FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 8(1)(A), ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT, 1974 PARTIES : OFFRAY RIBBON LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE) DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal against Equality Officers Recommendation EP8/1995.
BACKGROUND:
2. The background to this case is outlined in the Equality Officer's Recommendation (details supplied to the Court).
The dispute concerns a claim that a worker is entitled to the same rate of remuneration as paid to two comparators on the grounds that they perform like work in terms of Section 3 of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974.
The Equality Officer recommended that the claimant be paid the same rate of remuneration as comparator Mr. Beattie with effect from 20th February, 1992.
The Company appealed against the above recommendation on 24th November, 1995 on the following grounds:-
- "1. The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in concluding that legitimate grounds other than sex do not exist to justify the higher rate of remuneration of the named comparators.
2. The Equality Officer was incorrect in her conclusions when stating that the Company argument in relation to Mr. Quain consisted of higher qualifications only.
3. The fact that the claimant is the lowest paid of five supervisors, four of which are male, and all of whom are on a different salary, is not indicative of discrimination on grounds of sex as was implied by the Equality Officer in her recommendation.
4. The Equality Officer's Recommendation is discriminatory as it recommends that a female be paid more than males performing like work where the female has less experience and/or lower qualification.
5. Any other grounds of appeal which arise during the course of the investigation".
DETERMINATION:
In its consideration of this appeal, the Court had regard to the Equality Officer's conclusions and Recommendation E.P.8/95 in relation to the original claim, and to the submissions made by the parties to the appeal.
The Court noted that the issue of ‘like work’ as defined under the Act was not in dispute. The Court therefore confined its consideration of the case to the issue of whether or not there were grounds other than sex for the difference in the rates of remuneration between the claimant and the comparators so as to deny the claimant an entitlement to equal pay with the comparators.
The Court notes that the salaries of each of the five supervisors employed by the appellant company were determined and agreed on an individual basis with each person, and is satisfied that the amounts paid to each of the comparators depended in the first instance on the persons level of experience and qualifications. The Court is also satisfied that in one instance, there was an element of enticement in the salary agreed, which was designed to persuade the person to accept the position on offer.
It was submitted by the appellant company that when the claimant applied for the position of supervisor, there were several factors which influenced the determination of the salary which she was offered, and which resulted in her earning a lesser amount than that paid to the comparators.
The Court would accept that the appellant company may have had justifiable reasons for giving the claimant a lesser salary at the outset than her comparators. However, it does not accept that this lesser salary was justifiably continued into the future, in this particular case. Once the claimant had satisfied the company that she was capable of doing the job for which she was employed, and that she had matched, by her experience, the higher qualifications or more lengthy experience of the comparators, she should have been remunerated at the same level for doing work of equal value to theirs. In other words, while there may have been grounds other than sex to justify a period of lesser payment during the early part of the claimants employment as a supervisor, those grounds ceased to exist after she had been in the job for a period of time and had proved capable of it. The factors which influenced the determination of the salary which she was initially offered did not justify continuing to pay a lesser salary to the claimant.
It is accepted in this case that the claimant is doing ‘like work’ with the comparators. Furthermore, there has been no suggestion that the previous experience or the superior qualifications of the comparators in any way influence their responsibilities or duties in their positions as supervisors. Yet the claimant, who is the only female supervisor within the company, is paid a salary which is less than that of any of the male supervisors.
The Court concurs with the Union's argument that even if there had been some justification for the payment of a differential at the time of the appointment of the comparators, this should have eroded with time. The fact that the differential did not erode, given the circumstances of the case, leaves the Court with the inevitable conclusion that, despite the Company's arguments to the contrary, the grounds for the difference were in fact inherently based on the sex of the claimant.
The Court estimates that the claimant's salary should have reached that of the comparator at least by July of 1994.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Equality Officer's Recommendation in its conclusions and rejects the appeal. The Court, however, amends the Recommendation to the extent that it determines that the claimant is entitled to equal pay with the comparator, Mr. Beattie, with effect from July 1994.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
6th December, 1996______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.