Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEP944 Case Number: DEP961 Section / Act: S8(1)AD Parties: PENNEYS LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - MANDATE |
Appeal by the Union against Equality Officer's recommendation No.EP 6/1994.
Recommendation:
This is a very complex case involving large numbers of claimants
and large numbers of comparators.
The Equality Officer has analysed the work involved and must be
commended for her detailed conclusions. The Court sees no reason
to differ with her conclusions on the question of 'like work'.
She was satisfied that the work carried out by the claimants in
the Sales Staff in Mary Street, the Sales Staff in the other
Stores and the Clerical Staff in all Stores was overall equal in
value to that of the relevant comparators. The Court endorses
these conclusions.
The Company raised by way of defence the claim that the difference
in the rates between the claimants and the comparators arose from
grounds other than sex. The Court finds this defence proved. The
claimants' rates of pay are all unisex rates; the previous
male/female rates were equalised through the Registered Employment
Agreement for the Drapery Trade. The comparators' rates were
negotiated within the industry and were increased as a result of
Company/Union productivity agreements. The claimants and the
comparators rates of pay have been achieved by different
industrial routes, and are in fact both unisex rates, even if one
group is predominantly female and the other predominantly male.
The Court finds that the difference between the rates is not
related to the sex of workers. The Court rejects the appeal, and
upholds the conclusions of the Equality Officer that the claimants
are not entitled to the same rate of remuneration as that of the
comparators.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEP944 DETERMINATION NO. DEP196
SECTION 8(1)(A), ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT, 1974
PARTIES:
PENNEYS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
MANDATE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Equality Officer's recommendation
No.EP 6/1994.
BACKGROUND:
2. The background of this case is outlined in the Equality
Officer's recommendation.
On 17th November, 1994 the Union appealed against the above
recommendation on the following grounds:-
Paragraph 5.34 of EP 6/1994
We submit that the Equality Officer erred in law and in
fact in paragraph 5.34.
We further submit that the Equality Officer erred in law
and in fact in finding that:
in the company each of the three grades,
storeperson, clerical and sales are almost
exclusively male or female. However, this does not
establish in itself that the wage rates are
discriminatory (page 66).
We further submit that the Equality Officer erred in law
and in fact in finding that:
The rates for the claimants were equalised upwards
from separate male and female rates to the male
rate in the 1970's and are now unisex rates and
apply whether or not the sales assistants or
clerical staff are male or female (page 66).
We further submit that the Equality Officer erred in law
and in fact in finding that:
I do not consider that it would be reasonable to
accept that the claimants rates of pay were related
to their sex, as they are now receiving what was
originally the male rate of pay (page 66).
We further submit that the Equality Officer erred in law
and in fact in finding that:
The comparators pay scale derived from a separate
set of negotiations in the past than those of the
claimants and that these negotiations did not
relate to the sex of the workers concerned (page
66).
Paragraph 5.35 of EP 6/1994
We submit that the Equality Officer erred in law and in
fact in paragraph 5.35.
We further submit that the Equality Officer erred in law
and in fact in finding that:
The claimants rates are unisex ones and not related
to the sex of the job-holders and also that the
respective rates of the claimants and the
comparators derive from different sources (page
67).
We further submit that the Equality Officer erred in law
and in fact in finding that:
Under Section 2(3) of the Act that the Company has
not discriminated against the claimants in these
cases, as I consider that there are valid grounds
other than sex for the difference in the rates of
pay between the named comparators and each of the
claimants (page 67).
Paragraph 5.36 of EP 6/1994
We submit that the Equality Officer erred in law and in
fact in finding that:
I further consider that a claim by the Union that
the Company has discriminated against the claimants
in relation to access to the comparators' grade is
a matter appropriate to the Employment Equality
Act, 1977, not the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act,
1974 (page 67).
Paragraph 5.37 of EP 6/1994
We submit that the Equality Officer erred in law and in
fact in paragraph 5.37.
We further submit that the Equality Officer erred in law
and in fact in finding that:
(the) respective rates of pay derive from non sex
related origins. I do not find that the claimants
are entitled to the same rate of remuneration as
the comparators (page 67).
Paragraph 7.1 of EP 6/1994
We submit that the Equality Officer erred in law and in
fact in finding that:
In view of my conclusions above I do not find that
any of the claimants are entitled to the same rate
of remuneration as any of the comparators (page
18).
- Any other grounds.
The Court heard the appeal on 9th March, 1995.
DETERMINATION:
This is a very complex case involving large numbers of claimants
and large numbers of comparators.
The Equality Officer has analysed the work involved and must be
commended for her detailed conclusions. The Court sees no reason
to differ with her conclusions on the question of 'like work'.
She was satisfied that the work carried out by the claimants in
the Sales Staff in Mary Street, the Sales Staff in the other
Stores and the Clerical Staff in all Stores was overall equal in
value to that of the relevant comparators. The Court endorses
these conclusions.
The Company raised by way of defence the claim that the difference
in the rates between the claimants and the comparators arose from
grounds other than sex. The Court finds this defence proved. The
claimants' rates of pay are all unisex rates; the previous
male/female rates were equalised through the Registered Employment
Agreement for the Drapery Trade. The comparators' rates were
negotiated within the industry and were increased as a result of
Company/Union productivity agreements. The claimants and the
comparators rates of pay have been achieved by different
industrial routes, and are in fact both unisex rates, even if one
group is predominantly female and the other predominantly male.
The Court finds that the difference between the rates is not
related to the sex of workers. The Court rejects the appeal, and
upholds the conclusions of the Equality Officer that the claimants
are not entitled to the same rate of remuneration as that of the
comparators.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th February, 1996 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman