Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEE925 Case Number: DEP931 Section / Act: S21EE Parties: PRIMARK T/A PENNEYS LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Equality Officer's Recommendation EE8/1992 concerning a claim by 42 female workers that the Company discriminated against them on the grounds of their sex in terms of Section 3 of the Employment Equality Act, 1977 and contrary to sections 2(a) and 2(c) of the Act by paying their male management staff a bonus in voucher form and the female sales and clerical staff their bonus in cash form.
Recommendation:
4. The Court has considered fully the submissions made by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. The Court has also
considered the views expressed by the Equality Officer in his
recommendation.
The Court notes that the claim was referred under the Equality
Act, 1977.
Section 3(1) of the Equality Act, 1977 prohibits employers from
discriminating against an employee in relation to access to
employment, conditions of employment (other than remuneration or
any condition relating to an occupational pension scheme).
Section 1(1) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 defines
remuneration to include any consideration whether in cash or in
kind, which an employee receives, directly or indirectly, in
respect of his employment from his employer.
In the case before the Court the employer provided benefits to
both the managers and the claimants which clearly in the view of
the Court, fall within the definition of remuneration under
Section 1(1) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974.
Accordingly the Court concurs with the findings of the Equality
Officer that since the Equality Act, 1977 excludes remuneration
from the prohibition against discrimination, the claim is not
appropriate for consideration under the 1977 Act.
The Court therefore upholds the Equality Officer's finding and
rejects the appeal by the claimants.
The Court so determines.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEE925 DETERMINATION NO. DEP193
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
SECTION 21(1), EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
PARTIES: PRIMARK T/A PENNEYS LIMITED
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Equality Officer's Recommendation
EE8/1992 concerning a claim by 42 female workers that the Company
discriminated against them on the grounds of their sex in terms of
Section 3 of the Employment Equality Act, 1977 and contrary to
sections 2(a) and 2(c) of the Act by paying their male management
staff a bonus in voucher form and the female sales and clerical
staff their bonus in cash form.
BACKGROUND:
2. The background to this case is set out in the Equality
Officer's Recommendation which is Appendix 1 to this
Determination. The Equality Officer in his Recommendation which
was issued on the 27th May, 1992 found that as the dispute relates
to remuneration, the claim is excluded from the provisions of the
1977 Act.
3. The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on
the 7th July, 1992 on the following grounds:
1. The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact by not insisting
that information requested by him from the Company on 31st
October, 1991 be provided by the Company.
2. The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact by accepting
information from the Company on a confidential basis.
3. The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact when he
concluded that the dispute referred to remuneration.
5. The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact when he found
that the claim was not appropriate for consideration under the
Employment Equality Act, 1977.
The Court heard the appeal on the 1st October, 1992. Both parties
expanded orally on their submissions at the hearing.
DETERMINATION:
4. The Court has considered fully the submissions made by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. The Court has also
considered the views expressed by the Equality Officer in his
recommendation.
The Court notes that the claim was referred under the Equality
Act, 1977.
Section 3(1) of the Equality Act, 1977 prohibits employers from
discriminating against an employee in relation to access to
employment, conditions of employment (other than remuneration or
any condition relating to an occupational pension scheme).
Section 1(1) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 defines
remuneration to include any consideration whether in cash or in
kind, which an employee receives, directly or indirectly, in
respect of his employment from his employer.
In the case before the Court the employer provided benefits to
both the managers and the claimants which clearly in the view of
the Court, fall within the definition of remuneration under
Section 1(1) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974.
Accordingly the Court concurs with the findings of the Equality
Officer that since the Equality Act, 1977 excludes remuneration
from the prohibition against discrimination, the claim is not
appropriate for consideration under the 1977 Act.
The Court therefore upholds the Equality Officer's finding and
rejects the appeal by the claimants.
The Court so determines.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
5th February, 1993. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
APPENDICES
1. Equality Officer's Recommendation.
2. Union's Submission.
3. Company's Submission.