Quilter (Represented by Ms. Martin, EAP Consultant) V Kerry Agri Business
1. DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Ms. Noreen Quilter who was employed by Kerry Agri Business that she is entitled to the same pay as that which was paid to Mr. Vincent Walsh and Ms. Helene O'Connor in terms of Sections 19 and 29 respectively of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. The complainant is making her claim on the grounds of gender in relation to Mr. Walsh and on the grounds of age in relation to Ms. O'Connor. At the time of the discrimination the complainant was 57 years old whereas the named comparator (Ms. O'Connor) was 30 years old.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The complainant alleges that she was paid less than the named comparators 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 gender in respect of one of the named comparators and her age in respect of the other named comparator. The respondent has denied the allegations.
2.2 The complainant referred a complaint to the Director of Equality Investigations on 5th December, 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 18th December, 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 9th January, 2003 submissions were received from the parties and work inspections were undertaken in August and September, 2003. A final hearing in this claim took place on 5th September, 2003.
3. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANT'S SUBMISSION
Gender Discrimination Claim
3.1 The complainant claims discrimination on the grounds of gender in comparison to Mr. Walsh and she claims that her work is 'like work' as defined by the Employment Equality Act, 1998. In particular she says that her work is 'similar in nature' and 'equal in value' as defined by Sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the 1998 Act. According to the complainant she was earning a salary of €20,950 as at February, 2002 whereas the named male comparator was earning a salary of €34,282 at that time.
3.2 The complainant sets out a brief sketch of her own background and the named male comparator's background. This is set out in Appendix A. The purpose of this the complainant says is to highlight the similarity in skills acquisition, experience and industry knowledge. According to the complainant she has in fact had responsibility, at a different time, for all of the tasks that the named male comparator has carried out with the Quota being an exception to this. The complainant states that the background provides evidence that she and the named male comparator have had, in the past, exactly the same work, albeit at different times and have been on very different salaries. She alleges that the skill, experience, mental requirements, responsibility and working conditions were exactly the same for each of them. The complainant says that she went into Transport in 1988 and Customer Accounts Administration in 1992 whereas the named male comparator went into Quota in 1993.
3.3 The complainant contends that her work and that of the named male comparator was 'similar in nature' due to the demands (mental ability), skills (numerical ability and IT skills), industry knowledge (Dairy Industry), working environment (Office based) and tasks performed (Data Input and Production of Reports) by them in their jobs.
According to the complainant their jobs were not exactly the same but there was a significant degree of similarity between the jobs. The complainant and the named male comparator have worked in the same office in the Head Office of the Kerry Group until recently. It is the complainant's submission that the objectives of their jobs were to create and maintain accurate electronic records pertaining to the Dairy Industry in Co. Kerry. The complainant says that she maintained records for all the Transport and Customer Information Services as well as other areas outlined in her job description (see Appendix A) and the named male comparator maintained records in relation to the milk quota. It is the complainant's contention that the procedures for carrying out these tasks were largely pre-determined by the customised software installed on their computers. Data was keyed into the programmes, reports were produced from the data entered and all the work pertained to milk producers (farmers) and customers in Co. Kerry.
3.4 The complainant states that the named male comparator's records were of:
- the Quota of each farmer in Kerry who sold their milk to the Kerry Group
- the number of gallons collected from each farmer.
According to the complainant the quota dealt with by Quota Administration covered approximately 2000 milk suppliers (farmers). The records dealing with gallonage of milk contained details of the 2000 farmers supplying milk to Kerry Group. The complainant says that her records were of:
- the expenses incurred by the vehicles in both delivering products and in collecting milk from these same milk suppliers
- Garage and diesel stocks
- Customer and milk supplier's credits and debits (on CIS)
The complainant says that the transport administration records covered all the transport - 150 vehicles approximately. The customer information covered both milk suppliers and other farmers which amounted to well over 3000 records.
3.5 The complainant contends that her work was equal in value to the work performed by the named male comparator due to the fact that the Skill/knowledge, Mental Requirements, Responsibility and Working Conditions were the same as follows:
Skill/Knowledge
The complainant says that the skills required to do her job and the job of the named male comparator were numerical ability, computer skills, understanding of customised software for the industry, keyboard skills, knowledge of the industry, awareness of internal procedures and the needs of internal customers, attention to detail, knowledge and understanding of structure and content of reports for the industry. The complainant states that there was no extraordinary physical strength or physical aptitude required
by either to perform their duties.
Mental Requirements
This included the ability to think logically/rationally, the ability to calculate figures, the ability to concentrate, the ability to recognise errors, the ability to solve queries/problem solve and the ability to see connections/patterns/trends in statistics. According to the complainant her figures related primarily to finance while the named male comparator's
figures related to gallons.
Responsibility
The complainant states that the named male comparator had responsibility for recording gallonage of milk from milk suppliers in Kerry. The quotas for each farmer was stored on the software system. The software system automatically highlighted if a farmer was over his quota. The complainant says that if a farmer wanted to sell or buy or lease quota the named comparator would retain these details from application forms and he would
record any changes. According to the complainant transactions were not his direct responsibility and the named male comparator supplied the Department of Agriculture with monthly returns. The complainant submits that she had a broader range of responsibilities than the named male comparator. She was responsible for the financial costs incurred in keeping the Transport Fleet on the road for both deliveries of products such as Fertilizer and Animal Feed and for the bulk collection of milk in the Tankers. The costs included diesel consumption, tyres, third party labour and materials. The complainant was responsible for ensuring that any spare parts from the Kerry Group garages and fitters time sheets were charged on a monthly basis. She states that she was also responsible for ensuring that all invoices relating to garage parts were correct.
According to the complainant she maintained the Customer Information Services which included milk supplier details, debit and credit adjustments, cheques on account. Wages were keyed weekly to include hours, holidays and allowances. The complainant says that she produced monthly reports for the Office Manager which were used by the Financial Controller and the Transport Manager.
Working Conditions
The complainant notes that both she and the named male comparator were based in the same office. Their work was carried out in that office and neither of them had to travel, visit or work in any other environment or at any other site. The complainant says that the equipment used was office equipment namely a computer and associated software. Their hours were the same and they did not carry out shift work or anti-social work hours.
Furthermore neither of them were required to be 'on-call' for attendance duties.
It is, therefore, the complainant's contention that her responsibilities were of equal value and were similar in nature to those of the named male comparator.
Age Discrimination Claim
3.6 The complainant alleges that she was discriminated against on the grounds of age inasmuch as she was doing work of equal value as defined by Section 7(c) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. According to the complainant she is 57 years of age with 39 years service and had a salary of €20,950 as at February, 2002. By comparison the named comparator is employed as a Secretary/Receptionist aged 30 earning a salary of €22,855 in February, 2002 which was her first year of service with the respondent organisation. According to the complainant the named comparator is employed as a receptionist for the Agri Division. Her duties are to deal with visitors and arrange appointments, type documents/letters, answer calls on the switchboard and take messages.
3.7 The complainant undertakes an evaluation of the named comparator in the areas of skill/knowledge, mental requirements, responsibility and working conditions as follows:
Skill/Knowledge
The skills required to do the job performed by the named comparator are keyboard keys, computer software skills, telephone skills/communication skills, office skills such as filing and photocopying. The complainant says that skills are also required in the presentation and layout of documents and letters. Knowledge of internal procedures and knowledge of the industry is also required. The complainant says that there is no extraordinary physical requirements to perform the named comparator's job. It is the complainant's submission that she uses these skills as well as others to carry out her duties and she has extensive knowledge of the organisation and industry.
Mental Requirements
According to the complainant the named comparator must have the ability to construct letters and documents in a logical and clear manner. She must have the ability to follow sequential patterns on computer software in order to produce documents, store and retrieve them. It is the complainant's contention that she uses all of these mental abilities to carry out her work.
Responsibility
The complainant says that the named comparator's responsibility is to the Head of Agri Division. She is responsible for receptionist duties pertaining to the Department. It is the complainant's submission that she is responsible for administration and accountancy tasks. Her responsibilities require specialist skills and expertise that are more demanding than receptionist skills.
