Burke (Represented by Ms. Honan B.L. and Mr. Sheridan B.L. instructed by Augustus Cullen & Son, Solicitors) V The Ashford Clinic (Represented by Haughton McCarroll, Solicitors)
1. DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Ms. Izabela Burke who was employed by The Ashford Clinic that she is entitled to the same pay as that which was paid to Ms. Goodbody on the grounds of race in terms of Section 29 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The complainant alleges that she 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 her race. The respondent has denied the allegation.
2.2 The complainant referred a complaint with the Director of Equality Investigations on 5th March, 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 9th August, 2002 for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Act. At a joint hearing of the parties on 20th November, 2002 relating to a discriminatory treatment complaint the complainant clarified that her claim also related to equal pay. Submissions in the pay claim were received and work inspections were undertaken. A final hearing in this claim took place on 10th April, 2003 and final documentation in the claim was received from the respondent on 2nd May, 2003.
3. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANT'S SUBMISSION
3.1 It is the complainant's submission that she was employed by the respondent from November, 1999 until December, 2001 in an administrative/receptionist capacity on a permanent job-sharing basis. According to the complainant she shared her duties with the named comparator (Ms. Goodbody). The complainant alleges that she experienced a deterioration in her work environment from in or around March, 2000 at which time a private arrangement between herself and Ms. Goodbody regarding the minding of the latter's child broke down. The complainant contends that, at this time, the named comparator was made "Office Manager" and was paid more than her even though they continued to carry out the same duties essentially. According to the complainant the only alteration in duties was that the named comparator took on responsibility for bookkeeping whereas she (the complainant) took on responsibility for all typing. It is the complainant's contention that she was performing work with the named comparator which was the same, similar and equal in value.
3.2 The complainant notes that Sections 19 and 29 of the Employment Equality Act. 1998
prohibit discrimination in pay.
4. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION
4.1 It is the respondent's contention that the difference in pay between the complainant and the named comparator was because they were both performing different jobs. According to the respondent job descriptions for the job of Receptionist (being undertaken by the complainant) and for the Office/Practice Manager (being performed by the named comparator) were given to the employees around March, 2000. The respondent submits that the work required of the Practice Manager was different to that required of the Receptionist and involved a lot more responsibility and a far greater range of tasks. It is the respondent's contention that the different rates of pay had nothing to do with the complainant's race.
4.2 The respondent reiterates that there was no obligation on it to offer the complainant the position held by the named comparator as the complainant was not qualified for it as she had received no training as a Practice Manager and she had no experience in this area. The named comparator was trained as a Practice Manager and had experience in this position since 1998.
5. CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
5.1 The issue for decision in this claim is whether or not the complainant is entitled to equal pay in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. In making this decision I have taken into account all of the submissions, both written and oral, made to me by the parties.
5.2 At the hearing of the claim of alleged discriminatory treatment on 20th November, 2002 the complainant's representatives (Ms. Mary Honan B.L. instructed by Augustus Cullen & Son, Solicitors) confirmed that the complainant was also referring a claim for equal pay. This was not clear from the referral form which was lodged with the Director of Equality Investigations and the argument in the submission related to victimisation in relation to pay. The respondent indicated that 'like work' was in dispute. I then proceeded to outline my procedures under a pay case informing parties that I would require submissions on the issues involved and that these submissions should include job descriptions for the complainant and the named comparator. I informed the parties that on receipt of the submissions they would be exchanged and work inspections of the work of the complainant and the named comparator would take place at the respondent's place of work. I confirmed this in writing to the parties when I wrote to them with a date for work inspections. In my letter I stated as follows:
"I propose to undertake work inspections of the work performed by the complainant and the named comparator .... at the respondent's place of work (i.e. the Ashford Clinic)."
