DEP9210

Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEP907 Case Number: DEP9210 Section / Act: S8(1)AD Parties: THE IRISH CROWN CORK COMPANY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION

Subject:
Appeal by the Union for implementation of and appeal by the Company against Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EP4/1990 concerning a claim by 54 named female employees for the same rate of remuneration as that paid to a number of named male employees.

Recommendation:
This full Document is not available in the Add Field

Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

AEP907 DETERMINATION NO. DEP1092

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT, 1974
DETERMINATION NO. OF 1991


PARTIES: THE IRISH CROWN CORK COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)

and

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION

SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union for implementation of and appeal by the
Company against Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EP4/1990
concerning a claim by 54 named female employees for the same rate
of remuneration as that paid to a number of named male employees.

BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of cans, aluminium
ends and crowns for the packaging industry. It supplies a wide
range of customers both in the home and export markets.

3. On 11th January, 1989 the Union requested an investigation by
an Equality Officer of a dispute as to whether or not 54 female
employees of the Company are entitled under the Act to the same
rate of basic pay as a number of male employees of the Company.

4. The comparators are employed as Grade 1 and Grade 2 operatives
and 10 of them are in receipt of a chargehand differential. The
claimants are all employed as Grade 3 operatives, 2 of them are in
receipt of a chargehand differential and 16 are in receipt of a
Quality Check differential. The rates of pay (as per Equality
Officer's Recommendation No. EP4/1990), are as follows:

GRADE 1

Basic Rate - #166.55 per week

Increase after 6 months (basic rate) - #179.82 per week
+ #1 attendance bonus

Increase after 12 months (basic rate) - #189.41 per week
+ #1 attendance bonus


GRADE 2

Basic Rate - #157.66 per week

Increase after 6 months (basic rate) - #175.90 per week
+ #1 attendance bonus

GRADE 3

Basic Rate - #144.30 per week

Increase after 6 months (basic rate) - #153.32 per week
+ #1 attendance bonus

Increase after 9 months (basic rate) - #156.77 per week
+ #1 attendance bonus

QUALITY CHECK DIFFERENTIAL

Basic Rate (Grade 3) - #6.71 per week

FEEDER/PACKER CHARGEHAND DIFFERENTIAL

Basic Rate (Grade 3) - #6.71 per week

CAN LINE CHARGEHAND DIFFERENTIAL

Basic Rate (Grade 2) - #15.36 per week

C45 CHARGEHAND DIFFERENTIAL

Basic Rate (Grade 1) - #15.36 per week.

5. The claimants are engaged in the following areas of operation:

- feeding/packing
- quality checking
- crown sorting
- borden testing
- canteen

6. The grade 2 comparators are engaged in the following areas of
operation:

- can line
- print line
- crown line
- oiler/greaser
- stores
- baling
- cleaning


7. The grade 1 comparators are engaged in the following areas of
operation:

- multi-die machines
- C45 machines
- coil/shear machine

8. The recommendation of the Equality Officer which issued on
27th July, 1990 is attached at Appendix 1.

LABOUR COURT INVESTIGATION:
9. On 10th August, 1990 the Union made an appeal to the Court for
a determination that the Equality Officer's Recommendation had not
been implemented. On 31st August, 1990 the Company made an appeal
to the Court against the Equality Officer's Recommendation. The
Company's grounds of appeal were as follows:

1. that the Equality Officer erred in law in deciding that
there was a dispute within the meaning of S 7(1) of the
Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, in existence before
the case was referred to her;

2. that the Equality Officer erred in law in her
interpretation of S 3(c) of the Act of 1974 in failing to
take into account the full range of the duties of Mr. S.
Carr, comparator;

3. that the Equality Officer erred in law in her
interpretation of S 2(3) of the Act of 1974, in relation
to the reasons why Mr. S. Carr holds his Grade 2 rate of
pay;

4. that the Equality Officer erred in fact in her assessment
of the work carried out by the claimants for whom equal
pay was recommended;

5. that the Equality Officer erred in fact in her assessment
of the work carried out by Mr. S. Carr, comparator;

6. such other grounds of appeal as may arise in the course of
the hearing of the Company's appeal.

10. The Court heard the appeal on 9th May, 1991. The written
submissions to the Court are attached as Appendices 2 and 3. The
Court subsequently visited the Company's premises on 20th
November, 1991 and carried out a work inspection.


*DETERMINATION:
10. By letter dated 31st August, 1990 the Company lodged an
appeal against the Equality Officer's Recommendation (EP 4/1990).

The grounds of appeal were as follows:

1. that the Equality Officer erred in law in deciding that there
was a dispute, within the meaning of S 7(1) of the
Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, in existence before the
case was referred to her;

2. that the Equality Officer erred in law in her interpretation
of S 3(c) of the Act of 1974 in failing to take into account
the full range of the duties of Mr S Carr, the comparator;

3. that the Equality Officer erred in law in her interpretation
of S 2(3) of the Act of 1974, in relation to the reasons why
Mr. S. Carr holds his Grade 2 rate of pay;

4. that the Equality Officer erred in fact in her assessment of
the work carried out by the claimants for whom equal pay was
recommended;

5. that the Equality Officer erred in fact in her assessment of
the work carried out by Mr. S. Carr, comparator;

6. such other grounds of appeal as might arise in the course of
the hearing of the company's appeal.

Both parties submitted detailed written statements to the Court
and further oral evidence was given at the hearing.


Subsequent to the hearing the Court visited the premises and
examined the work carried out by the various comparators and
claimants.

COURT DETERMINATION:

The Court initially addressed the first point of appeal -

"the Equality Officer erred in law in deciding that there was
a dispute within the meaning of Section 7(1) of the
Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974".

The Court does not find merit in the argument that there was
no dispute. The Company behaved as if it were party to a
dispute and did not pay the rate claimed, which is an implied
rejection of the claim. That the implied rejection occurred
after the claim had been made to an Equality Officer is not
relevant. By its behaviour in dealing with the complaint the
Company accepted that there was a dispute. It cannot
subsequently deny its own behaviour and refuse to acknowledge
the dispute.

The Court accordingly rejects this ground of appeal.

The other grounds of appeal, relate to the Equality Officer's
assessment of the work performed by the claimants and comparators,
and, with the exception of Ground 3 (Interpretation of Section
2(3) of the Act), can be dealt with together.

In the first paragraph of her recommendation (page 20 of report)
the Equality Officer states


"The claimants named at Appendix 1, with the exception of Ms.
Hill and Ms. Sheehan, when Ms. Sheehan is performing canteen
duties, are entitled to be paid the same rate of remuneration
as that paid to Mr. Carr, the Grade 2 cleaner, with effect
from three years prior to the date on which their dispute was
referred to me for investigation".

The claimants referred to above are paid a Grade 3 rate. The
comparators listed, which include Mr. Carr are paid at the higher
Grade 2 rate. Detailed job descriptions were prepared and
examined by the Court. The Court also visited the factory and
carried out an inspection of the work performed by all the parties
involved in the dispute.

Two claimants Ms. Hill and Ms. Sheehan, perform canteen duties.
Having examined the work they perform the Court is satisfied that
the work is less demanding than the work performed by the other
claimants and also than the comparators and accordingly is not
equal in value to the work performed by the comparators.

The Court accordingly agrees with the Equality Officer's
Recommendation with regards to Ms. Hill and Ms. Sheehan and their
claim is excluded from the next paragraph with the exception of
the periods when Ms. Sheehan performs feeder/packer work.