Working Conditions
The complainant states that both she and the named comparator work in the same Department. They both work in an office environment using a computer, computer software and general office equipment. The complainant is based in an open plan office while the named comparator is based in the receptionist's area.
The complainant says that her job, as can be seen from her job description, requires accountancy and book-keeping skills as well as general administrative and office skills. All of the tasks performed by the named comparator are, according to the complainant, equal in value to the tasks performed by her. Furthermore the complainant has many more tasks and responsibilities. It is the complainant's contention that she is in a more senior role with a broader and more demanding range of responsibilities. The complainant states that she finds it hard to understand why 39 years of experience in the industry can leave her in a position whereby a new starter with no experience and a narrow range of responsibilities can receive a higher level of remuneration.
4. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION
Gender Discrimination Claim
4.1 This dispute concerns a claim by the complainant, employed in a clerical/administrative role with the respondent organisation, that she is entitled to equal pay with a named male comparator who was employed as the Head of Milk Quota Administration by the respondent organisation. The respondent says that the complainant alleges that she performs work of a similar nature to that performed by the named male comparator and that any differences that occur are infrequent and/or performs work that is equal in value to that of the named male comparator.
4.2 According to the respondent the complainant was initially employed in a clerical position by Abbeydorney Co-operative Creamery, Co. Kerry in 1963. This creamery became part of the Kerry Co-Operative Creameries Ltd in 1973 as did a number of other Co-Operatives. Shortly thereafter the complainant was transferred as accounts clerk to Kerry Ingredients in Listowel and in 1976 she was transferred to the new central offices in Tralee where she worked in a number of clerical roles, the latter one being in a clerical position for Agri transport.
4.3 According to the respondent the named male comparator was initially employed by the Dairy Disposal Board in a central creamery in Rathmore, Co. Kerry in 1972. In 1974 Kerry Co-Operative bought the Dairy Disposal Board creameries in Kerry (including the central creamery in Rathmore which had eight branches). The respondent says that the named male comparator, who was at the time of purchase, an accountant for the central creamery in Rathmore and its eight branches subsequently moved to Killarney for a short period where he participated in the administrative structure of the "Flesk Region". He was subsequently transferred to an Office Manager position for the "Feale" region (1 of 4 in the county) and when the county was reduced from 4 to 2 division in the early eighties he was promoted to one of two Office Manager positions in the county with responsibility for all administration in the Northern part of the county. He also had responsibility for some clerical staff in the region and he reported directly to the Assist General Manager, Northern Region. The respondent states that this was a key position at the time as the respondent organisation was moving from being a pure Co-Operative to being a Plc. In 1988 the named male comparator moved to the respondent's head office in Tralee to participate in the management of the transfer/integration of many of the regional accounting activities which were being computerised.
4.4 The respondent states that milk quotas were introduced in 1984 which created a complex regulatory environment and imposed enormous responsibility on Co-Operatives re: their management. The respondent says that Kerry began to design a structure to manage the quota regime with a senior manager who was also involved in other activities responsible for the implementation of same. As the quota system was implemented through the following years and the burden of managing same became more onerous it was decided that a subject matter expert would eventually be required to continuously interpret, implement and manage the rules/regulations laid down by the Department of Agriculture/EU interface with their and Kerry's auditors, quota holders, solicitors/auctioneers and Kerry management and legal staff, etc. The respondent states that the named comparator, with a proven record of achievement and relevant experience at a management level, was asked to become involved in 1989 reporting to the manager who had established the internal quota management system in 1984 who in turn reported to the General Manager of the Agri Division of the Kerry Group. When this manager retired from the respondent organisation in 1993 the named comparator, who had become an acknowledged expert in all matters relating to milk quotas in the interim, had developed the role of Head of Milk Quota Administration for the respondent organisation and he was now put reporting directly to the Financial Controller of the Agri Division with a number of staff providing administrative support to him.
4.5 The respondent states that shortly after the purchase (in 2001) of Golden Vale it was decided that the main administrative centre of the Agri Division would be based in Charleville. During 2002 management had the task of integrating and rationalising the administrative and management structure of the Agri Division to mange the combined Agri entity going forward. Some staff who did not wish to transfer to Charleville and who applied through internal competition for positions in the respondent organisation's offices in Tralee were successful in their applications and were appointed to positions there. The complainant applied for none of these positions. The respondent notes that the complainant applied for none of these positions. A number of other people decided to accept a company severance package and left the Organisation in the latter half of 2002. The respondent met with the complainant and the Tralee Branch Secretary of SIPTU in November, 2002 with the objective of ascertaining what she wished to do i.e. transfer to Charleville or transfer to a another clerical position in Listowel or take the Company's severance package. During the course of this meeting the Tralee Branch Secretary of SIPTU stated that the complainant was not satisfied with her salary and also stated that she should be paid the same salary as the person now named as the male comparator in this claim.
The respondent states that it expressed astonishment that the complainant should see
her role as being comparable to that of the Head of Milk Quota Administration and following a recess the Branch Secretary stated that the complainant should be at least paid the same as another named person (female) who was providing administrative support to the Head of Milk Quota Administration. The respondent could not accept this proposition.
4.6 The respondent refutes the claim that 'like work' as defined by Sections 7(1)(b) or 7(1)(c) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 exists between the jobs of the complainant and the named male comparator. In relation to Section 7(1)(a) of the 1998 Act the two jobs are clearly not of a similar nature. There are most significant differences in the work performed and the conditions involved in each of the jobs. These differences occurred all of the time and are most significant in relation to the work as a whole as can be seen from the job descriptions and the explanations advanced hereunder.
4.7 According to the respondent the comparator was the Head of a Section with functional responsibility for Milk quota support staff within the Agri Division of the Kerry Group and he was the subject matter expert in relation to all matters relating to the interpretation of dynamic Milk Quota regulations and their implementation on time for which he was responsible. He reported directly to the Financial Controller of the Agri Division of the Kerry Group communicating with all relevant internal management and staff and external parties (including the Department of Agriculture and Food). The respondent says that the comparator was subject to Department of Agriculture/E.U. audits and Financial audits re: compliance. It is the respondent's contention that errors of interpretation/judgement, communication or implementation on the part of the comparator would have potential serious legal and financial implications for the respondent organisation and/or 3rd parties. The respondent says that the complainant was, on the other hand, performing a clerical role relating predominantly to transport. She held one of several clerical positions under the
supervision of the Senior Accountant who in turn reported to the Financial Controller. According to the respondent the complainant had to comply with basic systems vetted by the senior accountant who had functional/supervisory responsibility for the complainant's work. The complainant's work involved the collection, processing and presentation of transport data within a set format. The respondent states that any errors in this clerical role would be limited and internal in their consequences and would be highlighted/ identified in the following monthly period and easily corrected.
4.8 The respondent states that a job applicant with basic clerical experience would be capable of performing the complainant's job after about 3 months practice/induction training. By comparison the respondent says that the comparator's job requires skills and experience that are acquired over a number of years to manage the relatively complex administrative area of milk quota administration. The skills and experience are both supervisory/managerial and technical and a person would have to demonstrate through a proven record of relevant work achievement that they are already at a certain level of skill and experience before being considered for such a role. The respondent notes that the comparator had several years accountant/office management experience before he became Head of Milk Quota Administration. It is the respondent's submission that because of the technical complexity of the comparator's job and the large number of people internal and external and dormant quota holders, solicitors, Department of Agriculture, etc. with whom he communicated, external phone calls which unavoidably intruded on existing work and the conditions under which he performed his work, they were substantially different all of the time from that of the complainant and the differences were significant in relation to the work as a whole. In contrast the respondent states that the
complainant's work predominantly followed a planned format with minimal work disruptions to answer queried which she could refer to the senior accountant and non-routine queries would be rare.
4.9 In terms of Section 7(1)(c) of the 1998 Act the respondent refutes the complainant's allegation that the work performed by her is of equal value to that performed by the comparator and says that there is significantly greater skill, mental effort, physical effort and responsibility in the comparator's job and it involves significantly more difficult working conditions. The respondent's argument's in this regard are set out in Appendix B. It is the respondent's contention that it did not discriminate against the complainant on the basis of her pay in terms of Section 19 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and the respondent asks the Equality Officer to find accordingly.
Age Discrimination Claim
4.10 The respondent notes that the complainant is alleging discrimination on the grounds of age with reference to Section 7(1)(c) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. The respondent cites the statement by the complainant in her submission "It is hard to understand why 39 years experience in the industry can leave Noreen in a position whereby a new starter with no experience and a narrower range of responsibilities can receive a higher level of remuneration than Noreen". According to the respondent this statement speaks volumes and apodictically illustrates at a minimum the lack of understanding by the complainant of how jobs are objectively constructed, the totality of their nature and management's expectations from same.
4.11 The respondent states that in 2001 the Chief Executive of Kerry Agri Business required an Executive Secretary/Receptionist for both himself and members of the Senior Management Team and the position was advertised internally and externally. The complainant did not apply for the position. The external person appointed to the position through open competition in August, 2000 had ten years clerical experience with a record of progress during her employment where she spend her last number of years being the P.A. to two different Sales Managers. The respondent states that this must be contrasted with the allegation by the complainant that this female comparator had no experience. In assessing the value of any job and the person filling same in terms of performance, the respondent says that management will always endeavour to use its objective inter alia at a base level a commercial imperative. In this regard the comparator was recruited at a salary of €20,991 in August, 2000 and at that time the complainant was earning a salary of €19,554. The respondent states that subsequent performance reviews for the comparator were in August, 2001 (9%), in January, 2002 (5%) and in January, 2003 (7%) giving the comparator a salary of €25,725 as at 1st January, 2003 and the complainant's salary at the same date was €23,100. Set out in Appendix C is a comparison of the job of the complainant and the named comparator in terms of skill & knowledge, physical effort, mental effort, responsibility and working conditions. In conclusion the respondent says that it is clear from its analysis that the work performed by the complainant is not of equal value to that of the comparator in the context of Section 7(1)(c) of the 1998 Act and the respondent asks the Equality Officer to uphold its position in this matter and dismiss the claim.
5. CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
5.1 The issue for decision in this claim is whether or not the complainant to entitled equal pay with the named comparators in terms of Sections 19 and 29 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. In making this 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 work of the complainant and the named comparators and my job descriptions for the complainant and the named comparators are set out in Appendices D and E respectively. My analysis of the work undertaken by the complainant and the named comparators is set out in Appendix F. It should be noted that the jobs performed by the complainant and the named comparators are not currently being performed by them and following restructuring in the organisation the jobs do not exist as they had when the complainant and the named comparators performed them. Consequently my work inspections comprised an interview of the complainant and the named comparators in relation to the work they undertook at the time of the claim. The named male comparator had retired from the respondent organisation and as he refused to attend for work inspection at the request of the respondent organisation I requested him to attend as a witness in accordance with Section 95 of the 1998 Act.
Gender Discrimination Claim
5.2 The complainant is seeking equal pay with a named male comparator on the grounds of gender in terms of Section 19(1) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. She alleges that she performed 'like work' with the named male comparator in terms of Sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the 1998 Act.
5.3 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. The complainant handled all expense accounts in relation to the respondent's transport fleet by updating accounts and reconciling balances. She also undertook other tasks e.g. updating of wage records on the computer system, updating of the Customer Information Service, updating of supplier records on the computer (i.e. transfer of quotas from a father to a son) and she input data from Teagasc Deduction forms to the computer. By comparison the named male comparator was responsible for the administration of the Milk Quotas Schemes and he was accountable for the correct and timely implementation of the Schemes. He had to ensure that supplier records were up-to-date, schemes were correctly and timely administered and that all information provided to suppliers, management, board members and the Department of Agriculture was accurate. The named male comparator's work was subject to regular audit by external auditors.
5.4 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 male comparator I find that the demands made on the complainant and the named male comparator were equal in terms of physical requirements and working conditions. I find that the demands made on the named male comparator, in terms of skill, mental requirements and responsibility, were higher than those made on the complainant. In conclusion therefore, I am satisfied that the overall demands on the named male comparator were greater than the overall demands on the complainant and hence the complainant did not perform 'like work' with the named male comparator in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(c) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.
Age Discrimination Claim
5.5 The complainant is seeking equal pay with a named comparator on the grounds of age in terms of Section 29(1) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. She alleges that she
performed 'like work' with the named comparator in terms of Section 7(c) of the 1998 Act. At the time of the alleged discrimination the complainant was aged 57 while the named comparator was 30 years old. The provisions of Section 7(c) of the Act are set out in paragraph 5.4 above.
5.6 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 were equal in terms of mental requirements. I find that the demands made on the named comparator, in terms of skill, physical requirements, responsibility and working conditions were higher than those made on the complainant. In conclusion therefore, I am satisfied that the overall demands on the named comparator were greater than the overall demands on the complainant and hence the complainant did not perform 'like work' with the named comparator in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(c) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.
6. DECISION
6.1 In view of the foregoing I find that Ms. Noreen Quilter did not perform 'like work' with the named comparators in terms of Section 7 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. She was, therefore, not discriminated against by Kerry Agri Business and she has no entitlement to equal pay in terms of Sections 19(1) and 29(1) of the 1998 Act.
__________________
Gerardine Coyle
Equality Officer
9th October, 2003
APPENDIX A
Brief sketch by the complainant of her own background and the named male comparator's background
COMPLAINANT'S BACKGROUND
1963
The complainant was appointed in Abbeydorney Co-op as a General Clerical Worker. Her main tasks were administration and typing as was applicable to the Dairy Industry (Creameries) at that time.
1973
Amalgamation of 5 Co-ops to form the Kerry Kream Group. Jobs became specialised. The complainant's first job was preparing Milk data for Bord Bainne to be processed by their computer. This lasted 6 to 9 months. She subsequently trained another girl in these procedures.
The complainant was then trained on an Accounts Machine that was installed in the main office. The work carried out using this machine consisted of posting to Debtors & Creditors Ledger, Nominal Ledger and Wages.
1975
After 1 to 2 years on this the complainant was fully competent and was moved to the main Accounts Office to take on more responsibility. The complainant trained another girl on the Accounts Machine and was made responsible for the Creditors Ledger in both Companies Kerry Creameries Ltd and North Kerry Milk Products Ltd.
1978
A vacancy occurred in the Purchasing Department and the complainant was asked if she was interested in it. She took the job and was put on a Company Salary.
1984
The work the complainant was doing in Purchasing was being transferred to the Accounts Department and would now be part of the Creditors Ledger Accounts. The complainant had no objection to this move as she had already worked in the Creditors Ledger Section.
1986
The complainant transferred to the Accounts Department of Agri Division. The area of work was Sales/Debtors. This was considered a demanding position at the time as it involved a lot of dockets from all the different branch creameries. They all had to be checked and reconciled. At this stage there were two ongoing campaigns - the Autumn Fertiliser Campaign and the Winter Feeds Campaign. The complainant was involved with this. She had to send Sales Reports to the Department Heads, Regional Managers and Area Managers. The Debtors exception had to be sent to the different Area Managers.
1988
The complainant took over Transport Administration from the Accountant and the Trainee Accountant. She was responsible for monthly accounts, preparing journals, coding invoices, issuing reports to the Department Head, Chief Accountant, Regional Managers. The complainant also had to do the budgeting of the Fleet and key it onto the Nominal System for each truck.
1990
A new Transport Manager was appointed. The complainant was asked by the Department Head to give him all the help she could. She was also asked if she would take on the taxation of the Fleet and she agreed.
1991
A Financial Controller was appointed.
