DEC-E2003-034 Full Case Report

Amrabure (Represented by Colgan & Co., Solicitors) V IBM (Represented by Arthur Cox, Solicitors)

1. DISPUTE

1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Mr. Mathias Amrabure who is employed by IBM that he is entitled to the same pay as that which was paid to Ms. Orla Power in terms of Section 29 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 for the period from February, 2001 to October, 2001 when they were both employed in the area of Server Manufacturing. The complainant is making his claim on the grounds of race.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The complainant alleges that he was paid less than the named comparator even though they performed 'like work' within the meaning of Section 7 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. It is the complainant's contention that the difference in pay related to his race. The complainant is Nigerian while the named comparator is Irish.
The respondent has denied the allegation.

2.2 The complainant referred a complaint with the Director of Equality Investigations on 29th May, 2002 under the Employment Equality Act, 1998. In accordance with her powers under Section 75 of that Act the Director then delegated the case to Gerardine Coyle, Equality Officer on 29th November, 2002 for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Act. Following a preliminary hearing on 16th January, 2003 submissions were received from the parties and work inspections were undertaken in April, 2003. A final hearing in this claim took place on 10th June, 2003.

3. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANT'S SUBMISSION

3.1 According to the complainant he commenced work in the respondent organisation on 18th October, 1999 in the microelectronics division. After five months in this division he moved to the CPC Department and after two weeks of training in the CPC Department the complainant was moved to another section of the respondent organisation namely PINS.

3.2 The complainant states that he worked in the PINS section from February, 2000 to September, 2000. He worked alone and unsupervised on the early shift and he states that he was solely responsible for the performance of this section of the respondent organisation. Another person was employed in the PINS section on the night shift. The complainant says that he does not know the name of that person or at what grade that person was employed. According to the complainant he himself was employed and paid at the Grade 1 level. The complainant states that the PINS section was subsumed into the work of the Production Lead in September, 2000. At that time there were three existing Production Leads. Production Lead is a Grade 3 position and the complainant continued to be a Grade 1 employee and continued to be paid commensurate with a Grade 1 employee.

3.3 When the complainant joined the existing Production Leads he was informed by his manager that he would receive training on the other aspects of a Production Lead's job to complement the skills he had already acquired and two of the Production Leads were assigned the task of training him. According to the complainant there was a marked lack of enthusiasm on behalf of those given the task of training him to actually train him. However he states that he progressed significantly in the job and any of the tasks he did not perform was because he was not shown how to perform them.

3.4 The complainant states that, notwithstanding the problems he encountered vis a vis his training, his workload increased significantly as did the level of responsibility attached to his job. The complainant says that despite this increased workload and extra responsibility he continued to be paid as a Grade 1 and he contends that the duties he performed were greatly in excess of those required of a Grade 1 position. 3.5 The complainant states that in March, 2001 the comparator (Ms. Power) was appointed to the Grade 3 position as a Production Lead to work in the same section as him. According to the complainant she received intensive training from existing Production Leads whereas he continued to receive scant training and continued to be paid at the Grade 1 level. In October, 2001 the complainant was again moved to another Department and he was paid at the Grade 1 level.

4. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION

4.1 According to the respondent the complainant has submitted an equal pay claim on the grounds of race in respect of a period between October, 2000 and October, 2001 and he has named Ms. Power as his comparator. The respondent states that both the complainant and the named comparator are employed in its Manufacturing Production Operator job family. The complainant is employed as a Band 1 Production Operator and the named comparator is a Band 3 Production Lead.

4.2 The respondent contests the race-related equal pay complaint on the grounds that the work performed by the named comparator was of greater significance and value than that of the complainant. According to the respondent her tasks were not only commensurate with her Band 3 status but also assigned to her in recognition of the terms of her redeployment with the respondent organisation to Server Manufacturing from Systems Storage Division. The respondent says that there are, therefore, grounds other than race which justify the pay differential between the complainant and the named comparator.

