Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEP9312 Case Number: DEP944 Section / Act: S8(1)AD Parties: FUJITSU MICROELECTRONICS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EP 9/1993 concerning a claim by the Union on behalf of Ms. Emer Corrigan, an accounts assistant, that she is entitled under the above Act to the same rate of pay as that paid by the Company to four named comparators employed as general operatives.
Recommendation:
Having considered the oral and written evidence submitted by the
parties, the Court concurs with the findings of the Equality
Officer. Accordingly, the claimant's appeal fails and the
Recommendation of the Equality Officer is confirmed. The Court is
satisfied that the claimant was not employed on like work with
the named comparators within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the
Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act 1974 and is therefore not entitled
to the same rate of remuneration as the said comparators.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEP9312 DETERMINATION NO. DEP494
ANTI DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT, 1974
SECTION 8(1)
PARTIES:
FUJITSU MICROELECTRONICS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Equality Officer's Recommendation
No. EP 9/1993 concerning a claim by the Union on behalf of
Ms. Emer Corrigan, an accounts assistant, that she is
entitled under the above Act to the same rate of pay as that
paid by the Company to four named comparators employed as
general operatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The background to this dispute is set out in the
Equality Officer's Recommendation which is attached as
Appendix 1 to this Determination.
2. The Equality Officer's Recommendation which was issued
on the 18th November, 1993 found that the claimant is
not entitled to the same rate of remuneration in terms
of Section 3(c) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act,
1974, as the named comparators.
3. On the 22nd December, 1993, the Union appealed the
recommendation to the Labour Court on the following
grounds:
(1) The existing pay scales for clerical staff were
never the subject of negotiation and were in
existence before the majority of the staff became
unionised (Paragraph 5.10).
(2) That the Scale A was specifically adjusted in the
'80's to reflect the higher rates after 12 months
service. This was a direct result of the
influence of the male staff in the grade.
(3) That the ratio of male and female staff in Grade A
has altered over the years with a higher proportion
of males in the earlier years.
(4) The structure of the two scales (Grade I and Grade
II) is very similar in that
(a) they are both the bottom grade of the
respective structures;
(b) they are both used for recruits;
(c) they are both of similar duration i.e. 10 and
12 years respectively;
(d) they both provide for annual increments with
the exception of Grade A providing an increase
after 6 months which is not a feature of Grade
I.
(5) That the advantage in Grade A over Grade I is a
direct reflection of the existence of males on that
scale while Grade I is nearly exclusively female.
(6) That the discrimination against the females in
Grade I arises at the end of Year 1 where the males
on Grade A go ahead by approximately #800 which the
females on Grade I only recover after reaching year
II.
(7) That the Equality Officer erred in finding that
there were grounds other than sex for the
difference.
The Court heard the appeal on the 22nd March, 1994.
The written submissions to the Court are attached as
appendices.
DETERMINATION:
Having considered the oral and written evidence submitted by the
parties, the Court concurs with the findings of the Equality
Officer. Accordingly, the claimant's appeal fails and the
Recommendation of the Equality Officer is confirmed. The Court is
satisfied that the claimant was not employed on like work with
the named comparators within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the
Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act 1974 and is therefore not entitled
to the same rate of remuneration as the said comparators.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd August, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Mr.
Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.
Appendix 1. Equality Officer's Recommendation
Appendix 2. Union's Submission
Appendix 3. Company's Submission