Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEP914 Case Number: DEP916 Section / Act: S8(1)AD Parties: GROUP 4 SECURITAS (I) LIMITED - and - TWENTY SIX FEMALE STORE DETECTIVES;IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE |
Appeal by the Union against Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EP3/1991 concerning a claim on behalf of 26 female store detectives for the same unsocial hours allowance, Sunday work allowance and uniform allowance as paid to the Company's Static Guards.
Recommendation:
4. The issue before the Court turns on the Equality Officer's
reading of the terms of the Registered Employment Agreement and
its interpretation by the Labour Court, as all other elements of
the case are agreed between the parties.
The paragraph of the Registered Employment Agreement in question
reads:-
"Unsocial hours payments as follows to be paid:
- the payment of a standard cash premium of £11 per week
to all non-day workers who work shift or other variable
work rosters, and this payment to be fixed and not
accountable for overtime or other basic related
payments."
Subsequently the Court in Interpretation No. 3/1987 defined
unsocial hours as follows:
"In the context of this agreement the liability to be rostered
for work over a 24 hour period."
The Union's case is that the Equality Officer erred on a question
of fact insofar as certain of their members - in particular those
assigned to work at the airport, as a result of aircraft delays
etc. - have in fact worked right through the night, on a number of
occasions, and thus have indeed worked the full 24 hours.
The Court has considered this case but has come to the conclusion
that the right to the payment rests on a "liability to be
rostered." A roster is defined as "a list or plan showing turns
of duty" which is different in essence from the incidental
liability to duty described in the Union's submission. None of
the workers on whose behalf the appeal is made is in fact rostered
through the full 24 hours. The Court for this reason does not
uphold the Union's appeal.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEP914 DETERMINATION NO. DEP691
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT, 1974
PARTIES: GROUP 4 SECURITAS (I) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
TWENTY SIX FEMALE STORE DETECTIVES
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE
AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Equality Officer's Recommendation
No. EP3/1991 concerning a claim on behalf of 26 female store
detectives for the same unsocial hours allowance, Sunday work
allowance and uniform allowance as paid to the Company's Static
Guards.
BACKGROUND:
2. The background to this case is set out in Equality Officer's
Recommendation No. EP3/1991 which is attached as Appendix I to
this Determination. The Equality Officer's Recommendation is as
follows:-
"31. In view of my findings in the above paragraphs I
recommend that:
(i) Each of the claimants named at Appendix 1 is entitled to
be paid the same Sunday work allowance and the same
cleaning allowance as is paid to the comparators named
at Appendix 1.
(ii) None of the claimants named at Appendix 1 are entitled
to the unsocial hours allowance paid to the comparators
named at Appendix 1."
The Union by letter dated 1st July, 1991 appealed against the
Equality Officer's Recommendation as follows:-
"Our appeal is confined to the Equality Officer's
Recommendation on the unsocial hours allowance and the
grounds on which the appeal is based are;
(a) While our members may not always be rostered for
unsocial hours, they do in practice work unsocial hours
and have a permanent liability for same. The Equality
Officer erred in failing to recognise the practice or
the liability.
(b) Some of the comparators are permanently rostered on day
duty and receive the unsocial hours payment in respect
of the liability only for unsocial hours. The Equality
Officer erred in not extending the same right to the
claimants.
(c) Some of the claimants work unsocial hours and all have
the liability to do so, yet none receive the unsocial
hours payment. The Equality Officer erred in finding
that comparators can receive the payment without
working unsocial hours while claimants cannot, even
when they do work unsocial hours.
(d) The Equality Officer erred in finding that the unsocial
hours payment could not be paid to the claimants on the
basis that Group 4 invoked the unsocial hours liability
in the case of most of the comparators.
(e) Paragraph 3(c) of the Registered Employment Agreement
covering security industry employers states:-
"Unsocial hours payment as follows to be paid: the
payment of a standard cash premium of £11.00 per
week to all non-day workers who work shift or other
variable work rosters, and this payment to be fixed
and not accountable for overtime or other basic
related payments."
The Equality Officer erred in not recognising that the
claimants clearly fit into this category and should
therefore be paid the unsocial hours allowance.
(f) The Equality Officer accepted in paragraph 20 of her
recommendation that the claimants work unsocial hours.
She therefore erred in not recommending payment of the
unsocial hours allowance.
(g) The Equality Officer's recommendation was inconsistent
with the evidence presented by the union.
(h) Such further and other grounds as may arise or be put
forward at the hearing of the appeal.
(i) The Court is requested to give reasoning for its
determination".
3. The Court heard the appeal on 10th October, 1991. The
submissions made by the Union and the Company at this hearing are
attached at Appendix II and Appendix III respectively.
DETERMINATION;
4. The issue before the Court turns on the Equality Officer's
reading of the terms of the Registered Employment Agreement and
its interpretation by the Labour Court, as all other elements of
the case are agreed between the parties.
The paragraph of the Registered Employment Agreement in question
reads:-
"Unsocial hours payments as follows to be paid:
- the payment of a standard cash premium of £11 per week
to all non-day workers who work shift or other variable
work rosters, and this payment to be fixed and not
accountable for overtime or other basic related
payments."
Subsequently the Court in Interpretation No. 3/1987 defined
unsocial hours as follows:
"In the context of this agreement the liability to be rostered
for work over a 24 hour period."
The Union's case is that the Equality Officer erred on a question
of fact insofar as certain of their members - in particular those
assigned to work at the airport, as a result of aircraft delays
etc. - have in fact worked right through the night, on a number of
occasions, and thus have indeed worked the full 24 hours.
The Court has considered this case but has come to the conclusion
that the right to the payment rests on a "liability to be
rostered." A roster is defined as "a list or plan showing turns
of duty" which is different in essence from the incidental
liability to duty described in the Union's submission. None of
the workers on whose behalf the appeal is made is in fact rostered
through the full 24 hours. The Court for this reason does not
uphold the Union's appeal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
1st November, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
A.S./J.C.