4.3 According to the respondent the complainant was employed to work with Micro Electronics Division (MD) which is part of the respondent's technology group. He transferred to Server Manufacturing in October, 2000 as part of an internal mobility programme that facilitated movement between business units on a voluntary basis. The named comparator was employed to work with Systems Storage Division. This Division moved out of Dublin in January, 2001 and as a result the named comparator was redeployed to Server Manufacturing. During the exit period of this Division the respondent offered a first/second choice redeployment programme to all employees who were affected by the operational changes in this Division. The majority of the employees in the Systems Storage Division were successfully absorbed into the two remaining business units on the site namely the Micro Electronics Division (MD) and Server Manufacturing. The terms of the redeployment were that transferring employees would retain the value of their remuneration package, their band and be given a choice of work that equated to, but may not be the same as, the value of work being performed in their previous role with SSD. The named comparator was working on secondment with Server Manufacturing in December, 2000 she returned to Systems Storage Division and re-entered Server Manufacturing in February, 2001.
A job history detail for the complainant and the named comparator is set out in Appendix A.

4.4 The respondent states that its grading structure is based on Bands, numbered 1 to 10 for all non-executive employees globally. Bands apply to both manager and non-manager roles. According to the respondent manufacturing organisations contain three skill groups namely Engineers in Manufacturing, Technicians in Manufacturing and Manufacturing Production. Within the Manufacturing Production skill group there are two job families namely Manufacturing Production Operators (graded Band 1 to Band 5) and Manufacturing Production Managers (graded Band 6 to Band 10). Within each manufacturing job category global (WW) or regional (EMEA) generic job descriptions apply and a local business unit job description is in place. Based on the local job description individuals are assigned tasks which meet the requirements of the process at a local level.

4.5 The respondent states that progression within its band structure is driven by a number of factors but is primarily based on the level of responsibility associated with a position. A band is not assigned to any employee based on their readiness to progress or their capability within the role which is assigned to them. The breadth and value of the assigned tasks are the key factor in determining a promotion to a higher band. The influencing factors are development of one's personal skills, coupled with a business need for an employee to fulfil a role which has a greater responsibility and impact on business results and the employee's personal performance while working with the respondent organisation. The respondent states that the process whereby it creates a job, carries out a job evaluation and assigns a band to a given role is set out in a document entitled Position Reference Guide (PRG) which is in set out in Appendix B. The respondent's Position Reference Guide (PRG) is divided into jobs which are Non Exempt (Band 1 through 5) and those which are Exempt (Band 6 through 10). According to the respondent a Non Exempt reference guide applies as both the complainant and the named comparator are banded as Non Exempt employees. Non Exempt means that employees Banded 1 through 5 are eligible for overtime payments.

4.6 The respondent, in its submission, set out a regional generic job description for Band 1 and Band 3 within the Manufacturing Production roles. A local set of responsibilities, which are process driven, are mapped out for each band in addition to the general description. This is outlined in Appendix C. At Appendix D the respondent has drawn up a comparison of the complainant's and the named comparator's specific job descriptions in respect of the period October, 2000 to October, 2001. The respondent states that the specifics of the named comparator's role and the training she received were commensurate with her Band 3 status and her experience at the time of her redeployment to the Server Manufacturing Business Unit. According to the respondent as a redeployment programme had been implemented across the organisation in Ireland in January, 2001 Server Manufacturing were obliged to firstly accept a set number of redeployees and secondly to meet the terms agreed with all of the redeployment candidates. The tasks assigned to the named comparator were, the respondent states, a standard set of actions carried out by other Production Leads and enabled her to work at a level she previously worked at when she was previously employed in the Storage Systems Division.

4.7 It is the respondent's submission that the Equality Officer should conclude that the work of the complainant was not like work with the named comparator in respect of the period at issue namely October, 2000 to October, 2001. It is further submitted that the Equality Officer should conclude that there are grounds other than race for the pay differential between the complainant and the named comparator in that same period.

5. CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER

5.1 The issue for decision in this claim is whether the complainant is entitled to equal pay with the named comparator. In making my decision in this claim I have taken into account all of the submissions, both written and oral, made to me by the parties. I have also taken into account the work inspections I undertook of the complainant and the named comparator.

