Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEP934 Case Number: DEP953 Section / Act: S8(1)AD Parties: C & D PETFOODS LIMITED - and - 31 FEMALE EMPLOYEES;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EP14/1992, in respect of those parts which found that certain specific Grade B work of the claimants - quality control duties (cannery and softcan), labelling machine (cannery), labelling machine (softcan), lidding machine (softcan), and filling machine (softcan) is equal in value to that performed by the comparators in shrinkwrapper/palletiser duties and cereal line duties. and Appeal by the Union for the implementation of Equa
Recommendation:
The issues of this appeal are as follows:-
(a) the Company has appealed against those parts of the
Recommendation of the Equality Officer which found that
certain specific Grade B work of the claimants, namely
Quality Control duties (cannery and softcan), Labelling
machine (cannery), Labelling machine (softcan), Lidding
machine (softcan) and the Filling machine (softcan) is equal
in value to that performed by the comparators on
shrinkwrapper/palletiser duties and cereal line duties.
(b) the Union has appealed against the Recommendation of the
Equality Officer in respect of those claimants who were not
successful, and
(c) the Union appealed for implementation of the Recommendation.
1. In relation to (a), the Court itself inspected the work in
dispute on 13th December, 1993 and found as follows:-
(i) The Company had argued that the work of the Cereal
Batcher had been undervalued by the Equality Officer.
Having examined the work, the Court finds that the
Equality Officer took into account the full range of
work of the cereal batcher in arriving at an
evaluation of the job in terms of responsibility and
knowledge required. The Court considered the
physical element of the work, and the contention that
this was greater at the time the rate was struck.
However, the Court has concluded from the information
ascertained that the difference in terms of physical
effort which might have existed at the time the rate
was struck was not of such magnitude as would
invalidate the findings of the Equality Officer.
(ii) The Company had argued that the Equality Officer did
not take the full range of skills and knowledge of
the Shrinkwrapper/Palletiser Operator into account.
Having examined the work, the Court finds the
responsibility, skill and mental effort required to
carry out the work was fairly reflected in the
assessment made by the Equality Officer.
(iii) The Company had contended that the Equality Officer
erred in his assessment of the value of the work of
the Quality Control Operators and argued that the
work of such operators in either the cannery or the
softcan area was not equal in value to the work of
the cereal batcher or the shrinkwrapper/palletiser.
Having examined the work, the Court finds that the
conclusions reached by the Equality Officer
reasonably reflected the demand of the work when
considered in terms of Section 3(c) of the Act.
(iv) The Company had argued that the skills of the Filler
- Softcan plastic were incorrectly assessed by the
Equality Officer, and incorrectly equated with the
work of the shrinkwrapper/palletiser. Having
examined the work, the Court finds that the
conclusions of the Equality Officer fairly reflect
the demands of the work in terms of skill,
responsibility, mental and physical effort and
conditions.
(v) The Company had argued that the Equality Officer
erred in his comparison of the work of the Labelling
Machine Operators - Cannery and Softcan to that of
the shrinkwrapper/palletiser and the cereal batcher.
Having examined the work, the Court finds that the
conclusions of the Equality Officer reasonably
reflect the demands of the work when considered under
the provisions of Section 3(c) of the Act. In
relation to physical effort, the Court concurs with
the findings of the Equality Officer and concludes
from its own inspection that the differences in the
physical demands made on the claimants and the
physical effort of each of the comparators are not of
such importance that if the sex of the worker were
not a factor would justify a different grade and rate
of pay.
(vi) The Company had argued that the equality Officer
incorrectly assessed the work of the Lidding Machine
Operator - softcan, and was wrong in assessing that
work as equal to the work of the cereal batcher and
the shrinkwrapper/palletiser operator. Having
examined the work, the Court concurs with the
findings of the Equality Officer and is satisfied
that they reasonably reflected the demands of the the
work when considered in terms of the provisions of
Section 3(c) of the Act.
2. In relation to (b) above, the Union had appealed on behalf of
the unsuccessful claimants, namely the Grade B Operatives in
the Hi-Cone area (those loading/unloading baskets and filling
boxes - softcan canteen assistants). The Court examined the
work in the course of its work inspection and concurs with
the findings of the Equality Officer. The Court agrees that
the claimants in these jobs are not performing like work with
the comparators within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the
Act.
The Union had argued that the Equality Officer should have
widened his comparison to other workers apart from the two
comparator positions he chose. On this point the Court
concurs with the views expressed by the Equality Officer when
he states
"I do not consider that the Act requires that it is
necessary, where all the comparators are paid the same
rate of remuneration, to compare the work of every
claimant with that of every comparator."
The Court did in any event consider the views expressed by
the Union in regard to the fork-lift drivers, but found on
examination that the work of the cereal batcher and of the
shrinkwrapper/palletiser were not higher in value than the
work of the fork-lift drivers.
