Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEP951 Case Number: DEP956 Section / Act: S8(1)AD Parties: PEAMOUNT HOSPITAL (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;SIPTU |
Appeal by both parties against Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EP7/94 concerning a claim by the Union, on behalf of 25 female staff in the household, canteen, laundry and kitchen areas of Peamount Hospital, that they are entitled to the same rate of remuneration as that paid to four named comparators in that they are employed on like work in terms of Sections 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974.
Recommendation:
The Court in addition to considering the written and oral
submissions of the parties, undertook a work inspection at Peamont
Hospital.
There were 4 areas of work for consideration namely household,
canteen, laundry and kitchen.
"Like work" was not disputed in the household and canteen areas
but the Hospital argued that there were legitimate grounds other
than sex for paying a higher rate of remuneration to the
comparator.
It was argued by the Hospital that the work of the claimants and
of the comparators was not "like work" in the laundry and kitchen
areas.
The question of the date on which the case had been referred to an
Equality Officer was also in dispute.
DECISION
(a) In respect of the household area of work, the Court is
satisfied that certain extra duties were performed solely by
the comparator and that these duties were of enough
significance to justify the payment of a higher rate of
remuneration to the comparator.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Equality Officer's
Recommendation and rejects the Union appeal.
(b) In respect of the canteen area of work, the Hospital had
contended that there were legitimate grounds for paying a
higher remuneration to the comparator.
Having considered the arguments, and examined the work, the
Court is not satisfied that there are any such grounds.
The Court accordingly upholds the Equality Officers
Recommendation and rejects the appeal of the Hospital.
(c) In respect of the laundry area of work, the key issue is the
fact that the comparator is required to drive the laundry van
in addition to his normal duties. The Equality Officer had
found that the work of the claimants was of equal value to
that of the comparator within the meaning of Section 3(c) of
the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974.
The Court does not agree with this view, and finds that the
additional work required of and performed by the comparator is
significantly more demanding in terms of skill and
responsibility than that performed by the claimants.
The Court accordingly rejects the Equality Officer's
Recommendation and upholds the Hospital's appeal.
(d) In respect of the kitchen area of work, the hospital had
argued that the jobs of the claimants and that of the
comparator are not "like work" within the meaning of Section
3(c) of the Act because there were additional duties attached
to the comparator's job including relief driving and some
physical jobs.
Having considered the arguments and examined the work, the
Court finds that the work performed by the comparator is
significantly more responsible and skilful that that
performed by the claimants given the requirement for driving,
albeit on a relief basis. The Court is satisfied that the
work of the claimants is not "like work" within the meaning
of Section 3(c).
The Court accordingly rejects the Equality Officer's
Recommendation and upholds the Hospital's appeal.
(e) On the issue raised by the Hospital in relation to the date
of referral for the purposes of retrospection of pay, the
Court agrees with the Equality Officer's Recommendation that
12th February, 1993 is the date of referral.
In summary, the Court determines that there are grounds other than
sex for the payment of a higher rate of remuneration to the named
comparator in the household area. The Court further determines
that the work of the claimants and of the relevant comparators is
not "like work" in the laundry area and the kitchen area. The
Court further determines that in the canteen area, the claimants
are entitled to the same rate of remuneration as that paid to the
relevant comparator.
The appropriate date for payment of arrears of wages to the
claimants in the canteen area is 12th February, 1993.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEP951 DETERMINATION NO. DEP695
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT, 1974
SECTION 8(1)
PARTIES:
PEAMOUNT HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by both parties against Equality Officer's
Recommendation No. EP7/94 concerning a claim by the Union, on
behalf of 25 female staff in the household, canteen, laundry
and kitchen areas of Peamount Hospital, that they are
entitled to the same rate of remuneration as that paid to
four named comparators in that they are employed on like work
in terms of Sections 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) of the
Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Peamount Hospital is a voluntary hospital employing
approximately 280 people. It was originally founded in
1913 as a TB hospital and is now a chest and mental
handicap hospital.
Prior to 1983 there were seven wards for in-patients in
the chest hospital with an average occupancy at any one
time in excess of 200 patients. In addition to this,
there were also 222 adult mentally handicapped residents
living on the premises. Since 1983, however, there has
been a gradual reduction in the number of chest
in-patients so that now the hospital has only 3 chest
wards with an average occupancy in 1993 of 65 patients.
The mentally handicapped number have remained reasonably
static and there are now 191 adult mentally handicapped
people living on the premises.
There are four separate areas of employment in respect
of which claims for equal pay are being made; i.e. the
household staff, canteen staff, laundry staff and
kitchen staff are claiming equal pay with a named
comparator in each of these areas.