5.2 The complainant contends that he performed 'like work' with the named comparator in terms of Section 7 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 for the period from February, 2001 to October, 2001. He alleges that the difference in pay is related to his race. I note that the complainant is Nigerian and the named comparator is Irish. My job descriptions for the complainant and the named comparator are set out in Appendices E and F respectively and my analysis of the work of the complainant and the named comparator is set out in Appendix G.

5.3 Section 7(a) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 states:
".... in relation to work which one person is employed to do, another person shall be regarded as employed to do like work if -
(a) both perform the same work under the same or similar conditions, or each is interchangeable with the other in relation to the work".
Following my work inspections in this claim I am satisfied that their work was not the same. For example the named comparator chairs the early morning meeting and the complainant does not undertake this role. The named comparator is required to attend many more meetings than the complainant. She produces a mis-ship report. The named comparator accepts alterations to an order and where she deems necessary she refers the change to engineering to be checked. The named comparator undertakes an exercise called re-applies and she would also be responsible for working with improvements. The complainant is not involved in any of these activities.

5.4 Section 7(b) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 states as follows:
".... in relation to 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".

I am satisfied, following my work inspection, that the work performed by the complainant is not similar to that performed by the named comparator. By way of example the named comparator has a higher level of responsibility than the complainant. She is required to monitor systems to identify potential problems and notify the relevant personnel. The named comparator attends many more meetings than the complainant. She requires a greater level of knowledge of the entire process than that required of the complainant.

5.5 Section 7(c) of the 1998 Act states:
"in relation to the work which one person is employed to do, another person shall be regarded as employed to do like work if -
(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".
Having carried out work inspections and undertaken an analysis of the jobs of the complainant and the named comparator I find that the demands made on the complainant and the named comparator are equal in terms of working conditions. I am satisfied that the demands made on the complainant, in terms of physical requirements, are greater than those made on the female comparator. I find that the demands made on the named comparator, in terms of skill, mental requirements and responsibility, are higher than those made on the complainant. In conclusion therefore, I am satisfied that the overall demands on the named comparator are greater than the overall demands on the complainant and hence the complainant does not perform 'like work' with the named comparator in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(c) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

5.6 The respondent has argued that there are grounds other than race which justify the pay differential between the complainant and the named comparator inasmuch as the named comparator's tasks were assigned to her in recognition of the terms of her redeployment with the respondent organisation to Server Manufacturing from Systems Storage Division. As I have found that the complainant and the named comparator do not perform 'like work' with each other it is not necessary for me to address the question of 'grounds other than race' in terms of Section 29(5) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

6. DECISION

6.1 In view of the foregoing I find that Mr. Mathias Amrabure did not perform 'like work' with the named comparator in terms of Section 7 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 for the period from February, 2001 to October, 2001. He was, therefore, not discriminated against by IBM International Holding B.V. and he has no entitlement to equal pay in terms of Section 29 of the 1998 Act.

___________________
Gerardine Coyle
Equality Officer
28th August, 2003

APPENDIX A

Job History for the Complainant and the Named Comparator

² Personal Business Commitment - Annual IBM-wide Performance Review System

APPENDIX B

Respondent's Position Reference Guide
Set out below is an example of IBM's Non-Exempt Position Reference Guide designed to support the process whereby managers evaluate a job and assign a PRG band.

APPENDIX C

Regional Generic Job Description for Bands 1 and 3 within the Manufacturing Production roles

MANUFACTURING PRODUCTION OPERATOR BAND 1 (EMEA)

Position Concept:
This position covers basic manufacturing/testing/packing duties. Typically assembling components, sub-assemblies and packing finished product or sub-assemblies. Would also be involved in basic test operations. Outputs would include:
Completed product or sub-assembly
Packed product or sub-assembly
Tested component or machine

Skill Environment:
No experience necessary. Mainly "on the job" training given after initial classroom training lasting five days. Learning cycle and quality curve normally takes 1 to 2 months. Requires a basic understanding of the department and its operations.

Communication/Negotiation:
Ability to communicate with department members. Occasionally will deal with members of Manufacturing service departments dealing with simple material enquiries.

