Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEP941 Case Number: DEP954 Section / Act: S8(1)AD Parties: GUINEY AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - 4 FEMALE EMPLOYEES;MANDATE |
Appeal by the Union against Equality Officer's recommendation No. EP 01/1994.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the submissions made by the parties
and having visited the workplace and inspected the jobs of the
claimants and the comparators, finds:-
(1) that the work being done by the comparators is more demanding
in terms of responsibility than the work performed by the
claimants, and that the differences between the work of the
comparators and the work of the claimants are such that it is
objectively reasonable to pay the comparators a greater
remuneration;
(2) that the question of access to the jobs was not pertinent to
a claim under the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 in that
the issue concerns not the benefit (i.e. pay) itself but
whether there were discriminatory conditions in the access to
the jobs. This issue was therefore covered by the equal
treatment legislation (i.e. Employment Equality Act, 1977).
In the light of the above findings the Court is satisfied that the
conclusions of the Equality Officer were well founded and that his
rejection of the claim for equal remuneration was therefore
justified.
Accordingly the Court upholds the recommendation of the Equality
Officer and rejects the appeal of the Union.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEP941 DETERMINATION NO. DEP495
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT, 1974
SECTION 8(1)
PARTIES:
GUINEY AND COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
4 FEMALE EMPLOYEES
(REPRESENTED BY MANDATE)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Equality Officer's recommendation
No. EP 01/1994.
BACKGROUND:
2. The background to this case is outlined in the Equality
Officer's recommendation No. EP 01/1994, which is attached at
Appendix 1.
On 21st March, 1994 the Union 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 comparators have responsibility for
between three and five staff members;
(2) That the Equality Officer erred in law and in fact by
placing undue emphasis on the alleged greater
contribution of the comparators to Company
profitability. The Equality Officer's also erred in law
and in fact in finding that the level of responsibility
of each of the comparators' jobs is significantly higher
than that of Ms. Basaran with regard to staffing
responsibilities and Company profitability;
(3) That the Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in
finding that, as like work did not exist in respect of
Ms. Basaran, the claims of the other three claimants
should fall;
(4) That the Equality Officer erred in law and in fact when
finding that the question of access to the "buyers" jobs
was not pertinent to the claim under the
Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974.
The Court heard the appeal on 20th September, 1994. As part
of its investigation into the dispute the Court carried out a
work inspection at the Company's premises on 12th December,
1994.
The Company's submission, plus additional information it
supplied to the Court on 25th October, 1994 is attached at
Appendix 2. The Union's submission and its response to the
Company's letters of 25th October, 1994 is attached at
Appendix 3.
DETERMINATION:
The Court, having considered the submissions made by the parties
and having visited the workplace and inspected the jobs of the
claimants and the comparators, finds:-
(1) that the work being done by the comparators is more demanding
in terms of responsibility than the work performed by the
claimants, and that the differences between the work of the
comparators and the work of the claimants are such that it is
objectively reasonable to pay the comparators a greater
remuneration;
(2) that the question of access to the jobs was not pertinent to
a claim under the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 in that
the issue concerns not the benefit (i.e. pay) itself but
whether there were discriminatory conditions in the access to
the jobs. This issue was therefore covered by the equal
treatment legislation (i.e. Employment Equality Act, 1977).
In the light of the above findings the Court is satisfied that the
conclusions of the Equality Officer were well founded and that his
rejection of the claim for equal remuneration was therefore
justified.
Accordingly the Court upholds the recommendation of the Equality
Officer and rejects the appeal of the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th May, 1995 Tom McGrath
F.B./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman