Kenna, Lynch, McLoughlin and Slevin (Represented by SIPTU) AND Central Bank of Ireland (Represented by IBEC)
1. DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Ms Catherine Kenna, Ms Christina Lynch, Ms Deirdre McLoughlin and Ms Linda Slevin, employed as Senior Operators by the Central Bank of Ireland, that they are entitled to the same rate of remuneration as three named male comparators, two of whom are employed as Printers and the third of whom is a Cutter, in accordance with the provisions of section 19 (1) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, on the basis that the complainants are performing like work with the comparators as defined in section 7 (1) (b) and section 7 (1) (c) of that Act.
1.2 SIPTU, on behalf of the complainants, referred a claim under the Employment Equality Act, 1998 to the Director of Equality Investigations on 26 March 2001. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of that Act, the Director then delegated the claims on 6 April 2001 to Anne-Marie Lynch, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Act. A preliminary hearing was held on 18 May 2001, submissions were sought from both parties and work inspections were carried out on 15 April 2002. A final hearing was held on 14 October 2002.
2. THE COMPLAINT
2.1 The complainants' claim was referred under section 19 (1) of the Act which provides
It shall be a term of the contract under which A is employed that, subject to this Act, A shall at any time be entitled to the same rate of remuneration for the work which A is employed to do as B who, at that or any other relevant time, is employed to do like work by the same or an associated employer. Section 18 states that "A" and "B" represent two persons of the opposite sex so that, where "A" is a woman, "B" is a man, and vice versa.
2.2 The complainants claimed like work with the comparators in the context of both sections 7 (1) (b) and (7) (1) (c) of the Act. These sections provide
...for the purposes of this Act, in relation to the work which one person is employed to do, another person shall be regarded as employed to do like work if --
(b) the work performed by one is of a similar nature to that performed by the other and any differences between the work performed or the conditions under which it is performed by each either are of small importance in relation to the work as a whole or occur with such irregularity as not to be significant to the work as a whole, or
(c) the work performed by one is equal in value to the work performed by the other, having regard to such matters as skill, physical or mental requirements, responsibility and working conditions.
2.3 The complainants were all employed in the same capacity and were agreed to do the same work as each other. Ms Slevin and Ms Lynch attended the hearings, were interviewed and their work inspected, as representative of all four complainants. The comparators were employed as a Printer 1, Printer 2 and Cutter. The complainants' original claim stated that Printer 2 operated in a cover capacity for Printer 1, and implied that these two comparators were therefore interchangeable. However, these comparators operated different machines and carried out different functions from each other, as well as being paid different salaries. It was necessary therefore to carry out interviews and work inspections with each of the three comparators.
3. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANTS' CASE
3.1 The complainants claimed that they performed work of a similar nature and of equal value to that performed by the comparators. Their initial referral also included a claim of "like work" under section 7 (1) (a) of the Act, ie that the work performed was the same. However, during the course of the investigation, the union accepted that the complainants and comparators were not interchangeable in their work and this aspect of the claim was not pursued.
3.2 The claim arose from the introduction of new machinery to print Euro banknotes. The complainants, who had been employed as Finishing staff in the respondent's original printing operation, responded to an internal advertisement inviting applications for positions as Senior Operators on the new machinery. They received training in the new equipment, which included some time in Germany to study a similar facility in operation.
3.3 The complainants asserted that when management assessed the value of their labour at the point of changeover to Euro banknote production, they were undervalued relative to their male colleagues and they claimed that this undervaluation was based on a discriminatory perception of female labour. There was a clear and unarguable gender divide between the complainants' department and that of the comparators, and a significant difference in basic rates of pay to the advantage of the male operators. At the time when the whole operation was being overhauled, evaluations were made regarding the added value of the complainants' newly acquired skills. The complainants said that the respondent ignored obvious comparators in the course of the evaluation and directly discriminated against the complainants by not applying equal rates.
3.4 The complainants said that the new machinery operated by them could be broken into two component functions. The first was the Optical Banknote Inspection System (OBIS), which comprised fourteen sensors managed by a Windows-based software system. The sensors monitored banknotes for position, weight, size, quantity, numerical sequence, zoned features (water mark, metallic strip etc), colour and shade, all within prescribed tolerances. These sensors were contained within the second component function known as the Banknote Production System (BPS), which was principally concerned with the transport, packaging, waste management, banding and labelling of finished notes.