The claimants allege that they are being discriminated
against in relation to pay on the grounds of their sex
contrary to the provisions of the 1974 Act as they
contend that they are doing "like work" as defined by
the Act with that performed by the named comparator in
their area.
2. The Equality Officer's Recommendation which was issued
on the 2nd December, 1994 found that each of the
claimants in the kitchen, laundry and canteen are
entitled to the same rate of remuneration as that paid
to their appropriate named comparator.
As there are legitimate "grounds other than sex" for the
payment of higher rate of remuneration to the named
comparator in the household area, the Equality Officer
found that each of the claimants in the area has no
entitlement to the same rate of remuneration as that
paid to the named comparator.
3. The Equality Officer also recommended that the
appropriate arrears (up to maximum of three years
retrospection from 12th February, 1993 - the referral
date of the claims) be paid to each of the successful
claimants.
4. On the 3rd January, 1995 the employer appealed the
Equality Officer's recommendation to the Labour Court on
the following grounds:-
1. The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in
concluding that "like work" exists between the jobs
of the claimants and the named comparator in the
laundry.
2. The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in
concluding that "like work" exists between the jobs
of the claimants and the named comparator in the
kitchen.
3. The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in
concluding that there were "no legitimate grounds
other than sex" to justify the higher remuneration
level of the named comparator employed in the
canteen.
4. Any other grounds of appeal which might arise
during the course of the investigation.
On the 12th January, 1995 the Union appealed the
Equality Officer's recommendation on the following
grounds:-
1. The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in
concluding that there were grounds other than sex
for the payment of a higher rate to the named
comparator in the household area.
2. Any other grounds which may arise during the course
of the hearing.
3. The Union sought implementation of the
recommendations of the Equality Officer.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 14th June,
1995. On the 29th August, 1995 the Court visited the
Hospital and inspected the work of the claimants. Both
parties made written submissions (details supplied) to
the Court.
DETERMINATION:
The Court in addition to considering the written and oral
submissions of the parties, undertook a work inspection at Peamont
Hospital.
There were 4 areas of work for consideration namely household,
canteen, laundry and kitchen.
"Like work" was not disputed in the household and canteen areas
but the Hospital argued that there were legitimate grounds other
than sex for paying a higher rate of remuneration to the
comparator.
It was argued by the Hospital that the work of the claimants and
of the comparators was not "like work" in the laundry and kitchen
areas.
The question of the date on which the case had been referred to an
Equality Officer was also in dispute.
DECISION
(a) In respect of the household area of work, the Court is
satisfied that certain extra duties were performed solely by
the comparator and that these duties were of enough
significance to justify the payment of a higher rate of
remuneration to the comparator.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Equality Officer's
Recommendation and rejects the Union appeal.
(b) In respect of the canteen area of work, the Hospital had
contended that there were legitimate grounds for paying a
higher remuneration to the comparator.
Having considered the arguments, and examined the work, the
Court is not satisfied that there are any such grounds.
The Court accordingly upholds the Equality Officers
Recommendation and rejects the appeal of the Hospital.
(c) In respect of the laundry area of work, the key issue is the
fact that the comparator is required to drive the laundry van
in addition to his normal duties. The Equality Officer had
found that the work of the claimants was of equal value to
that of the comparator within the meaning of Section 3(c) of
the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974.
The Court does not agree with this view, and finds that the
additional work required of and performed by the comparator is
significantly more demanding in terms of skill and
responsibility than that performed by the claimants.
The Court accordingly rejects the Equality Officer's
Recommendation and upholds the Hospital's appeal.
(d) In respect of the kitchen area of work, the hospital had
argued that the jobs of the claimants and that of the
comparator are not "like work" within the meaning of Section
3(c) of the Act because there were additional duties attached
to the comparator's job including relief driving and some
physical jobs.
Having considered the arguments and examined the work, the
Court finds that the work performed by the comparator is
significantly more responsible and skilful that that
performed by the claimants given the requirement for driving,
albeit on a relief basis. The Court is satisfied that the
work of the claimants is not "like work" within the meaning
of Section 3(c).
The Court accordingly rejects the Equality Officer's
Recommendation and upholds the Hospital's appeal.
(e) On the issue raised by the Hospital in relation to the date
of referral for the purposes of retrospection of pay, the
Court agrees with the Equality Officer's Recommendation that
12th February, 1993 is the date of referral.
In summary, the Court determines that there are grounds other than
sex for the payment of a higher rate of remuneration to the named
comparator in the household area. The Court further determines
that the work of the claimants and of the relevant comparators is
not "like work" in the laundry area and the kitchen area. The
Court further determines that in the canteen area, the claimants
are entitled to the same rate of remuneration as that paid to the
relevant comparator.
The appropriate date for payment of arrears of wages to the
claimants in the canteen area is 12th February, 1993.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th November, 1995 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman