Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEE954 Case Number: DEE9510 Section / Act: S21EE Parties: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION - and - MS. URSULA HEALY AND MS. CINDY MANNION;CIVIL AND PUBLIC SERVICE UNION;CPSU |
Appeal by the Union against Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EE6/1995 concerning an allegation that the Department of Education discriminated against Ms. Ursula Healy and Ms. Cindy Mannion contrary to the provisions of Section 2(c) of the 1977 Act in terms of Section 3 of the Act.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the written submissions of the
parties and the verbal points made at the hearing, determines as
follows:-
1. On the first ground of appeal the Court is satisfied that the
Equality Officer correctly applied Section 2(c) of the
Employment Equality Act, 1977 and can find no error of
interpretation in the Recommendation under appeal.
2. On the second ground of appeal the Court gave consideration
to the arguments of both parties and to the Recommendation of
the Equality Officer. The Union had claimed that the pool
for comparison purposes should be the total clerical officer
grade in the Civil Service, whereas the Department supported
the contention of the Equality Officer that the correct pool
was all of the clerical officers employed at the time in the
Examinations Branch.
The Court is satisfied that as the transfers complained of
only affected the Examinations Branch, the Equality Officer
was correct in the pool selected by her.
The Union went on to argue that even if the Court decided
that the pool was correct, it would contend that the number
of females affected as against males did constitute a
substantially higher proportion of females.
In its argument on this point, the Union alleged that the
total number of workers job-sharing in the Civil Service is
1,907, of which 1,859 are women. This means that 87% of the
job-sharers are women.
In the clerical grades, there are 570 women job-sharers, and
only 10 men. The women job-sharers therefore represent 14%
of the total clerical grade workforce, while the men
represent only 0.3%.
The Union sought to argue that the 14% of the job-sharing
workforce who are women constitutes a substantial proportion.
It contended that if the proposition is accepted, then, by
analogy, the 14% approximate difference in the number of
males able to comply with the requirement to be working
full-time as against females must also be substantial.
The Court does not accept either the analogy or the argument.
It is satisfied that the Equality Officer chose the correct
pool, and was reasonable in concluding that there was not
such a difference between the proportion of men and the
proportion of women who could comply with a requirement to
work full-time as could amount to a purported discrimination
in the present case.
Accordingly, the Court rejects the appeal and determines that
the Equality Officer was correct in finding that the
Department of Education did not discriminate against the
claimants contrary to Section 2(c) of the Employment Equality
Act, 1977.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEE954 DETERMINATION NO. DEE1095
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1977
PARTIES:
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
AND
MS. URSULA HEALY AND MS. CINDY MANNION
(REPRESENTED BY CIVIL AND PUBLIC SERVICE UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Equality Officer's Recommendation
No. EE6/1995 concerning an allegation that the Department of
Education discriminated against Ms. Ursula Healy and Ms.
Cindy Mannion contrary to the provisions of Section 2(c) of
the 1977 Act in terms of Section 3 of the Act.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In 1977 the Department's Examinations Branch transferred
from Dublin to new custom-built premises in Athlone.
About 100 staff were involved. In September, 1991
further sections of the Department transferred to
Athlone under the decentralisation programme. About 180
staff were involved. The new building is on the same
site as the Exams Branch Building.
2. Ms. Ursula Healy and Ms. Cindy Mannion are clerical
officers in the Department of Education, Athlone. Both
are job sharing. They were transferred from their
parent Dublin based Departments to the Department of
Education Examinations Branch in Athlone in 1977. They
were clerical assistants at the time. Both were
promoted to clerical officer in 1989. Ms. Ursula Healy
commenced job sharing on 8th September, 1991 and Ms.
Cindy Mannion on 29th January, 1990.
3. A vacancy existed in the Special Education Section, one
of the sections decentralised in September, 1991. The
Department of Education decided to fill the post by
redeployment of a clerical officer post from
Examinations Branch to the post in Special Education
Section in October, 1991. The claimants were moved to
fill that post.
4. Both claimants, when notified of their respective moves,
objected strongly and made representations both
personally and through the CPSU not to be moved. These
were unsuccessful. The CPSU alleged that both claimants
were transferred by the Department of Education in
October, 1991 from the Examinations Branch to the newly
decentralised Special Education Branch because they were
job sharers. The CPSU alleged that the transfers
constituted indirect discrimination in terms of Section
2(c) of the 1977 Act and contrary to Section 3(1) of the
Act.
5. The Equality Officer investigated the dispute at
hearings held in August, 1994 and May, 1995. The
Equality Officer's Recommendation which was issued on
the 8th June, 1995 found that the Department of
Education did not discriminate against the claimants
contrary to Section 2(c) of the Employment Equality Act,
1977.
6. On the 18th July, 1995 the CPSU appealed the Equality
Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court on the
following grounds:-
(a) That the Equality Officer erred in law and in fact
in her interpretation of Section 2(c) of the
Employment Equality Act, 1977.
(b) That the Equality Officer erred in law and in fact
in holding that the relevant pool for comparison
purposes was clerical officers employed at the time
in the Examinations Branch, Athlone.
7. The Court investigated the dispute on the 14th November,
1995. Both parties made written submissions (details
supplied to the Court).
DETERMINATION:
The Court, having considered the written submissions of the
parties and the verbal points made at the hearing, determines as
follows:-
1. On the first ground of appeal the Court is satisfied that the
Equality Officer correctly applied Section 2(c) of the
Employment Equality Act, 1977 and can find no error of
interpretation in the Recommendation under appeal.
2. On the second ground of appeal the Court gave consideration
to the arguments of both parties and to the Recommendation of
the Equality Officer. The Union had claimed that the pool
for comparison purposes should be the total clerical officer
grade in the Civil Service, whereas the Department supported
the contention of the Equality Officer that the correct pool
was all of the clerical officers employed at the time in the
Examinations Branch.
The Court is satisfied that as the transfers complained of
only affected the Examinations Branch, the Equality Officer
was correct in the pool selected by her.
The Union went on to argue that even if the Court decided
that the pool was correct, it would contend that the number
of females affected as against males did constitute a
substantially higher proportion of females.
In its argument on this point, the Union alleged that the
total number of workers job-sharing in the Civil Service is
1,907, of which 1,859 are women. This means that 87% of the
job-sharers are women.
In the clerical grades, there are 570 women job-sharers, and
only 10 men. The women job-sharers therefore represent 14%
of the total clerical grade workforce, while the men
represent only 0.3%.
The Union sought to argue that the 14% of the job-sharing
workforce who are women constitutes a substantial proportion.
It contended that if the proposition is accepted, then, by
analogy, the 14% approximate difference in the number of
males able to comply with the requirement to be working
full-time as against females must also be substantial.
The Court does not accept either the analogy or the argument.
It is satisfied that the Equality Officer chose the correct
pool, and was reasonable in concluding that there was not
such a difference between the proportion of men and the
proportion of women who could comply with a requirement to
work full-time as could amount to a purported discrimination
in the present case.
Accordingly, the Court rejects the appeal and determines that
the Equality Officer was correct in finding that the
Department of Education did not discriminate against the
claimants contrary to Section 2(c) of the Employment Equality
Act, 1977.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st December, 1995 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D./D.T. ---------------
Chairman