3.5 The complainants operated in a quality control capacity and their responsibilities included computer operation, which they said was broken down into keyboard interface, VDU data analysis and data input functions. When necessary, usually at the beginning or end of a shift, reports were printed, analysed and filed. Other functions performed by the complainants included waste management, test sample analysis, the cleaning of machinery and the removal of blockages. Occasionally, where work had been outsourced, they liaised with technicians on production matters and also attended in-house production meetings.
3.6 Regarding the work of the first comparator, Printer 1, the complainants stated that his physical and intellectual interaction was a reflection of theirs, because the print production element of the process was fully automated and computerised. Buttons were pressed, visual displays monitored and interpreted, and product examined for quality and consistency. They stated that he dealt with the same information from a similar set of sensors within the same parameters, requiring the same physical and mental response. They said the raw material such as paper arrived in a pre-treated, double sided ready-to-go condition, and the inks were a ready mixed preparation. The machine performed the physical production and printing of notes, the sensors monitored the respective features and substandard notes were automatically rejected. In addition, the complainants said that mechanical and electrical breakdowns were addressed by maintenance personnel, and transport personnel were responsible for loading, reel-intake and waste removal.
3.7 The complainants claimed that all of the above supports confined the Printer 1 to areas of responsibility and activity that paralleled their own. No knowledge or experience, beyond that which the complainants possessed or utilised was required to produce the banknotes. The complainants said that the work actually being done was essentially the same. If the Printer 1 performed other functions or duties, they were rare, infrequent and imperceptible to the complainants. The degree of overlap on the work actually performed qualified easily as similar work, and at the very least qualified as work of equal value.
3.8 The complainants claimed that the Printer 2 operated in a cover capacity for the Printer 1, and therefore the same comparisons could be made as with the Printer 1.
3.9 Regarding the work of the Cutter, the complainants said that he also interfaced with a computer, pushing buttons and reading a visual display. The core work involved cutting blocks of notes to size and occasionally taking back-up measurements. The requirement to alter size was infrequent and the work was largely repetitive. The complainants asserted their work was of a similar nature and of equal value to that of the Cutter.
3.10 The complainants concluded that their claim was concerned with the work actually being done. This work was not materially different in terms of the mental and physical activities performed, the extent of responsibilities or the skills actually employed, to that of the comparators. The complainants and the comparators were merely separated by titles and traditional associations with that work and not by work activity itself. There was no objective reason for this direct gender discrimination, and therefore pay rates should be equalised consistent with the provisions of section 19 (1) of the 1998 Act.
4. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONDENT'S CASE
4.1 The respondent denied that "like work" as defined in section 7 (1) (b) of the Act, ie work of a similar nature, existed between the complainants and the jobs performed by any of the three comparators.
4.2 It said that the job of Senior Operators involved working with a finished product. The bank note had been manufactured by the time the Senior Operators received it and the Senior Operators then had a role in ensuring it was of acceptable quality. However, the checking process was largely an automated process. The BPS machine accepted or rejected notes. The complainants did have a role in checking that one in every 500 notes passed as "good" by the machine was of acceptable standard, but this was done in conjunction with the respondent's quality control staff. Even the notes used to "teach" the machine to identify a note of acceptable quality were selected by the quality control team and not the complainants. The complainants only dealt with minor machine problems. Otherwise, such problems were referred to the respondent's technical staff.
4.3 The respondent said the comparators were all directly involved in the production of the banknote and in all the key aspects of setting up machinery and either printing or cutting banknotes. Their jobs embraced many engineering aspects: adjusting settings of feeders/ink ducts, putting rollers into machines, changing knives etc. Skilled craftworkers were required for these roles. The respondent claimed it was more likely that errors would be made in the processes performed by the comparators than by those performed by the complainants. There were more safeguards on the BPS machine, operated by the complainants, to prevent major errors that there were on the printing and cutting machines. The respondent also claimed that differences in the work performed and the conditions under which each job was performed were not of small importance in relation to the work as a whole. They were significant and occurred all of the time.
4.4 The respondent also denied that "like work" as defined in section 7 (1) (c) of the Act, ie work equal in value, existed between the jobs of the complainants and the comparators. It said that the comparators' jobs involved significantly greater skill, physical requirements, mental requirements, responsibilities and more difficult working conditions. Each of the comparators was a qualified craftworker, which required a five-year apprenticeship. No specific qualification was required to perform the complainants' job.
4.5 The respondent also claimed that there was significantly greater judgement and experience required to perform the jobs of the comparators. There was also greater physical effort involved due to the lifting involved and the fact that they were on their feet all day. The mental effort involved was also greater due to the concentration required to minimise waste. Any waste occurring during the production process could have significant cost implications for the respondent.