3. Having agreed with the conclusions of the Equality Officer on
the question of "like work", the Court considered the defence
of the Company that the different rates of remuneration were
based on grounds other than sex. The Court took into
consideration the submissions made by both sides and in
particular had regard to the origins of the grading system in
the Company.
The Court is satisfied that the pay rates between grades were
historically struck according to the sex of the worker.
Accordingly the fact that both sexes are now included in the
grade, or the fact that a male was appointed to a Grade B
position does not avoid the discrimination inherent in the
difference in rates between the grades. The Court does not
accept therefore that the reasons put forward by the Company
constitute valid reasons in terms of Section 2(3) of the Act
for the failure to pay the claimants the same rate of
remuneration as that paid to the comparators.
4. In relation to (c) above, namely the Union's appeal for
implementation of the Equality Officer's Recommendation, the
Union has argued that the workers, part of whose work has
been found to be equal in value to that of the comparators,
should receive equal pay with the comparators on a full-time
basis.
The Court does not accept this proposition. It is only when
the claimants do the work which the Court has found to be
'like work' that they are entitled to equal pay with the
comparators. The balance of their duties are not equal to
those of the comparators and should not attract equal
payment.
5. The Court dismisses the appeal by the Company and determines
that the claimants employed on certain Grade B duties (i.e.
Quality Control duties (cannery and softcan), Labelling
Machine (softcan), Lidding Machine (Softcan) and filling
Machine (softcan) are entitled to the same rate of
remuneration as the comparators for any periods of time which
they spend on those duties.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEP934 DETERMINATION NO. DEP395
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT, 1974
SECTION 8(1)
PARTIES:
C & D PETFOODS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
31 FEMALE EMPLOYEES
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Equality Officer's
Recommendation No. EP14/1992, in respect of those parts which
found that certain specific Grade B work of the claimants -
quality control duties (cannery and softcan), labelling
machine (cannery), labelling machine (softcan), lidding
machine (softcan), and filling machine (softcan) is equal in
value to that performed by the comparators in
shrinkwrapper/palletiser duties and cereal line duties.
and
Appeal by the Union for the implementation of Equality
Officer's Recommendation No EP14/1992 and appeal against the
recommendation in respect of those claimants who were not
successful.
BACKGROUND:
2. The background to this case is outlined in the Equality
Officer's Recommendation No. EP14/1992, which is attached at
Appendix 1.
On 29th January, 1993 the Company appealed against the above
recommendation to the Labour Court on the following grounds:
(1) That the Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in
finding that the work performed by the claimants
employed in
(a) quality control
(b) on the labelling machine (cannery)
(c) the labelling machine (softcan)
(d) the lidding machine (softcan) and
(e) the filling machine (softcan)
is equal in value with that performed by the comparators
on shrinkwrapper/palletiser duties and cereal line
duties under Section 3(c) of the Anti-Discrimination
(Pay) Act, (1974);
(2) that the Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in
finding that there were no grounds other than sex for
the differences in rates of pay between these
claimants for whom he found an entitlement to equal pay
to exist and the comparators named in 1 above;
(3) that the said claimants who were successful are not
entitled to the same rate of remuneration;
(4) such other grounds as may arise during the course of the
appeal and hearing.
On 2nd February, 1993 the Union appealed to the Labour Court
for the implementation of the above recommendation. On 4th
February, 1993 the Union further appealed the recommendation
on behalf of the workers (already named in original claim)
who were not successful under the Equality Officer's
Recommendation.
The Labour Court heard the appeal in Longford on 9th June,
1993. As part of its investigation into the dispute the
Court carried out a work inspection at the Company's
premises in Edgeworthstown, County Longford on 13th December,
1993.
The Company's submission is attached at Appendix 2. The
Union's submission is attached at Appendix 3.
DETERMINATION:
The issues of this appeal are as follows:-
(a) the Company has appealed against those parts of the
Recommendation of the Equality Officer which found that
certain specific Grade B work of the claimants, namely
Quality Control duties (cannery and softcan), Labelling
machine (cannery), Labelling machine (softcan), Lidding
machine (softcan) and the Filling machine (softcan) is equal
in value to that performed by the comparators on
shrinkwrapper/palletiser duties and cereal line duties.
(b) the Union has appealed against the Recommendation of the
Equality Officer in respect of those claimants who were not
successful, and
(c) the Union appealed for implementation of the Recommendation.
1. In relation to (a), the Court itself inspected the work in
dispute on 13th December, 1993 and found as follows:-
(i) The Company had argued that the work of the Cereal
Batcher had been undervalued by the Equality Officer.
Having examined the work, the Court finds that the
Equality Officer took into account the full range of
work of the cereal batcher in arriving at an
evaluation of the job in terms of responsibility and
knowledge required. The Court considered the
physical element of the work, and the contention that
this was greater at the time the rate was struck.
