Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEP938 Case Number: DEP945 Section / Act: S8(1)AD Parties: IRISH CARTON PRINTERS - and - A WORKER;SIPTU |
Appeal by Irish Carton Printers against Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EP2/1993 concerning the provision of a taxi facility during times when public transport is not available.
Recommendation:
5. This case consists of an appeal by Irish Carton Printers (the
Company) against a Recommendation of an Equality Officer (No.
EP02/1993) that Mr John Field (the claimant) be afforded the
provision of a taxi facility during times when public transport is
not available.
3. DEP594
The claim is brought under the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974
(the Act), the claimant alleging that under Section 2 of the Act
he was entitled to be included in the taxi arrangements which were
made available by the Company to women workers for work attendance
when public transport was not available.
It is agreed by the parties that the claimant is employed on like
work with the women workers with whom he claims an entitlement to
equal pay. He is paid the same rate as the women workers and the
issue in dispute is whether the provision of a taxi for the women
workers constitutes additional 'remuneration', and whether, if it
does, there are grounds other than sex which would entitle the
company to refuse such remuneration to the claimant.
The Court heard the appeal on 9th November, 1993 in accordance
with the provisions of Section 8 of the Act.
The Court is satisfied that the Equality Officer was correct in
finding that the provision of taxis for the women workers is
remuneration, and that the case is properly brought under the 1974
Act. The Court finds as a matter of fact that the taxis were
provided by the Company in return for the women workers agreeing
to work shift hours; there was therefore consideration in respect
of the employment for the arrangement, and that consideration
constitutes remuneration.
The Company argued that it was coerced on economic grounds into
treating the female workers more favourably than its male workers
by reason of the fact that the Irish Women Workers' Union (the
IWWU) insisted on taxis being provided for its members (who were
all female) before it would agree to a necessary change to shift
4. DEP594
working at the factory. The Company stated that the grounds for
the more favourable treatment therefore related to the commercial
requirement for the introduction of shift working rather than to
the sex of the workers.
The Court accepts that the decision to provide taxis was made in
order to gain the agreement of the IWWU to the change in
conditions of employment. However, the Company was already
entitled under the terms of the Registered Employment Agreement
for the Printing Trade (Employment Agreement between the Irish
Printing Federation and the Printing Trades' Group of Unions) then
in force and applying to the parties, to change the workers'
working conditions by giving two weeks notice of such intent. The
fact that the Company chose not to confront the situation by
exercising this right did not provide it with a valid ground other
than sex for treating the women workers differently. The decision
to provide taxis in fact gave the women workers a continuing
benefit which the Company was not obliged to give them. While
these arrangements were made for reasons of security, as demanded
by the IWWU, that concern was directly related to the sex of the
workers, and the Act does not permit the payment of different
rates of remuneration which are based on the sex of the workers.
The Court is therefore satisfied that there were no valid grounds
other than sex which would entitle the Company to provide taxis
for its women workers when public transport was not available
5. DEP594
The Court accordingly rejects the Company's appeal against the
Recommendation of the Equality Officer, and determines that the
claimant be afforded the provision of a taxi facility when public
transport is not available as is provided for the Company's women
workers.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEP938 DETERMINATION NO. DEP594
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT, 1974
SECTION 8(1)
PARTIES: IRISH CARTON PRINTERS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by Irish Carton Printers against Equality Officer's
Recommendation No. EP2/1993 concerning the provision of a taxi
facility during times when public transport is not available.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. 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
No. EP2/1993, which was issued on the 12th July, 1993
recommended:-
"that the claimant be afforded the provision of a taxi
facility, during times when public transport is not
available, as is provided by the Company for the named
comparators".
2. The Company appealed the Recommendation to the Labour
Court on the 29th July, 1993 on the following grounds:-
(1) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in
deciding that the provision of a taxi to certain workers
at certain times was remuneration as defined by the
Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974.
