FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 8(1)(A), ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT, 1974 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN (REPRESENTED BY ERCUS STEWART (INSTRUCTED BY JOHN MCDONALD, SOLICITORS) AND THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (SIPTU) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal by the College against, and by the Union for implementation of, Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EP06/98.
BACKGROUND:
2. The 36 claimants are employed as Canteen Assistants by University College, Dublin (the University). Their Union claimed equal pay on the grounds of equal work with five named comparators, in five grades, i.e., kitchen porter, porter, general operative, groundskeeper and library attendant. Each of the comparators earned different rates of remuneration.
The Equality Officer proposed in her recommendation that she would first carry out a comparison between the comparator earning the highest rate of remuneration and a nominated claimant. The comparator earning this highest level was a library attendant. The Equality Officer, having made the necessary comparisons found that, in terms of the overall demands made in respect of mental effort, working conditions, physical effort, responsibility and skill, the work carried out by the claimant was equal in value to that carried out by the comparator.
Having found that the work carried out by the claimant was equal in value to that carried out by the highest paid comparator, the Equality Officer did not consider it necessary to compare the work of the claimant with that of the other four lower-paid comparators.
The Equality Officer, accordingly, recommended that each of the claimants be paid at the same rate as the named comparator - the library attendant. The Equality Officer made no recommendation in respect of the other four comparators.
Both parties appealed the recommendation.
The University appealed the recommendation, on the 9th of March, 1998, on the following grounds:-
1. "Like work" does not exist between the claimants' jobs and the jobs of the named comparators;
2. Without prejudice to its arguments on like work there are ground other than sex to explain the difference between the pay of the claimants and that of the comparator;
3. Without prejudice to points 1 and 2, the Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in concluding that the claimants were entitled to the same level of remuneration as a library attendant.
The Union, on the 4th of March, 1998, appealed to have the recommendation of the Equality Officer implemented.
The Court heard the appeals on the 28th July, 1998 and, subsequently, carried out a work-inspection on the 8th December, 1998.
DETERMINATION:
This dispute under the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 was brought initially to an Equality Officer by SIPTU on behalf of 36 Canteen Assistants employed by University College Dublin.
Appeals were submitted to the Labour Court against the Equality Officer’s findings. The Court has considered the written and oral submissions made by both parties.
In essence, the Court is asked to consider whether or not the claimants carried on like work with the comparator named in the Equality Officer's recommendation and, if so, whether or not there were objectively justifiable reasons for the difference in remuneration.
Neither party advanced submissions or made representations at the hearing in relation to the other four comparators. The Court considered the job descriptions attached to the submissions and visited the University to establish the work involved in the claimants' and comparators' jobs, in their context.
Having considered all the relevant details the Court finds as follows:-
The Court does not agree with the Equality Officer’s findings that the claimant's job is like work with that of the comparator. It finds as a fact that the overall demand made on the comparator in respect of skill, responsibility, mental effort, physical effort and working conditions are greater than those made upon the claimant.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the comparator is not employed on like work with the claimants but on work of greater value. The Court finds the difference in pay justified on this ground alone and, therefore, does not need to consider the other grounds of appeal. The question of whether or not the claimants are doing like work with any of the other four comparators named in the original submission to the Equality Officer was not addressed by the Equality Officer nor argued in the appeal by the parties. This issue was not before the Court and, therefore, the Court makes no finding in this regard.
Conclusion
The Court finds that the claimants are not employed on like work with the named comparator but that the comparator is employed on work of greater value.
In view of the above, the Court allows the University’s appeal and rejects the Union’s appeal.
The Court so determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
30th April, 1999______________________
M.K./D.TChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.