4.6 The respondent also claimed that the responsibilities involved in the comparators' jobs were greater than those in the complainants' job. Errors made during the production process had much greater cost implications than any error made at the inspection stage. Further, errors were more likely to occur during the comparators' jobs than during the complainants' job. The working conditions of the comparators were said to be more onerous than those of the complainants and there were hazards involved which did not exist in the complainants' job.
5. INVESTIGATION AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
5.1 In reaching my conclusions in this case I have taken into account all of the submissions, both oral and written, made to me by the parties, as well as the work inspections which I carried out. Both the complainants and the comparators described their work to me in detail. Job descriptions for the complainants and the comparators are attached as Appendices.
5.3 The complainants' argument was that their work constituted like work with that of the comparators in terms of both section 7 (1) (b) and section 7 (1) (c). The respondent rejected both aspects of this argument. It is necessary for me to consider the work of the employees under each of the subsections.
5.4 The complainants and the comparators have many extra responsibilities, calculations and checking to do when the denomination is being changed. In the initial stages of the Euro production operation all denominations were printed, but by the time of the referral of the claim the respondent was printing just one denomination and was expecting to do this for at least a couple of years. I am therefore only concentrating on the work involved in ongoing production of just one denomination.
5.5 In the interest of clarity, it may be useful to describe briefly the production process as it affects the complainants and the comparators. Each sheet of banknote paper produces 54 completed banknotes, provided there is no waste in the process. The first stages of banknote production are screen printing and foil application on the paper, and neither the complainants nor the comparators are involved. The third stage is printing on one side of the paper on the Super Simultan 212, operated by the Printer 2. There is also a Printer 1 engaged on this machine, but he was not named as a comparator by the complainants. The banknote paper then moves to the Super Orlof Intaglio for printing on the second side of the paper, and this machine is operated by the Printer 1 who was named as a comparator. Following this, the Cutter receives the printed banknote paper and cuts it into individual notes. After going through procedures such as counting and collating, the notes are processed through the BPS, operated by the complainants.
Section 7 (1) (b): Similar Work
5.6 The complainants stated that they and the comparators performed work of a similar nature on a day-to-day basis, and that any differences that occurred were infrequent and of little importance. The respondent claimed that there were significant differences in the work performed and the conditions involved in each of the jobs, that these differences occurred all of the time and were significant in relation to the work as a whole.
5.7 The work of the complainants occurs at the quality control end of the process and involved dealing with finished banknotes. Their work is computerised to a large extent and they respond to error messages which indicate that the belts or photodetectors need to be cleaned or a paper jam needs to be freed. The cleaning, changing of labels and threading of shrink wrap are all done manually. When a bulb is changed on the machine, the complainants have to recalculate the brightness contrast on the screen. At the end of each shift, the complainants balance their Input Parcels (IPP). This involves balancing the notes processed through the machine with the known output and the shredded or rejected notes. This balance is then witnessed by the supervisor.
5.8 The two Printers, while operating different machines, have responsibilities for setting up their machines. They have to start up the machinery each morning, run test sheets, check water, ink and alcohol levels, stop and clean the machinery once during the day, and finally wash and oil the various moving parts at the end of the working day. There are a number of similarities between the work of the Printer 1 and Printer 2, but I am satisfied that their jobs are not of a similar nature to that of the complainants.
5.9 The Cutter's job is not of a similar nature to those of the two Printers. The number 1 Printer in the cutting area, who was not named as a comparator, generally establishes the set up for each denomination. The Cutter then duplicates these on his machine. Adjustments are required on an ongoing basis because of changes in paper quality or blunting of the blade. The ream of banknote paper requires ongoing manual adjustments during the cutting to ensure each cut is accurate. The job of the Cutter is not of a similar nature to that of the complainants.
5.10 I find therefore that the job of the complainants is not of a similar nature to the jobs of the comparators in the context of section 7 (1) (b) of the 1998 Act.
Section 7 (1) (c): Work of equal value
5.11 The complainants asserted that they worked almost exactly parallel to the comparators in carrying out their duties, and that the work carried out by them was of equal value. The respondent said there was significantly greater skill, physical effort, mental effort and responsibility in the comparators' jobs, and they involved significantly more difficult working conditions.
Skill
5.12 The complainants had all been selected after an internal competition, involving an aptitude test and interview. They subsequently attended training courses in Germany, received computer training on Word and Excel packages and underwent some three months of on-the-job training. Their work is at the quality control end of the banknote production process, and they assist with the development of a training set for each new denomination to teach the machine the quality that is required to be produced. As previously stated, the work being inspected here was the ongoing printing of just one denomination. The complainants switch on their machine, but do not set it up. One in 500 notes passed as "good" by the BPS is checked manually by the complainants, to ensure that the machine is operating within acceptable parameters. These checked notes are passed on to Quality Control for further testing, so the complainants do not actually make the final decision in relation to the matter.