Job Description for the position of the complainant as Transport Administrator Produce monthly accounts for the expenses incurred by the full Transport Fleet. These Transport Costs are reviewed by the Office Manager, Agri Division on the same basis as other monthly management Accounts done by Accountants. Transport Costs - all accounting entries. This includes compilation of data which is prepared on journals and keyed onto computer systems. This includes accruals, prepare and key journals, complete cost allocations, etc. (40 journals per month).
Transport Balance Sheet Reconciliation's e.g. garage and diesel stocks, transport clearing account.
The Fleet includes Tractor Units, Trucks, Fork Lifts and Trailers for deliveries of feeds, fertilizers and for collection of milk from farms.
Control of Transport Order numbers for third party labour and materials and garage stock. Provide assistance to Accounts Payable on queries regarding transport or haulage.
Codes Haulage Invoices - i.e. third party hauliers. Assist on Haulage Reports.
Key Transport Budget onto Nominal Ledger.
Operates the Time Plan system.
Payroll, Key hours, codes, etc. for weekly pay, holiday and lunch allowances.
Clear validations and check control totals against input sheets.
C.I.S. (Customer Information Services) responsible for the following:
Customer Account Maintenance on CIS
Milk Supplier Maintenance on CIS
Key monthly Head Office non sale debit and credits onto CIS
Key annual Teagasc charges
Key monthly minimum milk cheques onto CIS
The complainant reported to the Office Manager.
COMPARATOR'S BACKGROUND
1972
The comparator started in Rathmore Creamery as a book-keeper and general clerical worker. His work involved administration relating to the Dairy Industry at that time. This included administration in relation to milk summary book, Sales Ledger, Purchase Ledger and Nominal Ledger, etc.
1973
The five Co-ops amalgamated to form Kerry Kream Group.
1974
DDC joined them to form Kerry Co-op Creameries.
1976
The comparator was then transferred to the Regional Office in Listowel where he carried out book-keeping, preparation of monthly reports and general clerical duties.
1984
The Quota system started up. Local branch Creameries and the Regional Offices managed the Quota system in conjunction with Mr. D. O'Callaghan of the Agri Division in Head Office. (There were no statutory regulations until 1994).
1988
The regional office in Listowel closed. The comparator was transferred to Head Office in Tralee where his work was general clerical work, debtors, milk summary book, etc. (All of these tasks had been carried out by the complainant, along with other tasks, such as wages between 1963 and 1972).
During the late 1980s new schemes were being introduced in the downsizing of the industry e.g. Bulk Refrigeration Scheme, ex farm milk collection, tanks and coolers. At this time Mr. O'Callaghan co-ordinated these new changes. The comparator and some female clerical workers were involved in this work. As Mr. O'Callaghan became more involved in new schemes the comparator became involved with the Quota system.
1993
(June) The comparator had surgery and was absent from work for 8 months. A female general clerical worker in Head Office took over the comparator's responsibilities in relation to Quota. After the comparator's return to work the female general clerical worker remained in the Department until June, 1995 at which point she left the company. She was replaced by another female who stayed until 1997 and then also left the company. Another female joined that Department but was not involved with Quota Administration. She looked after Land and Milk Quota transfers and Leases.
1998
A female employee joined Head Office due to restructuring in Kantoher where she had been based. As the comparator had had a lot of absenteeism she was there to cover for him. She familiarised herself with the Quota system and was able to cover for the comparator. (She is now in Charleville doing Quota since Kerry Group took over Golden Vale Creameries).
1994
Statutory Regulations came into effect. There were further Regulations in 1995 and 2000. The comparator's role was concerned with compliance with these regulations on Quota. Computer software was made available so that for example if a milk supplier went over his Quota he was automatically fined.
The volume of this work has decreased with more farmers going out of farming. The financial aspects of any sale or transfer were not the comparator's responsibility but were taken care of by a female clerical worker.
Job Description for comparator for position of Milk Quota Administrator
Maintaining Electronic Records of gallonage from milk suppliers.
Monitoring milk suppliers' gallonage in relation to Quota.
Produce monthly reports of gallonage.
Keep records of Quota available for lease or sale.
Keep records of applications from farmers requesting additional quota.
Prepare returns for the Department of Agriculture.
The comparator reports to the Financial Controller.
The comparator's position did not require him to be involved in any aspect of Finance or Financial Reports.
APPENDIX B
Respondent's Arguments in respect of the named male comparator in relation to Section 7(1)(c) of the 1998 Act
Skill
The comparator's job involved a far greater breadth and depth of skill than that of the complainant. Any objective analysis of both positions will illustrate that a vast gulf exists between the skill levels required for both positions. The comparator's job involved a wide range of developed skills and the position involved being a subject matter expert. The job involves the capabilities inter alia of initiative, management, research, interpretation of and judgement on complex regulations, technically accurate communication/interaction with a diverse range of occupations/persons such as 3,000 individual quota holders, external solicitors, auctioneers, Department of Agriculture officials and auditors, Company auditors, in addition to Kerry Agri and Kerry Group management, staff and legal specialists. The diverse skills of the job holder from the composite capability that ensures compliance with Department of Agri/EU Regulations.
The complainant's position in contrast involves the collection, processing and presentation of transport data within a set format. The other sills of the comparator as referred to are not required. The senior accountant is the relevant person to whom she reported and who was responsible to the Financial Controller of the Agri Division for this activity.
The skill level for the complainant's position could be acquired within 3 to 6 months of commencing employment by any clerical person with normal application and is thereafter a routine activity whereas the comparator's position requires a candidate with autodidactic capabilities who has already acquired a certain level of relevant management skill and experience, has illustrated a capability in the areas previously referred to and therefore has the capability of managing both the routine and the complex (including people) where a high level of knowledge, initiative and judgement are required.
Physical Effort
There was no physical effort in the sense of lifting, carrying or having to engage in an enhanced/varying pace of work in the complainant's job. The job is essentially "desk based". In the case of the comparator much of the job was also performed at "the desk". However because of his work in addition to being proactive and interactive also involved a significant amount of reactivity the comparator had to vary his pace of work in line with those requirements e.g. the comparator frequently would have to momentarily/temporarily suspend what he was engaged in at any particular time to respond to external and internal parties who either were on the telephone or occasionally called in person with queries which demanded a clear response. Typically once per month during audits the comparator was physically involved in having to carry bulky files and reports to a designated room where the audit was being performed. Additionally the comparator stored many of the files relative to Milk Quota Management in a store in Abbeydorney which he had to commute to, as required, with relevant files.
Mental Effort
There is obviously some degree of mental effort required in all human endeavour. In the case of the complainant's job the mental effort required was consistent with a normal routine clerical job with responsibility for no other person's work but her own, performing tasks within a set format and having the senior accountant available at all times to clarify and decide on any non routine issues which may have arisen. The consequences of any errors made would be limited and readily picked up by the system within a month.
In contrast the comparator, within the overall management structure, was the subject matter expert and custodian of the Milk Quota Administration system for the Kerry Group. His role constituted the full 360 degree cycle from initiation to closure of the milk administration process/management loop i.e. from the interpretation of the regulations through communication of same to all relevant internal and external parties to ensuring compliance. The range of activities which he had to supervise incorporated such areas as Temporary leasing, Restructuring, Fleximilk allocations, selling and buying of quota, superlevy fines, etc. and specifying changes to the I.T. Department. In the course of any day the comparator would have to switch on and off with proficiency to a diversity of such topics when taking queries from both internal and external persons. His written and oral communication had to be technically correct at all times when involved in such interaction. The role was also in many ways at its core inter alia typical of the so-called knowledge worker where frequently one's hierarchical superior will depend on the knowledge of the direct report when engaging in further communication/decision making with others both within and outside the managerial hierarchy. The mental effort required in the performance of the comparator's position reflected all of the above an at a fundamental level reflected the differences between the relatively routine (the complainant's position) and the relatively complex (the comparator's position).
Responsibility
There is a significant gulf between the job responsibilities of the complainant and the comparator.
Significant other areas of involvement which indicate the responsibility of the comparator included e.g. management of the integration of the Kantoher Milk quota acquisition and management of the quota of Dawn Dairies, Cork (Ballinahina) on its sale to Clona Dairies. Errors of interpretation/judgement, communication or implementation would have potential serious legal and financial implications for the Company or 3rd parties. The comparator would have to appear in Court as the Company representative in cases involving any matter relating to Quota.
In contrast the responsibilities of the complainant's job were limited to that of a clerical role basically involved in the collection, processing and presentation of data with the implications of any errors being insignificant and being captured within the system probably within the following month at the latest.
Working Conditions
Because both jobs are non manual it may be perceived that the working conditions were the same. However the comparator's working conditions were more difficult as he had to perform his work with many unavoidable disruptions varying his pace of work in line with numerous telephone calls and interactions of others, moving to meeting rooms in different parts of the building with files to engage with quota holders etc. who called to his place of work to meet him and carrying bundles of files back and forth to different rooms during audits and to Abbeydorney where records are stored.
APPENDIX C
Respondent's arguments in respect of the named female comparator in relation to Section 7(1)(c) of the 1998 Act
Skill and Knowledge
According to the respondent the phrase by the complainant "knowledge of the industry" is misleading as this is a managerial function when it takes on any significance and as expressed by the complainant is not relevant to the role of either the complainant or the comparator.
The significant difference in the totality of both jobs is that the comparator must have/develop human interaction/communication skills at a superior level to those of the complainant as most requests for communication with the CEO of Agri come through the Executive Secretary. Such requests may be from shareholders, company directors, senior executives from the plc and other divisions and companies, customers, State agencies, politicians at all levels, community groups, management both within and external to the division, etc. Therefore there is additional skill in terms of tact and judgement required in processing these requests (which are relatively unpredictable in their occurrence/sequence in any given time period) in the comparator's job and this would have been a significant determinant in the selection of the candidate initially. The comparator also works closely with other senior management in the Division and prepares the draft Board report to be finalised by the C.E.O.
Physical Effort
The physical effort expended in the comparator's job is somewhat greater than in the complainant's job. Although both jobs are desk based the unpredictable nature in terms of volume from time to time of those seeking to communicate with the CEO and other senior management personnel and the assistance sought by those management personnel from her created this somewhat higher level of physical effort.
Mental Effort
There is obviously some mental effort required in all human endeavour. In terms of the basic clerical work that both the comparator and the complainant has to perform the mental effort is deemed to be similar. The difference occurs in the demands placed on the comparator when a range of stakeholders are seeking meetings with the CEO or other members of management in short timeframes where tact, diplomacy and judgement must be utilised quickly to satisfy their needs with the communication channels operating efficiently and effectively. It must be understood that while all this is being performed the comparator is also performing other work as required for the CEO and his executive team. In the case of the complainant's job the mental effort required was consistent with a normal routine clerical job performing tasks within a set format and having the senior accountant available at all times to clarify and decide on any non routine issues which may arise.
Responsibility
The responsibilities of the complainant's job were limited to her clerical role with guidance available at all times from the chief accountant to whom she reported (the chief accountant reported in turn to the Financial Controller of the Division).
The comparator, in addition to having responsibility like the complainant for normal clerical activities, had a more complex additional communications role to play where the Quality of service to all stakeholders both within and outside the Division and the plc carried additional responsibility.
Working Conditions
Because both jobs are non manual it may be perceived that the working conditions were the same.
However the comparator's working conditions were more difficult because her much of her work was reacting to unpredictable requests form a diverse range of stakeholders and she was having to assess and process these to ensure satisfaction while simultaneously performing other tasks allocated to her by Divisional Management.
APPENDIX D
Equality Officer's Job Description for the Complainant
Name: Ms. Noreen Quilter
Job Title: Clerical Officer
Reports to: Office Accountant
Number of Staff: None
Organisation: Kerry Agri Division
Location: Tralee
Hours of work: 37½ hours per week (Monday to Friday)
Salary: €22,000 (as at June, 2002)
€22,000 (as at December, 2002)
DUTIES:
The complainant worked as a Clerical Officer in the area of Transport Administration.
Much of her work was accounts related.
In the Transport area the complainant handled all expenses for the respondent's fleet. The respondent's fleet comprised tractor units, tanks, trailers, forklifts, etc.
Expenses related to diesel, 3rd party materials, 3rd party labour, 3rd party haulier, own labour (i.e. labour at respondent's own garage), own materials, tyres and taxation. Set out below is an outline of how the complainant dealt with these various expenses:
Diesel:
There was a Time Plan System in operation. This meant that each lorry driver attached to the respondent organisation and designated outside hauliers had keys which authorised them to attend one of three designated depots, insert the key and get diesel. The complainant would activate these keys on the computer system to validate them for authorised keyholders. When keys were inserted at depots the transaction was recorded on the computer system. At the end of the month the complainant generated a report from the computer which gave the amount of diesel (in litres) taken out by keyholders. The complainant also generated a Stock Report setting out the amount of diesel fuel left in the depot. She would then do a journal to charge out diesel to fleet in the Nominal Ledger at a price that it would have been purchased at from the supplier and in the case of outside hauliers an extra charge would be imposed as decided by the Office Accountant. The complainant would have to make sure that this journal balanced with the amount of diesel taken from the depots. In 99% of instances it did balance but where it did not the complainant but where it did not the complainant would have to establish the reason for the
imbalance and adjust charges, if necessary.
At the end of the month the complainant would reconcile invoices with the Stock Account in the Nominal Ledger i.e. so that the balance of diesel (actual stock) would reconcile with the balance on the Nominal Ledger.
3rd Party Materials:
These were parts supplied by outside suppliers. The complainant received the Purchase Requisition which was signed by the Transport Manager which authorised work to be done, what was to be fitted and at what cost. The complainant examined the purchase requisition in conjunction with the invoice to ensure that the invoice accurately reflected the purchase requisition. Each vehicle had a cost code and the complainant put the appropriate cost code on the invoice before passing it to the Creditors Section.
3rd Party Labour:
The complainant handled invoices from 3rd party labour in the same manner as she dealt with 3rd party materials above.
3rd Party Hauliers:
3rd party hauliers would bring in loads of feeds and fertilisers to farmers and to depots. The complainant would go through deliveries on the invoices on a monthly basis and break down deliveries by region where each region has a different code.
Own Labour: (there was one garage with one mechanic)
The complainant would get a breakdown of the number of hours spent on each vehicle in the respondent's own garage. She also received details of any garage materials that were used in the maintenance of the vehicle. The charging was done by the Transport Manager. The complainant received a printout from the Wages Department of wages paid to the garage mechanic for the month. She divided the number of hours worked into what was paid in wages to the mechanic and charged the result of her calculation to the fleet. At the end of the month the complainant would reconcile the garage Stock Account with the Nominal Ledger and make sure that the correct invoices went into the Stock Account.
Own Materials:
The complainant handled own material in a similar manner to the way she handled own labour.
Tyres:
The work carried out by the complainant in relation to tyres was similar to that for 3rd party materials. Towards the end of the complainant's employment there were not the same number of invoices being received in relation to tyres. However when there were a number of invoices being received the complainant had to write them off individually against the Purchase Requisition.
Taxation:
In relation to taxation the Transport Manager sent the complainant details of charges for the different tractor units and forklifts that were on the road and the complainant would do a journal charging the amount over the fleet.
The complainant produced taxation reports at the end of every month. These were standard reports with changes in the figures. There were two reports, one by expenses and the other by region. The reports contained details of actual period, budget period, actual year-to-date, budget year-to-date and variance.
Accruals:
The complainant undertook accruals monthly. These are invoices that are outstanding that did not make the end of month date when the complainant would do the accounts for the previous month. The complainant gets these invoices from the Creditors Section or from the Transport Manager. She extracts the totals before VAT and apportions them out to the different regions. The complainant would total up what was for Kerry Farm supplies the split the remainder evenly between the North and South regions.
The complainant would do a Clearing Account in the Nominal Ledger for invoices relating to expenses coming through during the month with no code.