Problem Solving:
Basic assembly/test/packing operations. Some record keeping, input to manufacturing systems. Most problems will be highlighted to Line Owner or Production Line Technician for resolution. Short cycle time for operations.

Contribution/Leadership:
Initial oral instruction. Typically work will be inspected later in the process. Manufacturing Process Instruction exists. Will work within the team reporting to a senior Production Employee level. Role will be to manufacture/test/pack to the defined quality standards and meet production targets.

Impact on Business/Scope:
Use of equipment restricted to Manufacturing Process Instructions. Errors should be quickly discovered with minimum impact on cost and revenue.

MANUFACTURING PRODUCTION OPERATOR BAND 3 (EMEA)

Position Concept:
The basic element of this job is to manufacture/test/ship high volume products. Included within this is the responsibility for training and assisting operators. Performs the major complex operations, required to make frequent precision adjustments or performs all complex operations in a process centre, regularly switching from one complex operation to another. Interfaces beyond the process centre in areas of skill expertise.
Completed product or sub-assembly
Interpretation of Engineering Drawings
Mechanical or electrical testing of products
Controlled material flow and WIP within CFM production lines
Quality Audits
Operator Training

Skills Environment:
Two years manufacturing experience. Proven track record as a good workstation owner/operator. Leadership qualities. Good understanding of Manufacturing Systems. Good communicator, gives guidance, instruction and some training to new operators. A thorough understanding of the assembly line, the processes and inter-relationships with DI, Engineering, Materials and Quality Functions.

Communication/Negotiation:
Leadership through experience. Contact with 1st line manufacturing management team. May have contact with Engineers on equipment performance, process yield, reworks, new products, quality performance, equipment installation, etc. Daily contact with all department members relating to the operation of the process. Provides guidance to peers and lower levels. Some contact with DI on line scheduling. Must communicate problems that he/she cannot solve to Line Owner, Line Specialist immediately.

Problem Solving:
Multi-skilled in manufacturing, equipment maintenance, quality and material control, requiring flexibility. Fault diagnosis and problem solving of line operations, including equipment, parts and problems within the process. Audit/checks operations and advises the source and solution in conjunction with line owner. Must have thorough knowledge of all the tasks performed on the Line. Only a minimum of direction received, with general guidance from Department Manager and/or Production Specialist. Receives some guidance from Engineering and Maintenance.

Contribution/Leadership:
Accountable to ensure all process problems are highlighted to minimise downtime and maintain high productivity. This includes equipment availability, material supply and resource availability. CFM disciplines are administered to achieve Manufacturing Cycle Time targets. Some direction received. General guidance on production requirements from Line Owner and Production Specialist. Occasional technical guidance from Engineering and Maintenance. Operator instructions are available. Must achieve specific quality and production targets.

Impact on Business/ Scope:
Responsible for the quality and output of own work, ensuring that any problem is resolved through the proper channels. Recognises errors, defects and malfunctions. Taking corrective action is essential to prevent downtime, extensive repairs or scrap, resulting in an impact on customer deliveries. Some maintenance of equipment and machinery in line with maintenance manuals and instructions. All manufacturing and test equipment is used in accordance with Manufacturing Process Instructions.

APPENDIX D

Comparison by the Respondent of the Complainant's and the Named Comparator's specific job descriptions for the period from October, 2000 to October, 2001

NOTE: This table is based on and derived from IBM's MFS operating system which measures the number of completion events carried out by the complainant and the named comparator in Server Manufacturing.

