FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 8(1)(A), ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT, 1974 PARTIES : BARFORD MEATS LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Equality Officer's Recommendation EP 50/99 concerning a claim by the Union on behalf of 19 named employees that they are entitled to the same rate of remuneration as that paid to two named male comparators in terms of Section 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974. (The Act)
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates a Meat Processing Plant at Carrrickmacross, Co. Monaghan, and employs approximately 80 workers. The claimants are employed as packers and are paid £4.066 per hour while the comparators are employed as machine operatives on a rate of £4.53 per hour.
The Union contends that each of the named female claimants perform "like work" as defined under Section 3(a) of the 1974 Act with that performed by each of the named comparators and are interchangeable with them, that they carry out similar work as defined by Section 3(b) and that they perform work which is equal in value in terms of Section 3(c) to that performed by the named male comparators. For this reason, the Union claimed three years retrospection in respect of the claimants based on their service with the Company.
The Company rejected the claim. The Company said that the jobs of the claimants and the named comparators do not involve the same work in terms of Section 3(a) of the 1974 Act and that the differences between the jobs are occurring on a continuous basis. It also claimed that it could not be said that the claimants and the comparators are "in every respect interchangeable" with one another in relation to the work. The Company rejects the Union's argument that the work performed by the claimants and the comparators is of a similar nature in terms of Section 3(b) of the 1974 Act. It said that the different jobs of the various claimants involve packing product. The job performed by one of the named comparators involves setting up the machinery in the morning, mixing product to a recipe, loading equipment with product and operating equipment. The job performed by the other named comparator involves setting up equipment, setting speed and temperatures for equipment, loading,product into equipment and moving product around the factory. The Company also stated that the differences between the jobs performed by the claimants and the named comparators occur all the time and are significant enough to justify a higher rate of pay in the case of the comparators.
In terms of Section 3(c) of the 1974 Act, the Company contended that the jobs of the two named comparators are significantly more demanding than the job performed by any of the claimants.
The dispute was referred to an Equality Officer for investigation in March, 1998. The Equality Officer's recommendation which was issued on the 16th of August, 1999, found that the claimants (with the exception of Ms. Noreen Callan) do not perform "like work"with that performed by each of the two named male comparators in terms of Section 3(a), Section 3(b) and Section 3(c) of the 1974 Act. The Equality Officer found that they had not been discriminated against by Barford Meats Limited in relation to their pay, and therefore, had no entitlement to the same rate of remuneration as that paid to the two named male comparators. In relation to the claimant, Ms. Noreen Callan, the Equality Officer recommended that Barford Meats Limited back-date her pay to June, 1997, i.e. the date when she commenced her current job which carries the same rate of remuneration as that being paid to the two named male comparators. She was entitled to the back payment from June to November, 1997.
On the 24th of September, 1999, the Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The unions' grounds of appeal were as follows:-
The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact, in not granting equal pay as she failed to give due consideration to the full range of duties undertaken by the claimants, that she erred in her evaluation of the job descriptions in not finding that "skill,mental effort and responsibility placed equal demands on the claimants as the comparators" and that the claimants perform "like work" with that performed by the comparators, in terms of Section 3(a), Section 3(b) and Section 3(c) of the Anti-Discrimination Pay Act, 1974.
The Court investigated the dispute in Monaghan on the 3rd day of May, 2000. Both parties made written submissions to the Court and expanded orally on their submissions at the hearing. On the 7th day of September, 2000, the Court visited the plant and inspected the work of both the claimants and comparators.
DETERMINATION:
The Union has appealed the Equality Officer's Recommendation on the grounds that the Equality Officer erred in law and in fact as she failed to give due consideration to the full range of duties undertaken by the claimants, that she erred in her evaluation of the job description in not finding that skill,mental and / or physical effort, responsibility and working conditions placed equal demands on the claimants as the comparators and that the claimants perform like work with that performed by the comparators in terms of Section 3(a),(b) and (c) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974.
Following the hearing, the Court carried out an inspection of the workplace and the duties of the claimants and the comparators. As the Union has contended that the Equality Officer has failed to give due consideration of the full range of duties undertaken by the claimants, the Court was anxious to ensure that all aspects of the jobs were observed. At the conclusion of it's inspection both sides expressed their satisfaction at the extent of the work carried out by the Labour Court.
Having given consideration to all aspects of the claimants' work, the Court is firstly of the view that the claimants and the comparators do not like work within the meaning of Section 3(a) or (b) of the Act.
The Court also examined the duties of the claimants and the comparators to ascertain whether or not they perform work of equal value within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the Act.
The Court concurs with the findings of the Equality Officer and there are three work groups among the claimants, which are (a) the burger area, (b) the butcher shop and (c) multi vac and dixie machine areas that each of the claimants do not perform the same work as each other.
The Court is of the view that the claimants are primarily employed on packing duties. In the multi vac and dixie machine areas they have the extra responsibility of changing machine settings and adjusting gas levels. Workers in this area were also observed lifting trays of meat.
The Court is of the view that two of these groups-the burger area and the butcher shop fresh meat area-are comparable and do perform like work with each other. However, the Court is of the view that the third group i.e. workers in the multi vac and dixie machine area-carry out work which is of a higher value than the other two claimant groups.
The Court accepts that the production of burgers is a continuous process and that the claimants play a role in that process. The Court accepts that the working conditions of both claimants and comparators are similar although two of the claimants are required on a rotation basis to work in the cold store area for a couple of hours at a time.
The Court has observed the comparators working on their duties and is satisfied that it has observed the totality of their duties and that their duties are interchangeable. In particular the Court noted the operation of the wolfking, hobart and formax machines.
The Union claimed that both the complainants and comparators are general operatives, the Court finds that the claimants are correctly graded as general operatives and the comparators correctly graded as semi-skilled.
The Court does not concur with the view that the operation of the packing machines by the claimants has the same skill level as the operation of the wolfking, hobart and formax machines-the machines operated by the comparators. Accordingly, the Court finds that the claimants do not perform work of equal value to the comparators.
Conclusion
The Court concurs with the Equality Officer's findings in relation to the duties of the three groups of claimants and the comparators, and with her conclusion that none of the claimants perform like work with either of the comparators in terms of Section 3(a), (b) and (c) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974.
Determination
The Court accepts the Equality Officer's recommendation and rejects the Union's appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
24th October, 2000______________________
TOD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.