At the end of every three months the complainant reconciles the Stock Account.
Other Duties
The complainant carried out a number of other duties as follows:
Wages:
Every Monday the complainant input to the computer wage information received from the different regions (10 in total). Once keyed in the complainant ran off a validation to make sure that it reconciled with her input sheets which had been received from the regions. Once complete and satisfied that the totals reconciled the complainant passed it to the Wages Department.
Maintenance of Customer Information Service (CIS):
This comprised farmer suppliers or debtors and entailed debit and credit adjustments. The information would be passed to the complainant by the Office Accountant who would have signed off on them. The complainant would put the Debtors together and Creditors together and total them. She would then key into the computer system and check that the manual details and the computer details agreed.
Maintenance of Suppliers:
The complainant would set up files for the maintenance of suppliers for example if a supplier was being changed from a father to a son or in the event of a change of address. She would get the necessary documentation from the Regional Managers and check that all signatures and details were completed. Then the complainant would amend the appropriate account on the computer system.
The complainant would also do this for cheques on account where farmers would get an advance, authorised by the Office Accountant, before the monthly cheque issued.
Similarly for IFA/ICMSA deductions where a farmer wanted them stopped.
Teagasc Deduction Forms:
These forms were received from the Teagasc Office. They comprised a list of supplier charges which would have been agreed by the respondent and Teagasc for services rendered by Teagasc to the farmers. The forms were received twice yearly in May and October. The complainant would key in the details to the computer and validate that the total on the manual forms and on the computer system matched. A total of approximately 500 forms would be received, one form for each supplier/farmer. In 2002 this data was received by disc hence there was no keying in of information required.
On occasion (as in once or at most twice yearly) the complainant could be asked to do up reports for different hauliers setting out a breakdown of invoices for the year of what was bulk feeds and what was bulk fertilizers, etc. This was a manual exercise necessitating going through invoices for the year and getting a final figure.
APPENDIX D
Equality Officer's Job Descriptions for the Named Comparators
Name: Mr. Vincent Walsh
Job Title: Head of Milk Quota Division
Reports to: Financial Controller
Number of Staff: 2 Clerical Assistants
Organisation: Kerry Agri Business
Location: Tralee
Hours of work: 9.00a.m. to 5.30p.m. (Monday to Friday)
Salary: €37,908 (as at 21st June, 2003 his date of retirement)
DUTIES:
As Head of the Milk Quota Division the named male comparator was responsible for the administration of milk quotas for Kerry.
The total Kerry quota amounted to 116 million gallons of milk. In Kerry there were 5,000 quota holders of which 3,000 were milk producers and 2,000 who were not active milk producers but who leased their quota to other farmers or temporarily leased their quota through the temporary leasing scheme. These quota holders also had the option of offering their quota to the restructuring scheme i.e. sell off the quota and have no rights to produce milk.
Each of the quota holders has an account number against which their account is maintained and updated. A milk quota is a quantity of milk which a supplier (farmer) can produce without incurring a superlevy fine during a milk quota year which commences on 1st April of one year and ends on 31st March the following year. All milk quota transactions are covered by the Milk Quota Regulations and audits are carried out by local auditors every 6 weeks and Department auditors once yearly.
The Milk Quota Scheme is subject to EU audit and this has happened on one occasion.
The Milk Quota Scheme comprises:
1. The Restructuring Scheme
2. Temporary Leasing Scheme
3. Quota Transfers via Solicitor's Offices (Outside Solicitors)
4. Quota Allocated from the National Reserve by the Department of Agriculture via the Milk Quota Appeals Tribunal
5. Allocation of Renewals Quota (Unused Quota) Flexi Milk
6. Provisional Superlevy fines (monthly)
7. Final Superlevy fines (Year end)
All of the above are detailed as follows:
1. Restructuring Scheme
The Restructuring Scheme is an annual exercise undertaken during the summer over a 2 - 3 month period. The Restructuring Scheme is a scheme for suppliers who want to sell their quotas. The scheme is operated by the respondent organisation for the Department of Agriculture who lays down the criteria. The purpose of the Restructuring Scheme is to purchase quotas from suppliers (farmers) wishing to sell them to create a pool of quota representing X million gallons of milk and to redistribute these quotas among suppliers wanting to purchase quotas.
The Department of Agriculture issues a memorandum and criteria to the respondent in respect of the Scheme. This information sets out how the Scheme should operate and this varies from year to year. It is the named male comparator's duty to read this documentation, interpret and implement it. In this regard the named male comparator prepares the appropriate forms for those suppliers who wish to buy and for those suppliers who wish to sell quotas. Once prepared the named male comparator passes the forms to the Secretary/Receptionist (the other named comparator in this case) who organises printing and distributes forms to the Branch Network. In relation to suppliers who wish to sell the named male comparator must ensure that the money for the sale of the quotas goes to the correct title holder. In some cases this may entail him checking folios in the Land Registry Office if in Tralee of getting the relevant folios from the supplier's solicitor if outside Tralee.
Suppliers looking to buy quota can be categorised into one of three groups as follows:
1. 0 - 40,000 gallons
2. 40,000 - 60,000 gallons
3. In excess of 60,000 gallons
Suppliers apply for the amount of quotas they require by completing and signing the relevant form. The local manager would certify that all the details are correct. Applications forms would be returned by a said date and the named male comparator's assistants would update the record where quotas were being surrendered. On occasion the named male comparator would input some of the data. When complete a report would be produced showing a listing of total quota that had been surrendered.
This quota is then distributed among suppliers seeking to purchase quotas and the allocation of these quotas is undertaken in accordance with criteria set by the Department of Agriculture. The named male comparator consults with the IT Department outlining his requirements so that the computer programs can generate the allocation of quota in accordance with criteria set by the Department of Agriculture. A report is generated setting out the allocation and the named male comparator has this sent to Branch Managers who check the allocations which are revised if necessary before suppliers are advised of the final allocation in a statement entitled Superlevy Report which accompanies their milk cheque. The named male comparator completes and signs a standard form for return to the Department of Agriculture which sets out details of quotas surrendered and quotas allocated.
2. Temporary Leasing Schemes
This Scheme is similar in operation to the Restructuring Scheme. It is where a supplier wants to lease quotas for the period of one year and have them returned to him at the beginning of the next year. There are two schemes operated one early in the year i.e. around April/May/June and another at the end of the year around October/November. Each scheme has a set of new forms i.e. one for purchase and one for lease and the named male comparator draws up these forms having regard to the criteria set by the Department of Agriculture. He passes the forms to the Secretary/Receptionist (i.e. the other named comparator in this claim) to have the forms printed and distributed among the network. The named male comparator consulted with the IT Department so that computer programs could be updated to allow the allocation of quotas be undertaken and records updated of suppliers leasing quotas. The named male comparator checks that the registered name on the account is the person applying for quotas to lease and that he is a milk producer in his own right. It is the named male comparator's duty to make a return on quotas leased to the Department of Agriculture twice yearly.
3. Quota Transfers via Solicitor's Offices
(a) Family transfer of Quotas where parents want to transfer quotas to their children. The named male comparator needs the supplier's solicitor to submit the following documentation:
- Department Milk Quota Transfer Form
- Deed of Transfer
- Map of Holding
Before the transfer can be effected the named male comparator needs to receive a copy of the Stamped Deed of Transfer to verify that the stamp duty was paid. Once satisfied that the documentation is correct the named male comparator directs that the clerical assistant would make the change on the quota. The named male comparator would then notify the supplier and his solicitor and the record in the supplier's next statement would be up-dated. The name change is passed to the complainant or one of her colleagues in the General Office to update the name change on the computer system. This was an on-going monthly task.
(b) Renewal of land leases that would expire. A supplier who is not supplying milk and wants to lease land then he must also lease the quota associated with that land. Land can be leased for periods of 1 year, 3 years or 5 years upwards. It is normally done for 3 years upwards. The named male comparator must receive the following documentation from the supplier's solicitor for examination:
- New Lease Agreement
- Milk Quota Transfer Form
- Map of Holding
- Contract of Sale
When satisfied that the documentation is correct the named male comparator organises the renewal of the land lease and the updating of records.
