Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEP9310 Case Number: DEP946 Section / Act: S8(1)AD Parties: ST. CANICE'S CREDIT UNION LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;SIPTU |
Appeal by the Union against Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EP8/93 concerning a claim by the Union on behalf of seven female tellers that they are entitled to the same rate of remuneration as that paid to two named comparators in terms of Sections 3(b) and 3(c) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974.
Recommendation:
By letter dated 8/12/93 the Union appealed the Equality Officer's
recommendation No. 08/1993 (copy letter of appeal is attached).
The Court held a hearing on the 26th May, 1994 to hear the
arguments made by the parties in both written and verbal
submissions.
The Equality Officer had examined the claim under both Section
3(b) and 3(c) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act 1974 ("the
Act") and had concluded that the claimants were not performing
"like work" with that performed by the comparator, and
accordingly, were not entitled to the same rate of remuneration.
The Court therefore examined the appeal under both Section 3(b)
and 3(c) of the Act.
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3(b)
The Union on page 6 of their submission set out to identify the
validity of the claim under Section 3(b). In particular it claims
that the Equality Officer in paragraph 6.7 of his recommendation
erred in a fact which led to an erroneous analysis. The Court has
carefully examined all the evidence submitted on this point and
finds none to support the Union's contention. The Equality
Officer had stated that the comparator Mr Connolly performs the
job of teller occasionally, and listed the other functions he
performs. It is not correct to assume that the use of the word
"Teller" in paragraph 6.7 is a job title for Mr Connolly. In the
detailed Job Description contained in Appendix 3 to the Equality
Officer's report Mr Connolly's job title is described as Loans
Officer. Teller duties are listed as No. 9. in a list of 15
duties performed. The Union's interpretation of the Equality
Officer's report on this point is in the Court's view erroneous.
In addition it is clear to the Court, following an examination of
the job descriptions prepared by the Equality Officer and the
further arguments made to the Court, that the duties, other than
counter duties, performed by Mr Connolly are significant and are
such as warrant a different rate of remuneration. The Court would
draw attention to the Equality Officer's method of examination as
set out in Pages 12 and 13 of the report and in particular to the
comments in paragraph 6.3. The Court accordingly finds that the
claimants and comparators are not engaged in like work within the
meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act.
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3(c)
To substantiate its appeal under Section 3(c) of the Act the Union
submitted evidence as to the nature of the claimants' jobs under
three of the factors set out in the section, there being no
dispute in regard to the other two factors. The Court would again
draw attention to the methodology used by the Equality Officer.
The Court has examined the factors on which the Union based its
appeal under Section 3(c) of the Act. Basically, the Union was
querying the accuracy of the Equality Officer's evaluation of the
comparator/claimants under the various factors. The Company for
its part supported the Equality Officer's finding. It must be
noted that at this stage the onus of proof lies with the
appellant.
Whilst accepting that there is a degree of subjectivity in any job
evaluation exercise, the Court is satisfied, having examined the
evidence, that the Equality Officer, who is an independent
experienced evaluator, came to the correct conclusions. Despite
contradictory evidence in certain instances, the errors of fact
pointed out by the Union are of a minor nature, and the evidence
was not sufficient to substantiate a reversal of the overall
findings under Section 3(c) of the Act.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal under Sections 3(b) and
3(c) of the Act and finds that the claimants are not entitled to
equal remuneration with the comparators in accordance with Section
2 of the Act.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEP9310 DETERMINATION NO. DEP694
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT, 1974
SECTION 8(1)
PARTIES:
ST. CANICE'S CREDIT UNION LIMITED
(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. EP8/93 concerning a claim by the Union on behalf of seven
female tellers that they are entitled to the same rate of
remuneration as that paid to two named comparators in terms
of Sections 3(b) and 3(c) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay)
Act, 1974.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The background to this case is set out in the Equality
Officer's Recommendation which is attached as Appendix
1. The Equality Officer in his recommendation issued on
3rd November, 1993 found that;
" the claimants do not perform "like work" with that
performed by either of the named comparators in
terms of Section 3 of the 1974 Act and,
accordingly, I find that they have no entitlement
to the same rate of remuneration as that paid to
the named comparators".
2. The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour
Court on 9th December, 1993 on the following grounds:
1. The Equality Officer erred in fact in finding that
the responsibility of the comparators in approving
loans was greater than that accredited to the
claimants. The Equality Officer erred in fact in
regarding the approval of loans by the claimants as
a perception rather than actual factual occurrence.
2. The Equality Officer erred in fact and in law under
Section 3(b) in stating that the differences in the
jobs of the comparators and claimants occur
frequently and are significant in relation to the
work as a whole. He lists nine additional
functions for one of the comparators, and stated
that he also performs the job of "Teller". Yet, he
fails to mention the additional functions of the
claimants.
3. The Equality Officer erred in fact and in law under
Section 3(c) of the 1974 Act in his assessment of
the skill, mental effort and responsibility of the
jobs of the claimants. Each job of the claimants
can be analysed and assessed with each job of the
comparators and found to fulfil the criteria under
Section 3(c).