On the day the work inspections were to take place I arrived at the respondent's place of work and the named comparator was present. She was on sick leave from work at the time of the work inspections and had attended the respondent's place of work that day specifically for them. The complainant and/or her representatives were not present. I contacted the complainant's representatives and was told that they had assumed that the complainant did not need to attend the work inspections. They also pointed out that there was nowhere on the file an indication from me that she needed to attend. The complainant's representatives stated that they were happy for me to proceed with my work inspection of the work performed by the named comparator in the absence of any representative being present for the complainant. A work inspection of the complainant's work was subsequently arranged and the named comparator was in attendance on behalf of the respondent. The complainant's representative on the complainant's behalf stated that the complainant would find it stressful to return to the respondent's place of work for work inspection. I stated that while it is ideal to perform work inspections in the workplace an alternative could be arranged. The complainant agreed to attend for a work inspection at her former workplace.
5.3 At the conclusion of the work inspection of the complainant's work I briefly outlined the work performed by the named comparator as described to me at that work inspection. The complainant stated that, while some of what the named comparator had told me was lies, she had no comment to make on my outline of the named comparator's work. I indicated to the complainant and her representative that it was not good enough for her to make such a statement without presenting evidence to substantiate it. Following a brief discussion between the complainant and her representative the complainant stated that she did not wish to comment on the outline given by me of the work performed by the named comparator. When I asked the complainant if she accepted that the named comparator was a signatory on cheques she said that she did not know and also said that she did not know what work the named comparator did as they both worked in the respondent organisation at different times.
5.4 It is the complainant's contention that she is entitled to equal pay with the named comparator in terms of Section 29 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 on the grounds of race. The complainant is Polish and the named comparator is not. Following my work inspections of the work of the complainant and the named comparator I drew up job descriptions which are attached at Appendices A and B respectively. Section 7 of the Act sets out the provisions relating to 'like work' and states that:
"in relation to the 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,
(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."
5.5 Following my work inspections I am satisfied that the complainant and the named comparator did not perform the same work as each other in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(a) above of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. While both the complainant and the named comparator did perform receptionist duties the named comparator also carried out other managerial type functions which were not carried out by the complainant e.g. recruitment of staff, accounts work, organisation of facilities for use by other professionals, etc.
5.6 I am satisfied from my work inspections that the complainant and the named comparator did not perform similar work as each other having regard to Section 7(b) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. While the work performed by the complainant and the named comparator was similar in relation to the receptionist duties which was performed by both, the named comparator also carried out managerial duties which were not performed by the complainant.
5.7 I examined the work of the complainant and the named comparator in terms of Section 7(c) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 in relation to skill, physical requirements, mental requirements, responsibility and working conditions. The details of my analysis under each of these characteristics is set out in Appendix C. In conclusion I have found that the demands made on the named comparator in terms of skill, mental requirements and responsibility were greater than those made on the complainant. In terms of physical requirements and working conditions I have found that the demands made on both were equal. Overall I am satisfied that there were greater demands made on the named comparator than on the complainant and hence the complainant has no entitlement to equal pay with the named comparator.
6. DECISION
6.1 In conclusion I find that Ms. Izabela Burke did not perform 'like work' in accordance with Section 7 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 with that of the named comparator and was, therefore, not entitled to equal pay in terms of Section 29(1) of that Act.
__________________
Gerardine Coyle
Equality Officer
14th May, 2003
APPENDIX A
Equality Officer's Job Description for the Complainant
Name: Ms. Izabela Burke
Job Title: Receptionist
Reports to: Director
Organisation: Ashford Clinic
Reporting to Comparator: None
Hours of Work: 5 days per fortnight from 9.00a.m. to 5.00p.m (Monday to Friday) with 1 hour for lunch from 1.00p.m. to 2.00p.m.
Pay: November, 1999 - March, 2000 - £2,750
April, 2000 - March, 2001 - £6,585.60
April, 2001 - December, 2001 - £4,945.96
DUTIES:
The complainant opened up the premises at 9.00a.m. She turned on the lights and undiverted the telephone from the answering machine. A routine function for the complainant throughout the course of her working day was to answer any incoming calls and deal with the callers i.e. answer queries or make appointments, etc. The complainant would balance up the accounts checking cash received, cheques and credit card receipts against receipts issued the previous day. She would make sure the cash float amounted to £60 and she would put excess cash and cheques into an envelope for lodgement in the bank in Wicklow. The complainant drove to the bank in Wicklow twice weekly to lodge money and, if necessary, to collect cheque books or lodgement books. When the receipts book was finished the complainant would attach credit or visa card dockets to the corresponding receipts and then she would leave them for the named comparator.