APPENDIX E

Equality Officer's Job Description for the Complainant
Name: Mr. Mathias Amrabure
Job Title: Production Operator
Reported to:Z-Series Manufacturing Manager
Division: Server Manufacturing
Organisation: IBM
Hours of Work: Shift work (one week early followed by one week late)
7.00a.m. - 3.00p.m. ] Monday to
3.00p.m. - 11.00p.m. ] Friday
Pay: €14,718.80 - €15,160.67

DUTIES:
The complainant carries out the following duties:
- He checks Lotus Notes on the computer system to see if there have been any cancellations of orders or if orders have been re-scheduled for another delivery date. If there are orders which have been cancelled or re-scheduled the complainant places a standard sticker on the box itself which may be in the manufacturing area or if it is in the shipping area the complainant brings it back to Clean Pack Control (CPC) and leaves it there to be torn down. The complainant uses a palette truck to move the order. He would also cancel the order in the MFS package on the computer system. If an order is to be re-scheduled the complainant puts the new date on the box and on the routing i.e. the associated paperwork. The complainant will leave the box in CPC or testing wherever it is at the time or he takes it back to CPC if it is in shipping.
- The complainant starts the process of releasing orders. The complainant accesses CKIT on the MFS system. CKIT contains information on what products are going to be shipped. The complainant releases the paperwork from the system via printing it. This paperwork sets out the details of what products have to be built. The complainant leaves the paperwork on a particular shelf in the Manufacturing area and the earliest date is placed at the bottom.
- The complainant checks for short parts i.e. checking what parts that are required for a system but are not available. To check this the complainant runs a report on the MFS system using the reporting tool BRIO. Having run the report the complainant notes the parts that are in short supply and would inform his manager, his colleagues and the Parts Co-ordinator (IPIC) whose job it is to order in the parts.
- The complainant attends a daily briefing with his manager, all Production Leads and the Parts Co-ordinator. The meeting starts at 7.30a.m. and generally lasts 30 minutes. The purpose of this meeting is to pass information on shipping and the status of systems in build and test. The complainant prints out a BRIO report in advance of the meeting as a preparation for the meeting.
- The completion of events task is a transaction undertaken on the MFS system. It is a liaison with Montpelier in France. The complainant carries out the transaction on the system and the order is now complete and ready for shipment.

APPENDIX F

Equality Officer's Job Description for the Named Comparator
Name: Ms. Orla Power
Job Title: Production Lead
Reported to:Z-Series Manufacturing Manager
Division: Server Manufacturing
Organisation: IBM
Hours of Work: Shift work (one week early followed by one week late)
7.00a.m. - 3.00p.m. ] Monday to
3.00p.m. - 11.00p.m. ] Friday
Pay: €20,325.97 - €22,054.08

DUTIES:
The named comparator carries out the following duties:
- She prints off the BRIO report setting out the PSSD date i.e. the date orders are going to ship. The reports list orders being shipped for the current date and five working days ahead. The named comparator prints this report for the early morning meeting from 7.30a.m. to 8.00a.m. of the Team Leads of all Departments for the Z-Series i.e. Crib/Build/Test/CPC/Ship Group and MES. The MES are responsible for upgrades. The named comparator provides each person attending the meeting with a copy of the report. She chairs the meeting which discusses the status of all orders and any problems would be relayed to her. Following the meeting the named comparator draws up an issue list of all the issues which arose at the meeting e.g. engineering issues, issues relating to short parts, orders not set up, etc. and formulates a chart setting out details of the following:
- Order Load
- Orders ready for build
- Orders ready for test
- CPC
- Cancellations
- Alterations
A meeting is held at 8.30a.m. comprising representatives from Test Engineering, Manufacturing Engineering, Order Desk and Materials and some managers from the various areas concerned with the Z-Series. At this meeting the named comparator would present the chart to all the participants. As a result of the meeting the named comparator would contact the European Order Desk to update it on the status of orders.
- The named comparator would prepare the potential mis-ship report for the current day and the following day. This report sets out details of orders at risk of mis-ship. It is the named comparator's aim to have this report sent to her manager for approval and then sent to a designated list of people by 11.00a.m. At peak times this is often not possible as it can take in excess of one hour to complete. In generating this report the complainant must access BRIO, SAP (if parts need to be ordered) and MFS.
- The named comparator accesses the CDFA file to accept alterations and process cancellations for Z-Series products. If a customer wants to change an order the named comparator inputs the change to MFS. On some occasions the named comparator may refer the change to engineering to be checked because it may appear bogus. If the change has come from the customer it is implemented. However if the change appears bogus and is not customer driven it is rejected. A change to an order results in the shipping date being pushed out. The named comparator passes the details to the European Order Desk so that a new shipping date can be obtained. The named comparator carries out this task every 3 hours throughout her working day.
- For every order in the Z-Series the named comparator must play a completion event. Every order has a Sales Order Number. To play a completion event the named comparator must take all the information for an Order Number that is on MFS and SAP and transfer it over to the RPDS (i.e. the Shipping System). By undertaking a completion event it enables an order to be shipped and it is a way of billing customers. By carrying out a completion event the named comparator can catch all possible problems with an order. 90% of orders pass the completion event but for most of the 10% which fail the named comparator would have a fix to rectify the problem. For those which do not have a fix the named comparator would escalate them to engineering. If a problem was that a part was not installed the named comparator would check that the part was there and bring the unit back to have the part installed. The named comparator would access the C-Log system which tracks parts in-house. She would access this system to check the status of each part. Suppliers supplying parts must check these parts through stringent tests before the respondent organisation can accept them. The C-List verifies that these tests have been carried out.
- The named comparator attends a number of weekly meetings as follows:
- Monday - Score Card Meeting attended by 1st, 2nd and 3rd Line Managers, Logistic Test Team Leads and Order Desk. At this meeting the participants go through the mis-ships, cancellations and alterations for the previous week, the number of orders shipped and a percentage of those orders which shipped on time. At peak times this meeting would take place daily at 4.00p.m.
- Wednesday - Work in Progress (WIP) Meeting attended by the IPIC and the Variance Co-Ordinator for the different areas and sometimes their managers. At this meeting Ship and Uninstall (SNU) is discussed. There are metrics (i.e. performance indicators) which must be met from the time the order is cancelled and when it is torn down and the parts put back on the shelves. It is important to meet these metrics and where these metrics are
not met there must be an explanation.
- Thursday - Ship and Uninstall (SNU) Meeting attended by 2nd and 3rd Line Managers, IPIC Managers and Business Controls. At this meeting Customer Returns are discussed. These are systems which have left the respondent organisation for delivery to the customer but the customer cancels the order while it is in transit. The order has then to be shipped back, disassembled and brought back to its constituent parts.
- The named comparator would provide feedback to Materials in respect of short parts. If parts were not going to come in or if an order is going to be constrained by the lack of a part the order would be put on hold and its delivery date re-scheduled out.
- For every order cancelled beyond the test phase of the order the named comparator would carry out a job restore on the order to enable it to be torn down. At the end of the month and the end of the quarter the named comparator would undertake an exercise called re-applies i.e. associating cancelled orders with new orders which are similar and then putting the order straight to the testing phase. In restore situations 75% of the cancelled order would match the new order and only 25% of the order would be required to be rebuilt.
- The named comparator would also be responsible for working with improvements. The Order Desk would send out a list of orders that they would want improved i.e. an earlier date for shipment (PSSD date). The onus would be on the named comparator to ensure that the orders are being worked on so as to meet the earlier delivery date.
- Within any one order there may be a number of containers. The named comparator must monitor the status of an order to ensure that the order can be processed, shipped and invoiced.
- The named comparator must watch for the following problems in RPDS:
- Orders merged with other orders;
- No hold put on an order;
- The weight and dimensions of each container is placed on the order.
She accesses the RPDS system to monitor these issues. The named comparator prints out relevant documentation and passes it to RPDS Support.
- Every morning the named comparator updates the mis-ship, improvement and short parts database. She also updates deconfigs regarding returned Sales orders. In the evening the named comparator produces a cross-over report for the person coming in the next morning.
- The named comparator is also involved in the following additional activities:
- Working with Distribution and Traffic so that orders get shipped when ready and the European Order Desk approval has been obtained.
- Monitoring of monthly metrics taking on board the numbers of alterations, cancellations, deferrals and improvements and also the cycle times of each system in the Z-Series.
- Development of an Action Plan when a metric has not been met.
- Attendance at monthly status and SNU meetings.