(c) Purchase of land with quota. For this to take place the named male comparator would need to examine the following documents which would be supplied by the supplier's solicitor namely:
- Contract of Sale
- Milk Quota Transfer Form
- Map of Holding
- Deed of Transfer
Again the named male comparator must satisfy himself that these documents are correct before he makes the necessary changes to update the records.
(d) Where a supplier had leased quotas he is entitled to purchase the quotas without purchasing the land. To effect a transfer from a lease to a permanent purchase the named male comparator would need to receive the following documents from the supplier's solicitor namely:
- Lease Agreement (which already existed)
- Milk Quota Transfer Form
- Map of Holding
- Notice of Purchase of Leased Quota by leasee
The named male comparator, once satisfied that the documentation is correct, would effect the changes and record them on the computer system. The named male comparator compiles an overall return at the end of the year and submits it to the Department of Agriculture.
4. Quota Allocation from the National Reserve
Suppliers who have had quota allocations but have given up the supplying of milk return their allocations to the Department of Agriculture to form what is known as the National Reserve. If the allocation came from the National Reserve it is returned to the National Reserve and cannot be resold. Also quota not utilised during a year (Dormant Quota) is returned to the National Reserve. The named male comparator completes a standard form annually on quotas not utilised during the year for submission to the Department of Agriculture. The form contains information such as name, address and number of gallons not utilised. On receipt of this information the Department would then write directly to the individual quota holders and ask for a reason as to why the quota was not utilised. If the reason given is deemed acceptable the supplier is informed that the quota is not being made dormant. After this process the Department notifies the named male comparator of the dormant list and it writes directly to the suppliers informing them that their quotas are now dormant. The named male comparator gets one of his assistants to up-date the records. The effect of this is to reduce the overall number of quota.
5. Allocation of Renewal Quotas (Unused Quota) Flexi Milk
This is a year end task where some suppliers are over and some are under in terms of milk production. The under is distributed among the over in accordance with Department of Agriculture guidelines. For example:
Some suppliers are over by 3 million gallons.
Other suppliers are under by 2 million gallons.
The 2 million gallons are distributed among the over suppliers in accordance with Department of Agriculture guidelines. The 1 million gallons remaining is then distributed with bigger amounts going to smaller categories and smaller amounts going to bigger categories in accordance with Department of Agriculture guidelines. The unders are flexi milk and it is given out free to suppliers. There is flexi milk available on a national basis and the Department of Agriculture notifies the named male comparator of the amount that is available for distribution. This national flexi milk is deducted from the 1 million gallons left as in the example above and the remainder is subject to a superlevy fine. Only those over the quota are charged the superlevy fine based on a percentage of the quota allocation to each supplier. The named male comparator informs the IT Department of the necessary information to enable programs to be amended to calculate the appropriate fine which is notified to suppliers through the branch network.
6. Provisional Superlevy Fines
The named male comparator deducts a monthly superlevy fine from supplier's cheque. If there is enough flexi milk to cover, the supplier gets back what he paid as a monthly provisional superlevy fine. As the quotas are updated constantly the named male comparator knows who is or is not liable for a superlevy fine. He must ensure that all schemes are finalised before applying the fine at the end of the year.
7. Final Superlevy Fine
This fine is applied by the named male comparator at the year end in accordance with Department of Agriculture criteria. Where a supplier is liable to a superlevy fine at year end which exceeds what has already been deducted monthly the additional payment is deducted from his account. When all appropriate deductions have been made the money is transferred to the Department of Agriculture. If the named male comparator miscalculates the superlevy fine due to the Department of Agriculture he will not receive a refund whereas if he underpays the Department the balance is sought.
On a monthly basis the named male comparator must provide information for management and board meetings on the quota position vs milk supply (i.e. is the respondent on course or does the respondent need to advise suppliers to come within quotas). The named male comparator must also update the Department of Agriculture on Milk Supply vs Quota by fax on the 5th working day of every month. Each month the named male comparator generates a superlevy report which gives an up-to-date position for each supplier in relation to his milk supply. This report is sent to the branch network for distribution to the suppliers with their cheques. The superlevy report sets out the following:
Position vs Milk Supply
What it was at this time the previous year
Indication on how to proceed e.g. pull back
National position year-to-date as received from the Department of Agriculture
The named male comparator has to deal with queries from suppliers. While an effort is made to have all supplier queries handled by local managers a number of queries are directed to the named male comparator.
The named male comparator is responsible for the allocation of work to the two clerical persons assigned to him. If these staff wish to take leave they must obtain the named male comparator's approval. However performance appraisal is carried out by the Financial Controller who would consult with the named male comparator on their performance. In the event of a grievance the clerical persons would address the grievance issue to the Financial Controller.
Name: Ms. Helene O'Connor
Job Title: Secretary/Receptionist
Reports to: General Manager of Kerry Agri Business
Number of Staff: None
Organisation: Kerry Agri Group
Location: Tralee
Hours of work: 9.00a.m. to 5.30p.m. (Monday to Friday)
Salary: €24,000 (as at December, 2002)
DUTIES:
The named comparator acted as Secretary to the General Manager and she also carried out Receptionist duties. She used the Microsoft Office Powerpoint Presentation Package to create presentations for the annual Group Planning Meeting. The information to be presented would be provided to the named comparator by the General Manager, the Financial Controller and the Head of Purchasing and Nutrient. The named comparator used the computer software package Powerpoint to present the information in as appropriate manner as possible. She would be required to import figures from the Excel Spreadsheet. When complete the named comparator printed out a hard copy of the presentation, put a copy on floppy disc and e-mailed a copy to the persons who had provided her with data. Some of the named comparator's layouts could be changed by the General Manager, Financial Controller or Head of Purchasing and Nutrient. Others would be accepted. On occasion when preparing presentations the named comparator had to work late with no compensation for same.
The named comparator also used Powerpoint to create presentations for Area Meetings held monthly. Again she would be given data for these meetings by the General Manager, Financial Controller and Head of Purchasing and Nutrient. The named comparator booked the venue for these presentations. In booking a venue she would have to have regard to various issues namely the distance Area Managers had to travel to attend the meeting i.e. no one manager would have to travel too far; the size and layout of the meeting room for at most 20 persons; etc.
The named comparator would also have to organise the necessary equipment and ensure that it was working properly. The equipment used at the meeting would come from the respondent organisation. If the meeting was scheduled to last the full day the named comparator organised lunch. Having organised the details for the meeting she then e-mailed the details to all attendees i.e. date, time and venue.
Following the meeting the named comparator would receive the invoice which she would check before passing to the General Manager to sign and then she passed the signed invoice to the Accounts Payable Section.
The named comparator prepared Board Reports monthly. This task took priority.
One week in advance of a Board meeting she would e-mail all persons who normally submitted information to the Board Report and she requested information by e-mail or fax. These persons included A.I. Station, Milk Quality Manager, Head of Purchasing and Nutrient, Financial Controller, General Manager and Head of Quota Division. On occasion the named comparator would have to contact some of these people a number of times before receiving the information. Where handwritten information was submitted the named comparator would have to type it in either Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel or both. On occasion she might have to scan in a relevant document from a magazine to the Microsoft system. When the General Manager had finalised the Board Report the named comparator would make up copies for each Director (i.e. 15 - 20) and place them in plastic folders. A further dated copy would be filed. The General Manager also attended the Board Meeting and on the day of the meeting, both before and after the meeting itself, various Directors would come to speak with him. The named comparator would have to be
discreet about his availability.
Elections took place for Advisory and Representative Committees on an annual basis. This was where farmers would elect their representative on these committees. The elections took place in the Autumn over a two week period in different geographical locations. It was the named comparator's responsibility to ensure that no meetings clashed. She organised these meetings in terms of date, time venue and venue layout in consultation with the relevant Area Managers. Having organised the meeting the named comparator would type up the relevant details and have a copy sent to each farmer with a copy of their milk statement. The named comparator would ensure that any equipment required for these meetings was available and working.