Surgery operated every morning from 9.20a.m. to 12.30p.m. It could start a little earlier or finish a little later than those times. On Monday and Wednesday afternoons there were no fixed times for surgery but the Doctor would inform the complainant what hours she was available on these afternoons. There was no afternoon surgery on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday afternoons but there was evening surgery from 5.00p.m. to 7.30p.m. on Tuesday and Friday evenings. On occasion these surgeries started a little earlier than 5.00p.m. depending on demand. The complainant wrote out labels for blood sample bottles. These labels contained information on the patient's name, sex and date of birth. The complainant passed these sample bottles to the Doctor who got the blood sample and marked down the type of test required. The complainant would take these blood samples to the Hospital in Wicklow to arrive there before 10.00a.m. on a daily basis. While at the Hospital in Wicklow the complainant would sometimes have to go to the Eastern Health Board office (which was located nearby) and collect medical supplies e.g. smear tests, vaccines, forms, etc.). On her return from Wicklow the complainant would deal with telephone queries, accept payment from patients who had been seen by the Doctor, make appointments and undertake dictaphone typing if the surgery was not too busy. When the surgery was very busy the complainant had to forego the typing and she would do some filing. Where patients would not settle their bills after seeing the Doctor the complainant would highlight their name in the appointment book and put the patient's name into the unpaid file on the computer system. Twice daily in the morning and the afternoon the complainant would check the temperature of the fridge which contained the vaccines. She then recorded the temperature in a diary.
If any patients attending the Doctor required any form for whatever reason e.g. a pregnant patient, a child requiring a vaccine, etc. the complainant would complete the form to a limited extent e.g. patient's name and sex and she would give the form to the Doctor. Where appropriate the complainant would attach the form to the patient's file. The complainant recorded Social Welfare Certificates signed by the Doctor in a book. She recorded details of the patient's name, PRSI number, ailment and the date on which the certificate was received. In the case of new patients the complainant opened up new files for them and she would make up an index card containing details of name, address and date of birth. She also set up a file on the computer system. The complainant also updated the computer database with details of patients who had attended the Doctor.
On Monday and Wednesday afternoons the complainant's workload would be similar to that described above for the morning time. On Tuesday, Thursday and Friday afternoons the complainant would concentrate on her dictaphone typing. She would also make appointments with consultants for patients. The complainant would deal with emergencies i.e. where someone needs the attention of a Doctor immediately and cannot wait for evening or next day surgery hours. On occasion and if the complainant had time she would tidy the drugs room and the drugs cabinet in the Doctor's room.
When the complainant worked for the last week of a month she would check the unpaid account and issue bills to patients asking them to settle their accounts. In relation to Company accounts the complainant would draw up itemised invoices detailing the patient's name, nature of the appointment e.g. medical, follow up visit, etc. and the amount due. The complainant would post off these invoices on her way home.
Every day the complainant would balance the petty cash account. Each day the date would be written down along with the amount in petty cash even if there were no payments out of petty cash that day. If there was not enough money in petty cash the complainant would ask the Doctor for a signed cheque on which the complainant would write the required amount and she would cash it and add the money to the petty cash. The complainant had no authority to sign cheques. Whenever necessary the complainant would stock up on provisions for the surgery e.g. milk, tea, coffee, magazines, etc. She also took laundry to the laundrette across the road when the requirement arose.
The complainant checked supplies of standard letter and made copies if supplies were running low. On occasion she would order stationery from Viking Direct. These orders were always made by telephone and the complainant would quote the customer number, the code for the item required and the quantity (which was never more than two or three). If the Doctor was running low in vaccines she would ask the complainant to fax the order form which she (the Doctor) would have completed. The complainant greeted patients arriving for the other professionals using the facilities. She would, on occasion, work out the amount owed by these professionals for the use of the facilities and she would accept payment and issue receipts for same.