5.13 The Printer 2 is a qualified litho printer, with a five-year apprenticeship. His job requires setting up the Super Simultan 212 machine, involving the adjustment of packing behind offset blankets, positioning plates correctly, choosing optimum pressure settings and percentage oscillation of vibrator rollers, and setting feeders and deliveries correctly. He is also required to be an expert in rainbow printing, unique to banknote printing. This involves colour gradation between two colour zones, and the Printer 2 is required to control the mixing of the inks on the gradation zone by controlling the level of oscillation of the vibrating rollers. This comparator is also responsible for ensuring inks were mixed to the correct shades.
5.14 The Printer 1 is a also qualified printer, having undergone a five-year apprenticeship. His job requires setting up the Super Orlof Intaglio machine, which involves polishing, inspecting and positioning intaglio plates, setting the feeder and delivery unit on the machine, positioning chablons on the chablon cylinder, setting roller contact settings to the target values, setting up the ink ducts and the water wipe unit, setting up the gross error detection system and matching the colours of the reference print.
5.15 The Cutter had a four-year apprenticeship as a typesetter. Very tight tolerances are required in the cutting operation, and the Cutter is obliged to make adjustments in the event of problems. The quality of paper is constantly changing, and piles of banknotes are uneven because of watermarks, foil strips etc. When a denomination was changed, it can take several days of regular adjustments to ensure the product is of the required standard. The Cutter is also required to determine when the knife needed to be changed.
5.16 I find that greater skill is required for the jobs of the compartors than for the job of the complainants.
Physical effort
5.17 There is little physical effort involved in the complainants' job. They perform most of their duties sitting at their workstations.
5.18 Each of the comparators is required to stand all day. The Printer 1 uses a hoist to manoeuvre the water wipe roller, which weighs 200kgs, into position each day. He replenishes the ink supply six or seven times each day, using tins of ink weighing 25kgs. The Printer 2 lifts rollers in and out of the machine every six weeks. Both printers climb the steps on their machines regularly during the day. The Cutter constantly lifts sheets of notes, each weighing approximately 10kgs, from the pallet onto the cutting machine.
5.19 I find that the physical requirements of the comparator's jobs are more onerous than those of the complainant's job.
Mental effort
5.19 The complainants have to keep a close eye on the waste rates for each sensor. The machine processes 40 notes per second, each note being displayed on the screen for the complainants' examination. They have to act quickly to report faults and free-up jams. They are required to balance the notes processed through the machine with the known output and the shredded/rejected notes. These balances are verified by the Senior Co-Ordinator in the Finishing area and by the Deputy Production Controller.
5.20 The Printer 1 monitors the sheets going through the machine at speeds of up to 8,500 sheets per hour. The Printer 2 is required to pay the same sort of attention to detail. A lapse of concentration could allow a large quantity of substandard notes to be passed. The Cutter has to constantly monitor the quality of the cut work, and must identify waste prior to the cut notes being passed on to the next stage. He also had to pay attention to his own safety, as any carelessness could result in a loss of fingers.
5.21 I am satisfied that both the complainants and the comparators are required to exercise a high level of mental effort in carrying out their functions.
Responsibility
5.22 Regarding responsibility, the respondent said that the final quality status of the product was established by the time the complainants received it. The complainants oversee the process of inspecting 100% of the finished work, but the respondent claimed there was no value added to the product at this stage. While the complainants balance notes processed through the machine, this is verified b y the Senior Co-ordinator and the Deputy Production Controller.
5.23 The comparators' jobs on the other hand involved transforming a semi-finished product into a finished product. They were required to use their skills and training to create good quality banknotes. All of the comparators have responsibility for minimising waste, which could result in significant cost for the respondent.
5.24 I cannot accept the respondent's argument that the comparators have a greater responsibility. Each of the workers has responsibility for minimising waste, and failure to perform his or her duties conscientiously could result in significant costs for the respondent. I find that the responsibility required of the complainants and the comparators is comparable.
Working conditions
5.25 While the complainants and the comparators all work within one open plan warehouse, their respective work stations are situated at either end of the structure. The noise levels around the two printing machines are significantly higher than in the complainants' work area. The Cutter's work station is between the noisy printing area and the quiet area where the complainants work. There are no special hazards in the complainants' job. By contrast, the Printer 1 has to prepare a caustic mix, which requires him to wear gloves and an oxygen mask. The Printer 2 has to clean the rollers with white spirit and is required to climb the steps on the machine regularly during the day. The Cutter has to stand all day and has the added hazard of working with a sharp knife. I find the working conditions of the comparators to be significantly more difficult than those of the complainants.