However, the Court has concluded from the information
ascertained that the difference in terms of physical
effort which might have existed at the time the rate
was struck was not of such magnitude as would
invalidate the findings of the Equality Officer.
(ii) The Company had argued that the Equality Officer did
not take the full range of skills and knowledge of
the Shrinkwrapper/Palletiser Operator into account.
Having examined the work, the Court finds the
responsibility, skill and mental effort required to
carry out the work was fairly reflected in the
assessment made by the Equality Officer.
(iii) The Company had contended that the Equality Officer
erred in his assessment of the value of the work of
the Quality Control Operators and argued that the
work of such operators in either the cannery or the
softcan area was not equal in value to the work of
the cereal batcher or the shrinkwrapper/palletiser.
Having examined the work, the Court finds that the
conclusions reached by the Equality Officer
reasonably reflected the demand of the work when
considered in terms of Section 3(c) of the Act.
(iv) The Company had argued that the skills of the Filler
- Softcan plastic were incorrectly assessed by the
Equality Officer, and incorrectly equated with the
work of the shrinkwrapper/palletiser. Having
examined the work, the Court finds that the
conclusions of the Equality Officer fairly reflect
the demands of the work in terms of skill,
responsibility, mental and physical effort and
conditions.
(v) The Company had argued that the Equality Officer
erred in his comparison of the work of the Labelling
Machine Operators - Cannery and Softcan to that of
the shrinkwrapper/palletiser and the cereal batcher.
Having examined the work, the Court finds that the
conclusions of the Equality Officer reasonably
reflect the demands of the work when considered under
the provisions of Section 3(c) of the Act. In
relation to physical effort, the Court concurs with
the findings of the Equality Officer and concludes
from its own inspection that the differences in the
physical demands made on the claimants and the
physical effort of each of the comparators are not of
such importance that if the sex of the worker were
not a factor would justify a different grade and rate
of pay.
(vi) The Company had argued that the equality Officer
incorrectly assessed the work of the Lidding Machine
Operator - softcan, and was wrong in assessing that
work as equal to the work of the cereal batcher and
the shrinkwrapper/palletiser operator. Having
examined the work, the Court concurs with the
findings of the Equality Officer and is satisfied
that they reasonably reflected the demands of the the
work when considered in terms of the provisions of
Section 3(c) of the Act.
2. In relation to (b) above, the Union had appealed on behalf of
the unsuccessful claimants, namely the Grade B Operatives in
the Hi-Cone area (those loading/unloading baskets and filling
boxes - softcan canteen assistants). The Court examined the
work in the course of its work inspection and concurs with
the findings of the Equality Officer. The Court agrees that
the claimants in these jobs are not performing like work with
the comparators within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the
Act.
The Union had argued that the Equality Officer should have
widened his comparison to other workers apart from the two
comparator positions he chose. On this point the Court
concurs with the views expressed by the Equality Officer when
he states
"I do not consider that the Act requires that it is
necessary, where all the comparators are paid the same
rate of remuneration, to compare the work of every
claimant with that of every comparator."
The Court did in any event consider the views expressed by
the Union in regard to the fork-lift drivers, but found on
examination that the work of the cereal batcher and of the
shrinkwrapper/palletiser were not higher in value than the
work of the fork-lift drivers.
3. Having agreed with the conclusions of the Equality Officer on
the question of "like work", the Court considered the defence
of the Company that the different rates of remuneration were
based on grounds other than sex. The Court took into
consideration the submissions made by both sides and in
particular had regard to the origins of the grading system in
the Company.
The Court is satisfied that the pay rates between grades were
historically struck according to the sex of the worker.
Accordingly the fact that both sexes are now included in the
grade, or the fact that a male was appointed to a Grade B
position does not avoid the discrimination inherent in the
difference in rates between the grades. The Court does not
accept therefore that the reasons put forward by the Company
constitute valid reasons in terms of Section 2(3) of the Act
for the failure to pay the claimants the same rate of
remuneration as that paid to the comparators.
4. In relation to (c) above, namely the Union's appeal for
implementation of the Equality Officer's Recommendation, the
Union has argued that the workers, part of whose work has
been found to be equal in value to that of the comparators,
should receive equal pay with the comparators on a full-time
basis.
The Court does not accept this proposition. It is only when
the claimants do the work which the Court has found to be
'like work' that they are entitled to equal pay with the
comparators. The balance of their duties are not equal to
those of the comparators and should not attract equal
payment.
5. The Court dismisses the appeal by the Company and determines
that the claimants employed on certain Grade B duties (i.e.
Quality Control duties (cannery and softcan), Labelling
Machine (softcan), Lidding Machine (Softcan) and filling
Machine (softcan) are entitled to the same rate of
remuneration as the comparators for any periods of time which
they spend on those duties.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th February, 1995 Tom McGrath
F.B./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.