The complainant set up the surgery's main diary. On every page of every day of every week she wrote in who was on duty. The diary was marked off every half hour and the complainant filled in the fifteen minute slots i.e. the diary showed 9.00a.m. and 9.30a.m. so the complainant filled in 9.15a.m. and 9.45a.m. etc. While this job was not necessarily difficult it was time consuming.
The complainant passed all incoming mail to the Doctor. After going through it the Doctor may pass back some correspondence for filing (for example the results of a smear test would be associated with a patient's file and the complainant would then issue a standard letter depending on the results of the test). On some occasions and depending on the nature of the correspondence the Doctor asked the complainant for patient files.
As the number of patients attending the Doctor increased so too did the files. The complainant ordered one of the new filing cabinets. She then rearranged files from the full cabinet into the empty one. On occasion she went through all the files in the filing cabinets and removed files of potentially new patients who had not kept appointments or patients who had not made an appointment with Doctor for a period of six months or more.
If any of the office machinery broke down the complainant would organise to have it repaired. For example when the printer broke down the complainant rang up the maintenance company and someone came out to fix it. If the fax machine broke down the complainant would ring the fax company and she would be given instructions over the telephone as to how to repair the fax and then she would carry out these instructions.
On occasion the company supplying liquid nitrogen would ring up to see if supplies were required. The complainant would check with the Doctor and if it was required she would place the order. The complainant would put away any supplies which arrived to the surgery while she was on duty.
At Christmas the complainant would write and deliver Christmas cards and presents to local businesses.
APPENDIX B
Equality Officer's Job Description for the Named Comparator
Name: Ms. Elizabeth(Liz) Goodbody
Job Title: Practice Manager
Reports to: Director
Organisation: Ashford Clinic
Reporting to Comparator: Receptionist (who worked part-time)
Receptionist (who worked evenings and Saturday
mornings)
2 Cleaners
New Practice Manager (who replaced the
comparator while she
went on maternity leave)
For a period of 1 month
Hours of Work: 5 days per fortnight from 9.00a.m. to 5.00p.m.
Pay: November, 1999 - March, 2000 - £2,750
April, 2000 - March, 2001 - £7,123.75
April, 2001 - December, 2001 - £5,589
DUTIES:
The comparator carried out both receptionist and managerial duties as outlined below:
RECEPTIONIST DUTIES
The comparator opened up the surgery, turned on the lights and turned off the answering machine. She diverted the telephone back to reception. The comparator would then proceed to file away patient charts from the previous evening in the filing cabinets. She would answer telephone enquiries, greet patients with early appointments and take payment from patients after their appointments. The comparator would give the patient a receipt for the payment. Where blood samples were being taken from patients the complainant would label the sample bottles and write the patient's name on the label. She then passed these sample bottles to the Doctor for the blood sample. Once all the blood samples had been taken the comparator would drive to Wicklow Hospital with them and deposit them there before 10.00a.m. Initially the comparator undertook this task once a week but as the surgery became busier the task was undertaken twice weekly generally on a Tuesday and a Friday but this task could be required to be undertaken on other occasions outside these two days. While absent from the surgery the comparator would divert calls to her mobile phone and deal with any enquiries whilst on her travels. On occasions when going to the Hospital in Wicklow the comparator would stop for petty cash items e.g. milk, stamps, etc. Also on occasion she would have to collect vaccines, blood and urine sample bottles and forms from the Eastern Health Board which was located near the Hospital. On returning from Wicklow Hospital the comparator would divert calls from her mobile phone back to the Clinic phone. She would answer phone calls, hand out prescriptions which the Doctor would have left for collection. On occasion she would make coffee for the others working in the Office. As required the comparator would do typing. A large proportion of the typing was dictaphone and it could take up to two hours per day or every two days. The amount of typing varied with the demands on the Clinic in any week.
The comparator would monitor stationery supplies and would order in supplies when necessary. When the supplies arrived the comparator would unpack them and put them away. The comparator checked the invoices and made the payment i.e. wrote and signed the cheque.
A number of other professionals e.g. physiotherapist, speech therapist, dietitian, etc. operated from rooms in the Clinic. In relation to the physiotherapist only the comparator made his/her appointments and took receipt of payment by patients for the physiotherapist. In relation to patients attending other professionals the comparator greeted them on arrival but had no other role in relation to them except to keep a record of the numbers attending each of the different professionals. In the case of Social Welfare certificates the comparator had to record in a book the certificates which were signed by the Doctor. The details recorded by the comparator included the patient's name, PRSI number, ailment and the date on which the certificate was received. The comparator also kept a record of patients attending for maternity reasons and she posted to the Eastern Health Board the green form which was signed by the Doctor. Where necessary the comparator attached forms to patient files.
The comparator took temperature readings twice daily (i.e. in the morning and the afternoon) of the fridge containing vaccines and she recorded these readings in a diary.
Every day the comparator would calculate the amount of money received the previous day and she would check to make sure that the money received balanced with the receipts. The comparator then locked away the money and made a lodgement at the Bank once or twice a week using the quick lodgement facility. On occasion and as necessary the comparator collected cheque books and lodgement books from the Bank.
The comparator would stamp envelopes which would have to be posted and she would post them on her way home. The comparator opened all post received at the Clinic and dealt with all pieces of correspondence as appropriate. For the evening and Saturday morning Clinics the comparator would get out files of patients attending these Clinics. At the end of the day the comparator would lock up the practice if she was the last to leave and she would direct the telephone to the answering machine. If necessary the comparator would change the message on the answering machine e.g. in the event of a bank holiday. On occasion the comparator would come into the Clinic on her time off to change the message on the answering machine because the complainant would not do it.
MANAGERIAL DUTIES
The setting up of Systems in the Clinic:
The comparator was responsible for the setting up of all administrative systems in the Clinic. She set up the filing system which comprised a dual system of an index card and file for each patient. This was the manual system which was operated initially and eventually replaced with a computer system which the comparator had sourced.
Ordering of Stationery and Supplies:
The comparator was responsible for the ordering of all stationery (including order forms for medical supplies and Social Welfare Certificates) and supplies (including vaccines, syringes, etc.). This entailed the carrying out of stock checks from time to time (generally every three to four weeks). The comparator checked invoices and made payments for goods received. She had the authority to make out and sign cheques as necessary.
Room Rental:
The comparator assisted the Doctor in getting other professionals to operate out of the Clinic facilities given that there were a number of rooms available for renting. A number of professionals (e.g. physiotherapist, dietitian, etc.) did use the facilities. The comparator negotiated a rental agreement with these professionals and the rental was based on a percentage of the number of patients attending each of the professionals at the Clinic. For the physiotherapist this changed to a fixed amount when the number of patients attending him/her increased. The comparator also organised the rota for the rooms and set out the times available to each professional to use the rooms. Where there were changes to be made to the rota the comparator was always contacted and had to organise the appropriate changes. The comparator issued bills to the professionals for room rental on a monthly basis. Rental payments were mostly given to the comparator but on occasion when she was unavailable they were given to the complainant. On receiving a payment the comparator would issue a receipt.
Social Welfare Certificates:
A book of Certificates contains the certificate and a stub (much like a cheque book). When all the Certificates in the book had been used the comparator would check the stubs to ensure that they had been completed fully and correctly. She then completed information from the stubs onto forms which she sent along with the stubs to the appropriate Department for payment. The comparator undertook this task sometimes fortnightly and sometimes monthly. When the payment was received the comparator would check that it was correct and then lodge it to the bank. In the event that the payment was not correct the comparator had to follow up with the Department.
