
Respondents or the Comparators, for the purposes of
Section 3(b) of the Act, by identifying the important
aspects which are innate to the work concerned.
15. The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in regarding
the "most significant feature in the nature of work" to be
of any relevance in comparing work for the purposes of
Section 3(b) of the Act.
16. The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in
determining that work performed by Respondents engaged in
cleaning, canteen/cloakroom, Group IV duties of reclaim
and pack-off is work which is similar in nature to the
work performed by Group II Comparators.
17. The Equality Officer erred in law in so far as she had
regard, in arriving at her decisions, to the purported
principle set out in Kavanagh v Toyota Motor Distributors
Ltd EP17/1985 and quoted by her at paragraph 63 of her
recommendation.
18. The job descriptions compiled by the Equality Officers (as
set out in Appendices 4 and 5) are invalid in so far as
they seek to assign levels of skill, physical or mental
effort, responsibility or working conditions for the
purposes of comparability pursuant to the provisions of
Section 3 of the Act.
19. The analysis of the work performed by the Respondents and
the named Comparators (as set out in Appendix 7) is
invalid and inaccurate and against the evidence adduced.
In carrying out this analysis the Equality Officer failed
to give proper weight to the elements of skill,
responsibility, mental and physical effort and working
conditions applicable to the work of the named
Comparators.
20. The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in failing
to fully analyse the relative value of the Respondents
work inter se and the relative value of the Comparators