2. DEP594
(2) The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in
deciding that legitimate grounds other than sex did not
exist to justify the provision of a taxi to certain
employees at certain times.
(3) Such other grounds of appeal as may arise during the
course of the hearing of the Company appeal.
3. The Court heard the appeal on the 9th November, 1993.
The parties written submissions to the Court are attached as
Appendices 2 and 3.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The provision of a taxi for the comparators is a
condition of employment, not remuneration.
2. There are legitimate grounds other than sex to justify
the provision of a taxi at certain times to the comparators.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company accept that work of equal value is performed
by the worker and the comparators.
2. The statement that "the taxi service is provided for the
protection of female staff who wish to avail of it" indicates
that the sole grounds for declining the worker's claim is one
of sex.
3. The provision of a taxi is a benefit in kind to the
comparators.
4. The Registered Employment Agreement for the Printing
Industry regulates the notice required when transferring
workers onto shift work. There was no need for the Company to
negotiate a more beneficial agreement for women workers.
DETERMINATION:
5. This case consists of an appeal by Irish Carton Printers (the
Company) against a Recommendation of an Equality Officer (No.
EP02/1993) that Mr John Field (the claimant) be afforded the
provision of a taxi facility during times when public transport is
not available.
3. DEP594
The claim is brought under the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974
(the Act), the claimant alleging that under Section 2 of the Act
he was entitled to be included in the taxi arrangements which were
made available by the Company to women workers for work attendance
when public transport was not available.
It is agreed by the parties that the claimant is employed on like
work with the women workers with whom he claims an entitlement to
equal pay. He is paid the same rate as the women workers and the
issue in dispute is whether the provision of a taxi for the women
workers constitutes additional 'remuneration', and whether, if it
does, there are grounds other than sex which would entitle the
company to refuse such remuneration to the claimant.
The Court heard the appeal on 9th November, 1993 in accordance
with the provisions of Section 8 of the Act.
The Court is satisfied that the Equality Officer was correct in
finding that the provision of taxis for the women workers is
remuneration, and that the case is properly brought under the 1974
Act. The Court finds as a matter of fact that the taxis were
provided by the Company in return for the women workers agreeing
to work shift hours; there was therefore consideration in respect
of the employment for the arrangement, and that consideration
constitutes remuneration.
The Company argued that it was coerced on economic grounds into
treating the female workers more favourably than its male workers
by reason of the fact that the Irish Women Workers' Union (the
IWWU) insisted on taxis being provided for its members (who were
all female) before it would agree to a necessary change to shift
4. DEP594
working at the factory. The Company stated that the grounds for
the more favourable treatment therefore related to the commercial
requirement for the introduction of shift working rather than to
the sex of the workers.
The Court accepts that the decision to provide taxis was made in
order to gain the agreement of the IWWU to the change in
conditions of employment. However, the Company was already
entitled under the terms of the Registered Employment Agreement
for the Printing Trade (Employment Agreement between the Irish
Printing Federation and the Printing Trades' Group of Unions) then
in force and applying to the parties, to change the workers'
working conditions by giving two weeks notice of such intent. The
fact that the Company chose not to confront the situation by
exercising this right did not provide it with a valid ground other
than sex for treating the women workers differently. The decision
to provide taxis in fact gave the women workers a continuing
benefit which the Company was not obliged to give them. While
these arrangements were made for reasons of security, as demanded
by the IWWU, that concern was directly related to the sex of the
workers, and the Act does not permit the payment of different
rates of remuneration which are based on the sex of the workers.
The Court is therefore satisfied that there were no valid grounds
other than sex which would entitle the Company to provide taxis
for its women workers when public transport was not available
5. DEP594
The Court accordingly rejects the Company's appeal against the
Recommendation of the Equality Officer, and determines that the
claimant be afforded the provision of a taxi facility when public
transport is not available as is provided for the Company's women
workers.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
26th August, 1994 _______________
P O'C/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.