Recruitment, Selection and Supervision of Staff:
The comparator was instrumental in the recruitment of the complainant. She interviewed and recruited the cleaners and she agreed their terms and conditions of employment. The comparator along with the Doctor interviewed the part-time receptionist who worked evenings and Saturdays and the comparator negotiated her salary and conditions of employment. For her replacement while on maternity leave the comparator placed an advertisement with Jackson Stone Recruitment. The comparator organised the payment of all staff salaries by setting up standing orders and direct debits. In the case of the cleaners' salaries and overtime payments the comparator made these payments by cheque. The comparator devised job descriptions and contracts of employment for staff. She provided training for the complainant who had no previous experience working in a medical practice but had previously worked as a receptionist. She also trained the part-time receptionist and the person who replaced her when she went on maternity leave. The comparator was responsible for arranging hours of work for all staff and for setting start and finish times. She also had responsibility for the management of leave (i.e. annual leave, sick leave, etc.). The comparator assisted the Doctor in the task of hiring a locum when she (the Doctor) was on leave.
Accounts:
The comparator was responsible for the payment of all bills and the handling of all invoices. She was also responsible for credit control i.e. ensuring that more was not paid out than had been taken in by putting off some payments if necessary. When there was no computerised accounting package the comparator kept manual accounts fortnightly and then sent them to the Accountants. Around January/February, 2000 a computerised accounts package was acquired known as the Big Red Book Accounts Package. The comparator was trained in its operation and she put up all the manual records on the computerised system. She spent a lot of time on the task of setting up the records on the system and she would spend on average of two hours per week on accounts work to maintain the Big Red Book.
Maternity Care:
Where the Doctor provided maternity care to patients there was a form completed outlining the medical care and a claim form was submitted to the Eastern Health Board for payment. When the payment was received from the Health Board the comparator would acknowledge and mark off the payment against the patient's records on the maternity file on the computer system. The payment would be included with the takings for lodgement.
Maintenance:
The comparator was responsible for the upkeep of the premises. She would organise a painter if painting was required. She also contacted the relevant people when problems occurred with the alarm system, security lock, computer system, etc. When there were problems with medical equipment the comparator would order new items of equipment or send them to be repaired. The comparator also set up a computer maintenance contract.
Computerised Medical Package:
The comparator sourced the Health I Medical package and in conjunction with the Doctor decided that it best suited the needs of the practice. The computerised system took over from the manual index and file system. The comparator trained staff in on the use of the Health I package.
Other Duties:
The comparator carried out the following additional duties:
- She liaised with staff and professionals using the Clinic facilities to ensure that they were happy;
- She was responsible for the assignment and supervision of work;
- She acquired notices for the Clinic, furniture and fittings and other supplies;
- She checked the accuracy and timing of Health Board payments in terms of grants e.g. grant for fridge for storing vaccines;
- On occasion she would go through child vaccine records and send out reminders where children were due vaccines. She organised the paperwork for issue to the Health Board for payment mostly on a fortnightly basis (sometimes weekly);
- She set up a file on computer to record details of patients over 70 years of age who were entitled to a medical card so that staff would know that they were not to be charged;
- She set up a file on computer to record details of patients who did not pay and she issued bills monthly;
- She checked smear test records (only when the Doctor was away) and issued reminders to patients who were due to return for a smear test;
- She set up letters on the computer which were used when seeking patient records from another Doctor;
- On rare occasions she completed Health Board forms notifying the Health Board of an infectious disease.
APPENDIX C
Equality Officer's Analysis of the jobs performed by the Complainant and the Named Comparator Ms. Burke (COMPLAINANT) VS Ms. Goodbody (NAMED COMPARATOR)
SKILL
To undertake her job the complainant had to have typing and computer skills with a knowledge of how to use the some of the financial features on the computer and a knowledge of inputting data to the medical package. She also had to have good communication skills in greeting patients attending surgery and in answering telephone queries. The complainant had to have an aptitude for balancing accounts namely petty cash. As part of her job the complainant had to be able to drive to deliver blood samples to the Hospital in Wicklow. In her job the complainant needed good organisational abilities to maintain an easily manageable filing system. The named comparator required good communication skills to deal with a variety of people namely staff, clients, customers as in suppliers, professionals using the facilities at the practice, etc. She needed to be able to negotiate staff salaries, rental agreements and work hours for professionals using the facilities. The named comparator needed to be able to drive a car to take blood samples to Wicklow. To perform her job the named comparator had to be able to type, use a computer and be able to use both the financial and medical packages on the system. The named comparator needed to have an ability to keep accounts and an understanding of double entry accounting. As part of her job the named comparator had to be able to train staff in the various practices in operation in the Clinic and in the use of the various computer packages. I find that the demands made on the named comparator in terms of skill was higher than those made on the complainant.
PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS
In carrying out their jobs the complainant and the named comparator do not need to exert undue physical effort. I find that the demands made on the complainant and the named comparator in terms of physical requirements were equal.
MENTAL REQUIREMENTS
The complainant was required to monitor the temperature of the fridge containing vaccines and record this temperature in a diary. She kept the filing system up-to-date and current facilitating the easy retrieval of files. When working the last week of a month the complainant would check unpaid accounts and issue invoices and in the case of companies she would draw up itemised invoices. The complainant had to balance the petty cash account daily and she checked payments received against receipt issued. As part of her job the complainant monitored the supply of standard letters and made copies if supplies were running low. The complainant undertook a lot of dictaphone typing. The complainant recorded the number of patients arriving for professionals using the Clinic facilities other than the Doctor. The named comparator monitored supplies and ordered them as necessary. She recorded the number of patients arriving for professionals using the Clinic facilities other than the Doctor. The named comparator monitored credit control ensuring that enough was being taken in to meet payments. She also monitored the receipt of grant payments from the Health Board. The named comparator checked records kept in respect of Social Welfare Certificates and also those records relating to payments received for maternity patients. She monitored the maintenance of upkeep of the premises and the equipment contained therein e.g. computers, photocopiers, etc. On occasion the named comparator would check through patient records to establish if children were due vaccines or if female patients were due appointments for smear tests.
I find that the demands made on the named comparator in terms of mental requirements were greater than those made on the complainant.
RESPONSIBILITY
It was the complainant's responsibility to open and close the premises when she was the first to arrive or the last to leave. The complainant was responsible for making patient appointments. She had responsibility to be courteous at all times to patients attending the Clinic. The complainant was responsible for balancing the accounts and the petty cash. She handled money received from patients and other professionals using the Clinic facilities and she was responsible for the lodgement of this money into the bank. While the complainant did not sign cheques she did complete the details onto cheques that were already signed. It was the complainant's responsibility to transport blood samples from the Clinic to the Hospital in Wicklow and to deliver it by 10.00a.m. once or twice weekly. She also had to collect and transport vaccines back to the Clinic from the Eastern Health Board offices in Wicklow. The complainant was responsible for updating patient files on the computer. When equipment broke down the complainant was responsible for getting it fixed.
The named comparator had responsibility for the recruitment and supervision of staff including the negotiation of terms and conditions of employment. She was also responsible for agreeing terms with professionals using the facilities at the respondent's premises and establishing a rota for same. The named comparator had responsibility for opening and closing the premises, redirecting telephones and recording appropriate messages on the answering machine. She had the responsibility of transporting bloods from the Clinic to the Hospital in Wicklow and transporting vaccines from the Health Board offices in Wicklow to the Clinic. The named comparator was responsible for the handling of money, writing and signing cheques and also with the balancing of accounts. She also had the responsibility of assembling the necessary records which had to be submitted to the Health Board or the appropriate Government Department for payment. Furthermore the named comparator was responsible for checking the accuracy and timing of grant payments from the Health Board. The named comparator set up all the various systems within the practice and trained staff in their use. She also trained staff in the use of the computer system when acquired. The named comparator was responsible for deciding on what stationery, furniture and fittings that were required and for the acquisition of same. She had responsibility for the maintenance of both property and equipment.
I find that the demands made on the named comparator in terms of responsibility were higher than those made on the complainant.
WORKING CONDITIONS
Both the complainant and the named comparator worked in an office environment. I find that the demands made on the complainant and the named comparator in terms of working
conditions were equal.