The named comparators perform a variety of jobs and are paid at
Grade 2 rate. They include Mr. Carr whose duties consist of
general cleaning duties and on occasions operating the Multi-die
machines. As stated above detailed job descriptions were prepared
and submitted by both parties. Whilst there was no major
discrepancy between the job descriptions submitted by the Company
and that prepared by the Equality Officer the Court felt that, as


the work performed by Mr. S. Carr and the claimants was critical
to the Equality Officer's findings, it was advisable to carry out
its own inspection. Based on the inspection the Court is
satisfied that

(a) The major part of Mr. Carr's duties consist of general type
cleaning duties. He does not operate machinery. He is not
involved in the pre-production or production phases of the
manufacture and this work does not require an understanding of
engineering tolerance. The demands made on him are low as to
skill, mental effort and responsibility. Some physical effort
is required and he works in an unpleasant environment.

(b) The demands made on the claimants with regard to skill,
responsibility and mental effort are greater than the demands
made on Mr. Carr when performing cleaning duties, whilst being
roughly equal with regard to physical effort and working
conditions.

(c) The work performed by the other named Grade 2 comparators is
also more demanding than that performed by Mr. Carr.

As stated above the major part of Mr. Carr's duties are of a
general cleaning nature. However Mr. Carr does act as a relief on
the Multi-die machine which carries a Grade 1 rating. The Company
placed considerable emphasis on this part of Mr. Carr's duties.
It was agreed by the parties that when working the Multi-die
machine for any extended period, e.g. annual leave absences, he is
paid the Grade 1 rate. What was not agreed and which the Court
had considerable difficulty in establishing was the amount of time
he worked the machine when the work was not paid for at the higher
rate. That Mr. Carr is a skilled Multi-die machine operator is
not in dispute. The Court however must address how often that


skill is used; in other words what work does Mr. Carr actually
perform? The Company in Appendix 3 of its submission to the Court
sets out a table of Mr. Carr's time spent on the Multi-die. A
note at the end of the table states:

"The above figures are based on daily relief work on the multi-die
of 0.75 hours and recorded transfers only". They further
submitted that Mr. Carr works frequently on the multi-die and this
time is not recorded.

On page 5 of its written submission the Company states that Mr.
Carr provides relief duties on a daily basis, amounting to
approximately 14 hours per month.

As already stated the named comparators performed a variety of
different jobs. The Equality Officer for the purpose of dealing
with the claim used one named comparator - i.e. Mr. S. Carr. It
was her findings relative to Mr. Carr which are the subject of
this Appeal and the Court's function is to deal with the appeal.

The Equality Officer in her comparison did not take into account
any time that Mr. Carr was paid at the Grade 1 rate. The Court
considers this valid. When Mr. Carr is working full time on the
Multi-die machine he is not performing the work of a Grade 2
comparator. He is doing the work of someone else who is absent on
leave or because of illness. He is remunerated at that person's
level.

Section 3(c) of the act of 1974 states

"where the work performed by one is equal in value to that
performed by the other in terms of the demands it makes in
relation to such matters as skill, physical or mental effort,
responsibility and working conditions".


The court has examined the work performed by Mr. Carr as a Grade 2
comparator and the work performed by the claimants under the
factors set out in the act and has come to the following
conclusions:

(a) When Mr. Carr performs the major part of his duties as a
General Cleaner the work he performs is less demanding than
that performed by the Claimants.

(b) When allowance is made for relieving at duties which are more
demanding than those of the claimants and for which he is not
paid at the higher (Grade 1) rate the Court is of the view
that these additional demands do not make the work performed
by Mr. Carr as a whole more demanding than that performed by
the claimants. It is only because he performs relief duties
that the work as a whole can be judged as demanding as that of
the claimants.

The Court accordingly finds that the work performed by the
claimants is as demanding as the work performed by Mr. Carr as
a whole and is of equal value within the terms of the Act.

The Court accordingly upholds the Equality Officer's
Recommendation in Paragraph 32 Section (1) of Recommendation
No. EP4/1990.

CHARGE HANDS

In the course of its submission the Company also appealed the
Equality Officer's finding in relation to the feeder/packer
chargehands, submitting that the Equality Officer had erred in her
valuation and that she failed to apply the requirements of section
3(c) of the Act.