5.26 I have found that the mental effort and the responsibility required by the complainants and the comparators in the performance of their respective duties are similar. However, I have found that the skill and physical effort required by the comparators are greater than that required by the complainants, and I have found that their working conditions are not comparable. Taking into account the totality of the work performed by the complainants and the comparators, I am satisfied that the work performed by the complainants is not work of equal value to that of the comparators in the context of section 7 (1) (c) of the Act.
6. DECISION
6.1 Based on the foregoing, I find that the Central Bank of Ireland did not discriminate against Ms Kenna, Ms Lynch, Ms McLoughlin and Ms Slevin on the basis of their pay in terms of section 19 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.
_____________________
Anne-Marie Lynch
Equality Officer
15 April 2003
Appendix I
Job description of complainants
Title: Senior Operator
Salary per week: £348.60 plus 8% machine allowance
Hours: 7.30am to 3.30pm;/12noon to 8pm every second week; also overtime
Qualifications: Previous experience in quality control; aptitude test for new position
Duties:
- Responsible for switching on the BPS
- Co-ordinating work of self and two ancillary staff on BPS
- Contacting maintenance if problems arise
- Training machine to recognise as good rejected notes considered to be of acceptable quality
- Selecting one good note in 500 to ensure the machine is operating within acceptable parameters
- Monitoring waste rates and taking remedial action if rates are unacceptably high
- Clearing paper jams, cleaning sensors and photo detectors, and re-threading paper labels and shrink wrap as necessary
- Balancing notes processed with known output and shredded/rejected notes to produce a report
- Calculating brightness contrast and uploading to main computer - must be repeated each time a bulb is changed
Appendix II
Job description of the first comparator
Title: Printer 2
Salary per week: £483.18
Hours: 8.00am to 5pm (4pm on Friday) plus overtime
Qualifications: Five year printing apprenticeship
Duties:
- Acting as Printer 2, and standing in for Printer 1 as necessary
- Starting Super Simultan 212 machine each morning
- Putting ink into ducts, checking water and alcohol levels and cleaning rollers
- Running waste sheets to check colour, cleaning plates and ducts, and running more waste sheets, until colour is achieved
- Setting feeders and deliveries, choosing pressure settings and oscillation levels and positioning plates
- Stopping machine to wash plates and blankets once during the day, then re-starting machine as above
- Washing rollers, ducts and water fountains at the end of the day, Monday to Thursday
- Giving the machine a full wash on Friday afternoons, emptying grease, oiling ducts etc
- Clearing blockages as they occur, and ensuring every scrap of torn paper is recovered from the machine
- Visually checking one sheet in 1,000 to ensure quality
- Checking UV and luminescent properties once every 5,000 sheets
- Completing batch verification records and balancing production lots
Appendix III
Job description of the second comparator
Title: Printer 1
Salary per week: £508.20
Hours: 8.00am to 5pm (4pm on Friday) plus overtime
Qualifications: Five year printing apprenticeship
Duties:
- Managing work of self, a Printer 2 and two helpers
- Starting the Super Orlof Intaglio machine each morning
- Assembling and filling ink ducts, replenishing water and wiping rollers
- Checking and replenishing caustic mix
- Checking initial sheets, adjusting ink flow as necessary
- Washing chablons and plates once during the day, then re-starting machine as above
- Washing plates, ducts and rollers, and removing water wipe rollers and cleaning water wipe tank at the end of each day
- Monitoring error detection system, ducts and water wipe system
- Manually checking one sheet per 1,000
- Replacing worn or cracked chablons and blankets as necessary
- Recovering every scrap of paper from torn or jammed sheets
- Producing batch verification records for each batch produced
Appendix IV
Job description of the third comparator
Title: Cutter
Salary per week: £483.86
Hours: 8.00am to 5pm (4pm on Friday) plus overtime
Qualifications: Five year printing apprenticeship
Duties:
- Turning on machine in morning
- Duplicating cutting references established by Printer 1
- Verifying accuracy of cutting references against specification, as each cut is made
- Making adjustments as necessary, depending on paper quality
- Sanding blade as necessary to ensure an even cut
- Changing blade at least once per week using safety gloves
- Determining quantity of sheets than can be accurately cut as a unit, depending on factors such as air in paper or other minor irregularities
- Re-forming ream after each cut, to ensure continued accuracy of tolerances