3. The Court heard the appeal on the 26th May, 1994. The
written submissions to the Court are attached as
Appendices 2 and 3.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is accepted that different work categories are
performed by the claimants and comparators. However,
the various tasks performed by the claimants and
comparators are similar in nature, and the differences
are of small importance in relation to the work as a
whole. The claimants are engaged in the core work of
the Credit Union, that is, facilitating members' savings
and approving loans. The comparators are also engaged
in these duties albeit for shorter durations of the day,
and apart from them, both categories have peripheral
responsibilities of a similar nature.
2. In paragraph 6.7 of his recommendation the Equality
Officer states that one comparator performs the job of
teller occasionally and then lists what he views as the
additional functions also performed. The Union claim
that this is factually incorrect and leads to a flawed
analysis.
3. The jobs performed by the claimants require at least as
much skill as the jobs performed by the comparators.
4. The Equality Officer erred in stating that one of the
comparator's jobs involves greater skill than that of
the claimants. He based his conclusion on the incorrect
premise that it requires the use of a wider range of
expertise than the job of teller, and is therefore more
complex and involves greater judgement.
5. The mental effort of the claimants would be as great as
that of the comparators on the core savings and loan
duties. The dual pressures of 'time and people' imposed
on the claimants by the open-ended queue is not the same
for the comparators. Concentration on detail must
therefore be sustained over a longer period by the
claimants. The additional duties of the claimants also
require at least the same levels of concentration as the
comparators.
6. There is no indication, from an analysis of available
job information, that the positions held by the
claimants and comparators would be at a different level
of magnitude in terms of overall responsibility and they
must therefore be regarded as equal under this factor.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Equality Officer is correct in concluding that "like
work" as defined by Section 3(b) and (c) of the Anti-
Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, does not exist between
the jobs performed by the claimants and the two
comparators.
2. The jobs are not of a similar nature because differences
occur frequently and are also significant in relation to
the work as a whole.
3. There is significantly greater skill, mental effort and
responsibility involved in the jobs performed by the two
named comparators which justifies their higher salary
levels.
DETERMINATION:
By letter dated 8/12/93 the Union appealed the Equality Officer's
recommendation No. 08/1993 (copy letter of appeal is attached).
The Court held a hearing on the 26th May, 1994 to hear the
arguments made by the parties in both written and verbal
submissions.
The Equality Officer had examined the claim under both Section
3(b) and 3(c) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act 1974 ("the
Act") and had concluded that the claimants were not performing
"like work" with that performed by the comparator, and
accordingly, were not entitled to the same rate of remuneration.
The Court therefore examined the appeal under both Section 3(b)
and 3(c) of the Act.
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3(b)
The Union on page 6 of their submission set out to identify the
validity of the claim under Section 3(b). In particular it claims
that the Equality Officer in paragraph 6.7 of his recommendation
erred in a fact which led to an erroneous analysis. The Court has
carefully examined all the evidence submitted on this point and
finds none to support the Union's contention. The Equality
Officer had stated that the comparator Mr Connolly performs the
job of teller occasionally, and listed the other functions he
performs. It is not correct to assume that the use of the word
"Teller" in paragraph 6.7 is a job title for Mr Connolly. In the
detailed Job Description contained in Appendix 3 to the Equality
Officer's report Mr Connolly's job title is described as Loans
Officer. Teller duties are listed as No. 9. in a list of 15
duties performed. The Union's interpretation of the Equality
Officer's report on this point is in the Court's view erroneous.
In addition it is clear to the Court, following an examination of
the job descriptions prepared by the Equality Officer and the
further arguments made to the Court, that the duties, other than
counter duties, performed by Mr Connolly are significant and are
such as warrant a different rate of remuneration. The Court would
draw attention to the Equality Officer's method of examination as
set out in Pages 12 and 13 of the report and in particular to the
comments in paragraph 6.3. The Court accordingly finds that the
claimants and comparators are not engaged in like work within the
meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act.
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3(c)
To substantiate its appeal under Section 3(c) of the Act the Union
submitted evidence as to the nature of the claimants' jobs under
three of the factors set out in the section, there being no
dispute in regard to the other two factors. The Court would again
draw attention to the methodology used by the Equality Officer.
The Court has examined the factors on which the Union based its
appeal under Section 3(c) of the Act. Basically, the Union was
querying the accuracy of the Equality Officer's evaluation of the
comparator/claimants under the various factors. The Company for
its part supported the Equality Officer's finding. It must be
noted that at this stage the onus of proof lies with the
appellant.
Whilst accepting that there is a degree of subjectivity in any job
evaluation exercise, the Court is satisfied, having examined the
evidence, that the Equality Officer, who is an independent
experienced evaluator, came to the correct conclusions. Despite
contradictory evidence in certain instances, the errors of fact
pointed out by the Union are of a minor nature, and the evidence
was not sufficient to substantiate a reversal of the overall
findings under Section 3(c) of the Act.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal under Sections 3(b) and
3(c) of the Act and finds that the claimants are not entitled to
equal remuneration with the comparators in accordance with Section
2 of the Act.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st September, 1994 Evelyn Owens
P.O.C./M.M. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Mr.
Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.