APPENDIX G

Analysis by the Equality Officer of the work of the Complainant and the Named Comparator
Mr. Amrabure (Complainant) vs Ms. Power (Named Comparator)

Skill:
The complainant must have the ability to use various computer packages. The complainant drives a palette truck to move orders from one area to another. The named comparator must have the ability to use various computer packages. She has to have the skills necessary to chair team meetings. The named comparator must be able to prepare the potential mis-ship report. She must have the ability to identify possible bogus changes to orders.
Having balanced the level of skill required of the complainant against that required of the
named comparator I find that the demands made of her (named comparator) are greater
than those made of the complainant.

Physical Requirements:
The complainant, on occasion, has to move orders from the shipping area to the Clean Pack Control (CPC) area. As necessary the complainant drives a palette truck when moving orders from one area to another. There are no significant physical requirements demanded of the named comparator in her job.
In terms of physical requirements I find that the demands made of the complainant are
greater than those made of the named comparator.

Mental Requirements:
The complainant monitors orders for cancellations. He also checks for short parts i.e. what parts are required for a system but are not available and informs management and colleagues as to what parts that need to be ordered. Following a meeting of all persons associated with the Z-Series the named comparator formulates a chart of all issues (e.g. engineering, short parts, orders not set up, etc.) arising in relation to orders. The named comparator monitors alterations to ensure that they are not bogus before being implemented. It is for the named comparator to monitor the status of orders and ensure that orders are being worked on to meet their earlier delivery date when the Order Desk has indicated that an earlier shipment date is to be given to particular orders. She must also monitor the status of the order, especially where it has a number of containers, to ensure that it can be processed, shipped and invoiced. The named comparator must be alert to problems in RPDS e.g. orders merged with other orders, no hold put on orders, the weight and dimension of each container is placed on the order. The named comparator updates the mis-ship, improvement and short parts database on a daily basis. It is the named comparator's duty to monitor monthly metrics taking on board the numbers of alterations, cancellations, deferrals, improvements and the cycle times of each system in the Z-Series.
I am satisfied that the demands made of the named comparator, in terms of mental requirements, are higher than those made of the complainant.

Responsibility:
The complainant is responsible for checking order cancellations and cancelling the order in the MFS system. Where an order has to be re-scheduled the complainant places the new order date on the order box and on the routing (i.e. associated paperwork). The complainant is responsible for starting the process of releasing orders by printing out the paperwork and leaving it in a defined place in the Manufacturing area with the earliest placed on the bottom. It is the complainant's duty to check for short parts and to check this he runs a report on the MFS system. When the complainant establishes what parts are in short supply he notifies the manager, his colleagues and the Parts Co-ordinator. The complainant also undertakes the completion events task before an order is ready for shipment. The named comparator is responsible for producing a report setting out the PSSD dates i.e. the dates the orders are going to ship. It is the named comparator's duty to chair the early morning team meeting and following the meeting she has to formulate a chart setting out all the issues raised by the various interest groups (e.g. engineering, short parts, etc.) at the meeting which she presents to participants at a meeting at 8.30a.m. Following this meeting the named comparator would be responsible for contacting the European Order Desk and updating it on the status of orders. The named comparator is responsible for preparing a potential mis-ship report setting out details of orders at risk of mis-ship. The named comparator is responsible for accepting alterations and processing cancellations and where an alteration causes a shipping date to be pushed out the named comparator contacts the Order Desk for a new shipping date. The named comparator undertakes completion events comprising the transfer of information from MFS and SAP to RPDS (the shipping system). If an order fails a completion event the named comparator must, where possible, invoke a fix to rectify the problem. Aside from the daily team meetings the named comparator attends a number of other meetings weekly. The named comparator reschedules out delivery dates where there is a delay in a part being obtained. Where an order has been given an earlier delivery date the named comparator must ensure that the order is being worked on so that the earlier delivery date will be met. In updating records on the databases the named comparator is responsible for ensuring that the information is correct. The complainant is also responsible for the development of an action plan when a metric has not been met.
I find that the demands made on the named comparator, in terms of responsibility, are greater than those made on the complainant.

Working Conditions:
The complainant and the named comparator work in a similar working environment.
I am satisfied that the demands made on the complainant and the named comparator are equal.