FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 8(1)(A), ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT, 1974 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN, TRINITY COLLEGE (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Appeal against Equality Officer's recommendation No. EP9/98.
BACKGROUND:
2. The University of Dublin, Trinity College is a third level educational institution with some 1,400 employees and 11,300 students.
The dispute concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of five male workers, employed by the College as senior security officers, that they are entitled to the same rate of remuneration as that paid to three named female comparators. The comparators are employed by the College as cleaning supervisors. The Union argues that the work performed by the claimants is similar in nature to that performed by the comparators.
In early 1997, the Union submitted a claim under Section 3(b) and Section 3(c) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 to an Equality Officer for investigation and recommendation.
On the 28th of April, 1998 the Equality Officer concluded that the claimants do not perform 'like work' with any of the three named comparators in terms of Section 3(b) and Section 3(c) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 and found that they do not have any entitlement to the same rate of remuneration as that paid to the comparators.
On the 8th of June, 1998, the Union appealed the Equality Officer's recommendation to the Labour Court on the following grounds:-
(1) That the Equality Officer erred in law and in fact by concluding that
the claimants and the named comparators do not perform 'like work'.
(2) Any other grounds which arise during the course of the appeal.
The Court heard the appeal on the 29th of October, 1998.
DETERMINATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties in this case together with the report of the Equality Officer.
The case advanced in support of the appeal does not disclose sufficient basis on which the Court could conclude that the Equality Officer erred in her conclusions and recommendation. Accordingly, the Court finds that the claimants do not perform like work with any of the named female comparators in terms of Section 3(b) and Section 3(c) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974.
The appeal is disallowed and the recommendation of the Equality Officer affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th November, 1998______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.