The Court has examined this point of appeal. The Equality Officer
in Appendix 6 of her report sets out the details of her
examination of the work performed by the Can Line and C45
Chargehands for which they are paid a differential of #15.36 per
week over and above the rate attached to their respective grades,
and that performed by the feeder/packer Chargehands for which they
are paid #6.71 over and above the Grade 3 rate.

Following its examination and assessment the Court is satisfied
that the demands made on the claimant Chargehands are equal in
value to the demands made on the comparators in relation to skill,
effort and working conditions and that the greater degree of
responsibility for machinery placed on the comparators is
counterbalanced by the greater responsibility of the claimant
Chargehands in relation to numbers.

The Court therefore finds that the demands made on the
feeder/packers Chargehands are equal in value to the demands made
on the Can Line and C45 Chargehands in the terms of Section 3(c)
of the Act of 1974.

The Court accordingly upholds the Equality Officer's
recommendation at Section (ii) of Paragraph 32 of Recommendation
No. EP4/1990.

Arising from the above decision of the Court it follows that
Sections (iii) and (iv) of the recommendation are also upheld.

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(3)

Grounds other than Sex: The Company's arguments in relation to
the above point are set out in Page 6 of their submission. The
Court accepts that Mr. Carr's skill as a Multi-die operator is of
economic value to the Company. This is remunerated at Grade 1
level for extended periods.


Mr. Carr was at one stage a full time Grade 1 multi-die operator
and for personal reasons requested a down grading. This was
agreed by the Company and he was then employed as a Grade 2
operator with general cleaning duties. No question of a "red
circle" arose.

The Court has found (above) that the value of his general cleaning
duties is less than Grade 2 and it's only his relief work which
brought him up to Grade 2 and makes the work he performs equal in
value to the other named comparators.

The Court therefore finds no basis for upholding the appeal under
Section 2(3).

In conclusion the Court rejects the appeal on all points and
upholds the Equality Officer's Recommendation and so determines.

DETERMINATION:
This full Document is not available in the Add Field
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Evelyn Owens
______________________
11th March, 1992. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.


APPENDICES

CONTENTS


1. Appendix 1 - Equality Officer's Conclusions and Recommendation.

2. Appendix 2 - Union's submission.

3. Appendix 3 - Company's submission.


APPENDIX 1

EQUALITY OFFICER'S CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF 27TH JULY,
1990

CONCLUSIONS

18. The first question to be addressed in this case is whether or
not a dispute, for the purposes of Section 7(1) of the Act, is
properly before me. On 27th November, 1989, some ten months after
my investigation of this case had commenced, the Company wrote to
me stating that as no formal claim had been served on the Company
the question arose as to whether or not it was admissible for the
Union to declare that a dispute exists and to request an
investigation by an Equality Officer.

19. On 28th November, 1989 I wrote as follows to the Company
setting out, in detail, why I considered that "a dispute" for the
purposes of Section 7(1) of the Act, was properly before me:-

"The facts of this case are that on 11th January, 1989 the
Union, in pursuance of its entitlement under Section 7(1) of
the above Act, requested an investigation by an Equality
Officer of a dispute concerning the Company's failure to pay
named claimants the same rate of pay as named comparators, to
which they contend they are entitled under Section 2 of the
Act. The dispute was assigned to me, as an Equality Officer,
for investigation. Where a dispute is referred to an
Equality Officer under Section 7(1) of the Act, an Equality
Officer has a statutory duty to undertake an investigation of
that dispute.

It is also a fact that from the time of the commencement of
my investigation to the date of your fax the Company has
acted, at all times, as if it were in dispute with the Union
concerning a claim for equal pay. For example:-

- As already stated, I notified the Company, by letter
dated 13th January, 1989, that the Union had referred the
dispute concerned for investigation. It is reasonable to
believe that if a dispute did not exist, the Company
would have made an immediate response to this effect.

- On 20th January, 1989 Ms. Egar wrote to Mr. Coughlan
requesting access to the Company to prepare job
descriptions (copy enclosed). This access was
subsequently arranged with the Company through the
offices of the Equality Officer.

- A preliminary hearing took place on 24th April, 1989 at
which the dispute was discussed and both parties agreed
that submissions would be prepared and submitted to the
Equality Officer by 21st June, 1989 with a work
inspection to take place in the week of 3rd July, 1989.


APPENDIX 1

On 30th May, 1989 Mr. Coughlan wrote to me indicating
that a High Court litigation concerning the contractual
terms of two of the claimants was pending the Company
were "not in a position to facilitate any processing of
the equal pay claim ..... When the judgement has been
issued I will advise you that the way is clear to proceed
with that matter."

- New arrangements were then made for the Union to visit
the Company on 27th/28th June, 1989 to prepare their job
descriptions. In early July, 1989 both Mr. Coughlan and
Ms. Egar contacted me requesting that submissions in the
case should not be sought until September, 1989 due to
the annual leave arrangements of both Company and Union.

- On 11th September, 1989 you yourself wrote to me
concerning the delay in forwarding the Company's
submission which you attributed in part to the departure
of Mr. Coughlan from your staff. The time limit for
receipt of the Company's submission was extended until
16th October, 1989 and since that date I have issued
reminders to you seeking the outstanding submission.

It is clear from the above facts that at all times, since the
13th January, 1989, the Company has behaved as if it were a
party to an equal pay dispute. In addition, I note that it
is a fact that the Company is not paying the claimants the
rate to which they claim entitlement under the legislation.
It is also a fact that the Union is opposed to the Company's
failure to pay the rate claimed and asked for an Equality
Officer's investigation in January, 1989. It is, therefore,
quite clear that the Union is in dispute with the Company
because of the Company's failure to pay the claimants their
contended entitlement under the legislation.

In these circumstances, there is no basis on which it would
be reasonable for me to conclude that a dispute concerning
the operation of an equal pay clause does not exist for the
purposes of Section 7(1) of the Act."

As is clear from the above extract, I am satisfied that a dispute
existed for the purpose of Section 7(1) of the Act and I proceeded
to investigate the dispute.

20. To decide the question of whether or not the work performed
by each of the claimants is like work within the meaning of
Section 3 of the Act I have, in the first instance, examined the
claimants' contention that they perform work which is equal in
value in terms of Section 3(c) of the Act to that performed by the
named comparators. Section 3(c) of the Act states that two
persons shall be regarded as employed on like work -


APPENDIX 1

"where the work performed by one is equal in value to
that performed by the other in terms of the demands it
makes in relation to such matters as skill, physical or
mental effort, responsibility and working conditions."

21. The following comparisons between claimants and comparators
have been made by the Union under Section 3(c) of the Act:-

(i) Quality Checkers and Borden Tester
v.
Grade 1 comparators

(ii) All claimants
v.
Grade 2 comparators

(iii)Feeder/Packer chargehands
v.
Comparator chargehands i.e. both the Grade 2
can line chargehand and the Grade 1 C45
chargehands. (This claim relates to the
chargehand differential only).

22. I have prepared a detailed description of the work performed
by the claimants and the comparators and this is set out at
Appendices 2 and 3. My evaluation of the work performed by the
claimants and comparators in terms of Section 3(c) of the Act is
set out at Appendix 6. Having examined and evaluated the work
concerned in terms of Section 3(c) of the Act I am satisfied
that:-

- The work performed by the quality check operatives and that
performed by Ms. Buckley, the borden tester, is not as
demanding as that performed by any of the named Grade 1
comparators. Having regard to the extent of the differences
in the demands of the work performed by these claimants and
the Grade 1 comparators, I am satisfied that the work
performed by these claimants is not equal in value with that
performed by the comparators.

- The work performed by Ms. Hill and Ms. Sheehan, canteen
assistants, is not as demanding as that performed by any of
the named Grade 2 comparators. Having regard to the extent of
the differences in the demands of the work performed by these
claimants and the Grade 2 comparators I am satisfied that they
do not perform work which is equal in value with that
performed by the comparators.

- The work performed by each of the feeder/packers, by each of
the quality checkers, by Ms. Desmond, the crown sorter, and by
Ms. Buckley, the borden tester is at least as demanding as
that performed by Mr. Carr, the Grade 2 cleaner and therefore
is equal in value to that performed by Mr. Carr. I note that


APPENDIX 1

Ms. Sheehan, canteen assistant has also worked for periods as
a feeder/packer. When performing feeder/packer work Ms.
Sheehan performs work equal in value to that performed by Mr.
Carr.

- The work performed by the feeder/packer chargehands in respect
of which they receive the chargehand differential is as
demanding as that performed by Mr. J. Buckley, the can line
chargehand and by the four C45 chargehands in respect of which
they receive a chargehand differential. I am satisfied,
therefore, that the work performed by the feeder/packer
chargehands for which they receive a differential is equal in
value to that performed by each of the comparator chargehands
in respect of which they receive a differential. With the
exception of their chargehand duties, the work performed by
the feeder/packer chargehands is the same as that performed by
the other feeder/packers whom I have found to be equal in
value to that performed by Mr. Carr.

23. In view of my finding that the work performed by each of the
claimants engaged on feeder/packer duties, quality check duties,
borden testing duties and crown sorting duties is equal in value
to that performed by Mr. Carr, Grade 2, it is not necessary for me
to consider their claim under Section 3(b) of the Act. In
addition, it is not necessary for me to consider the claim of the
feeder/packer chargehands for the same differential as the can
line and C45 chargehands under Section 3(b) of the Act.
Therefore, the remaining questions for consideration are whether
or not, in terms of Section 3(b) of the Act, the work performed by
Ms. Hill, the canteen assistant, and Ms. Sheehan when performing
canteen duties is like work with that performed by any of the
Grade 2 comparators and whether or not the work performed by the
16 quality checkers and by Ms. Buckley, the borden tester, is like
work with that performed by any of the Grade 1 comparators.

24. Section 3(b) of the Act states that two persons shall be
regarded as employed on like work -

"where the work performed by one is of a similar nature to
that performed by the other and any differences between the
work performed or the conditions under which it is performed
by each occur only infrequently or are of small importance in
relation to the work as a whole."

In my opinion, the points to be considered in the context of
Section 3(b) of the Act are as follows:-

(i) Is the work similar in nature?

(ii) If the work is similar in nature, are there differences
between the work performed or the conditions under which it
is performed?


APPENDIX 1

(iii) If differences exist, do they occur on a frequent basis?

(iv) Are the differences of small importance in relation to the
work as a whole?

25. With regard to Section 3(b) of the Act, the Union argues
that, while it accepts that there are differences between the work
of the claimants and comparators, it does not accept that the
differences are of such importance that they would normally be
used as the basis for establishing a different grade, salary scale
or rate of pay irrespective of the sex of the workers concerned.
The Company argues that, the work performed by the claimants is
not of a similar nature to that performed by the comparators and
that significant differences exist between the work performed and
the conditions under which it is performed. In support of its
argument, the Company points out that the comparators are involved
with manufacturing and the operation of plant and machinery, and
the claimants are involved with packing, sorting and measuring
products against specification.

26. Having examined in detail the work performed by the quality
checkers and the borden tester, I consider that the most
significant feature in the nature of their work is the checking of
product against defined specification requiring a moderate degree
of skill whereas the most significant feature in the nature of the
work of the Grade 1 comparators is the operation of sophisticated
machinery requiring a high degree of skill. Consequently, the
work performed by the Grade 1 comparators is not, in my view,
similar in nature to that performed by the claimants assigned to
quality check and borden testing work. As the work is not similar
in nature, the quality checkers and borden tester do not perform
like work with that performed by the Grade 1 comparators in terms
of Section 3(b) of the Act.

27. Having examined in detail the work performed by Ms. Hill and
Ms. Sheehan, canteen assistants and that performed by the Grade 2
operatives I am satisfied that with the exception of Mr. Carr,
general factory cleaner, the work performed by these claimants is
not similar in nature to that performed by any of the Grade 2
operatives. In the case of these claimants and Mr. Carr I
consider that the most significant feature in the nature of their
work is the simple, straightforward manual nature of the tasks
performed. Consequently, the work performed by Ms. Hill, Ms.
Sheehan when Ms. Sheehan performs canteen duties, and Mr. Carr is,
in my view, similar in nature.

28. As can be seen from the job descriptions for the canteen
assistant and Mr. Carr (Pages 32 and 39), there are differences
between the work performed and these differences occur on an
ongoing basis. Mr. Carr performs work which is physically more
demanding than that performed by the canteen assistants. There
are also differences in the conditions under which the work is


APPENDIX 1

performed i.e. the canteen assistants work in the quieter, cleaner
and warmer environment of the canteen while Mr. Carr works on the
factory floor constantly exposed to high noise levels.

29. The remaining question for consideration under Section 3(b)
of the Act is, therefore, whether or not the differences between
the work performed by the canteen assistants and Mr. Carr in terms
of physical effort, and the differences in the conditions under
which it is performed, are of small importance in relation to the
work as a whole.

30. In Kavanagh and Toyota Motor Distributors Limited.
EP.17/1985, DEP.1/1986 refers, the Labour Court held that whether
or not differences in work performed by a claimant and a
comparator are of small importance in relation to the work as a
whole can be decided by reference to whether the differences
warrant a difference in remuneration. Having considered the
extent of the differences between the work performed by these
claimants and Mr. Carr I am satisfied that the differences in
demand between their work and Mr. Carr's work do warrant a
difference in remuneration. Consequently, I am satisfied that the
canteen assistants do not perform like work in terms of Section
3(b) of the Act with any of the Grade 2 comparators.

31. I note that the interchangeability clause in the
Company/Union agreement states as follows:-

"Interchangeability of labour is fundamental to the
continuing progress of the Company and the security of
employment. The nature of the business requires changes in
assignment from time to time to perform specific functions
and/or to complete production schedules. The Company will
assign employees to work in other classifications or
occupations as considered necessary to facilitate
operations."

Having examined the work of the claimants whom I have found to be
performing like work with Mr. Carr, I am satisfied that there is
no difference between the work of these claimants and that of Mr.
Carr which would amount to a reason other than sex within the
meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act for the difference in their
rates of remuneration. I am fully satisfied from my examination
of Mr. Carr's work that when he relieves on the full range of
multi-die functions he is paid the Grade 1 rate.

RECOMMENDATION

32. In view my conclusions in Paragraphs 18 - 31 and taking
account of the provisions of Section 8(5) of the Act, I recommend
that:-


APPENDIX 1

(i) The claimants named at Appendix 1, with the exception of Ms.
Hill and Ms Sheehan, when Ms. Sheehan is performing canteen
duties, are entitled to be paid the same rate of
remuneration as that paid to Mr. Carr, the Grade 2 cleaner,
with effect from three years prior to the date on which
their dispute was referred to me for investigation.

(ii) The feeder/packer chargehands, i.e. Ms. Simpson and Ms. Lee,
are entitled to be paid the same chargehand differential as
that paid to Mr. Buckley, Grade 2 can line chargehand and
the four Grade 1 C45 chargehands, named at Appendix 1, with
effect from three years prior to the date on which their
dispute was referred to me for investigation.

(iii) I note that some of the claimants identified at Appendix 1
have ceased employment with the Company. These claimants
are entitled to equal pay with effect from the date three
years prior to the date of reference of this dispute to me
for investigation until the date their employment with the
Company terminated.

(iv) As this dispute was referred to me for investigation on 11th
January, 1989, the entitlement of the claimants at (i) -
(iii) ante to equal pay dates from 11th January, 1986.