The named comparator booked flights and accommodation for the General Manager.
He mainly flew to Dublin for meetings and on many occasions he travelled up and down on the same day. On some occasions when he flew to Dublin he nay not be able to make the return flight and would return by train. The named comparator contacted the internal travel section regarding flights and sometimes she contacted Kerry Airport directly. In relation to train journeys the named comparator held in the region of 50 train tickets and if the General Manager took the train she would record the serial number of the ticket as being for business purposes. Invoices for travel expenses undertaken by the General Manager would be addressed to the named comparator and she would check them.
A large part of the named comparator's work related to phone calls. She would receive a lot of calls for the General Manager, she would have to filter these calls and deal with them herself or pass them on to someone else. The named comparator would also have to deal with irate callers. pushy callers who would want the General Manager interrupted even if he was at a meeting. If the named comparator received a telephone call from the Chief Executive Officer or from a person with whom the General Manager wanted to talk to urgently and the General Manager was at a meeting she would write the caller's name on a piece of paper and interrupt the meeting to pass the piece of paper to the General Manager. The named comparator recorded all phone calls received for the General Manager. She kept details of the time and date of the call, the caller's name, the purpose of the call and how it was dealt with. She had access to the General Manager's voicemail and she would listen to messages on it when he was on leave and she dealt with these messages as appropriate. When the General Manager was on leave the named comparator would pass his post to the Financial Controller or the Head of Purchasing and Nutrient as appropriate. Any post she dealt with herself she would make a note of how she handled it and leave this for the General Manager on his return. The named comparator also had access to the General Manager's e-mails and if anything urgent was sent to him she would contact him.
The named comparator set up the filing system in consultation with the General Manager and she filed away highly confidential information.
Area Managers sent in their expenses monthly to the named comparator. She checked these expense claim forms and any attached invoices before passing them to the General Manager for signature and authorisation. Then the named comparator passed these forms to Accounts Payable for payment.
The named comparator looked after petty cash. On a daily basis she collected the newspapers and on a weekly basis she collected the Farmer's Journal for the General Manager from the local newsagent. The named comparator received an invoice monthly for newspapers and she paid for them from petty cash. She filed the Farmer's Journal which is retained for 1 year in the office and for another year in Stores. The named comparator signed off on the petty cash monthly or when it ran low. When she needed more petty cash she submitted a request for the amount of money required and this request was signed by the General Manager. She then gave it to the Head Accountant who would approve it and pass it to Accounts for a cheque payable to petty cash to be issued. On receipt the named comparator would go to the Bank and cash the cheque. She kept a record of all expenses from petty cash which was available for inspection. The petty cash float was at most €100 but on some occasions it exceeded €100 when there was a special event on.
On an annual basis the named comparator organised about 30 Christmas hampers for clients. She ordered the products for the hampers (i.e. chocolates, alcohol and hams). The named comparator would get straw and order boxes and she sometimes had to collect the boxes. When made up the named comparator would contact Area Managers to say that the hampers were ready for collection. On collection Area Managers would sign for them.
Once a week on a Friday the named comparator organised a conference call for the Head of Purchasing and Nutrient. Other persons involved in the conference call came from Cross-Channel, Northern Ireland and from within the Republic of Ireland. There would be 6 to 8 people involved and the named comparator would e-mail them to advise them that the call would be going ahead and she gave them the relevant Pin Number, Telephone Number, date and time of the call. If too few people were available for the call it would not go ahead.
The Head of Purchasing and Nutrient, as part of his remit, looks after the prices for feeds and fertilisers. When there were changes in these he would inform the named comparator and she would amend them on the system, print them out and send copies to each of the 23 branches approximately by e-mail, fax and hard copy. The named comparator also amended formula for Poultry having received the amended information from the Head of Purchasing and Nutrient and she sent out copies to branches as before.
The named comparator made sure that each branch received appropriate quantities of brochures.
On a monthly basis, following a request, the named comparator e-mailed material, in the appropriate layout, to Corporate Affairs for inclusion on the website.
APPENDIX F
Analysis by the Equality Officer of the jobs of the complainant and the named comparators
Ms. Quilter (complainant) vs Mr. Walsh (named male comparator)
Skill
The complainant had to know how to handle the variety of expenses received in relation to the respondent's fleet. This required her having a knowledge of using the Nominal Ledger on the computer system. In this job the complainant needed an aptitude for figures and an appreciation of accounting concepts and the reconciliation of accounts.
The named male comparator needed to be able to use a computer to perform his job. He had to be able to delegate routine tasks and deal himself with the more complex issues. The named male comparator needed the ability to understand the various criteria documents issued by the Department of Agriculture, illicit the relevant information and correctly apply it in the management of quotas and the application of fines. He had to be able to draw up forms for completion by suppliers. The named male comparator needed to be able to check folios in the Land Registry Office and know what information to obtain. He had to know what information to check in documentation submitted from solicitors in relation to quota transfers. The named male comparator had to be a good oral and written communicator in dealing with queries from a variety of different people (e.g. suppliers, solicitors, members of management, etc.) and in the provision of written material to suppliers, management, board members and the Department of Agriculture.
I find that the skills required of the named male comparator were greater than those required of the complainant.
Physical Requirements
There were no physical requirements associated with complainant's job.
There were no physical requirements associated with the job undertaken by the named male comparator which would be outside those normally associated with a person undertaking an office based job.
I am satisfied that the demands made on the complainant in terms of physical requirements were equal to those made on the named male comparator.
Mental Requirements
The complainant had to monitor accounts and ensure that they reconciled. She had to check invoices to ensure that they reflected the purchase requisition in respect of 3rd party materials. On a monthly basis the complainant would calculate the total for accruals before VAT and apportion them out among the regions.
In managing of the Milk Quota Division the named male comparator was subject to numerous deadlines and he was obliged to produce the necessary documentation to meet these deadlines. The named male comparator required a thorough understanding of the Milk Quota Schemes to ensure that all aspects of all schemes functioned correctly. The onus was on the named male comparator to monitor the operation of the schemes and ensure that Department's guidelines and criteria were not being breached. He also had to monitor the work of his staff to ensure that it was been undertaken in an accurate and timely fashion.
I find that the demands made on the named male comparator in terms of mental requirements were greater than those made on the complainant.
Responsibility
The complainant was responsible for maintaining accounts in relation to the respondent's transport fleet. This involved the cross-checking of invoices against requisitions, doing journal entries and producing standard reports. In relation to accruals the complainant had to use her discretion to apportion them among the regions. The complainant updated information of suppliers on the computer system. The named male comparator was responsible for the administration of milk quotas in Kerry. This required an examination, interpretation and implementation of documentation from the Department of Agriculture on the various Schemes. It was the named male comparator's responsibility to draw up forms for the Restructuring Scheme and the Temporary Leasing Scheme. He was responsible for ensuring that the money for the sale of quotas went to the correct title holder. The named male comparator needed to maintain an up-to-date database system so that he could identify suppliers who had not utilised their quota and notify the Department of Agriculture accordingly. In relation to the making of the final superlevy fine to the Department of Agriculture it was the named male comparator's responsibility to ensure that the correct amount was paid to the Department. If an amount in excess of the due amount was paid it was not recoverable. The named male comparator was responsible for the documentation he supplied to suppliers, management, board members and the Department. It was his responsibility to assign work to the two clerical staff reporting to him. The work undertaken by the named male comparator was subject to audit on a regular basis.
I find that the demands made on the named male comparator in terms of responsibility were greater than those made on the complainant.
Working Conditions
The complainant worked in an office environment
The named male comparator worked in an office environment.
I am satisfied that the demands made on the complainant and the named male comparator in terms of working conditions were equal.
Ms. Quilter (complainant) vs Ms. O'Connor (named comparator)
Skill
The complainant had to know how to handle the variety of expenses received in relation to the respondent's fleet. This required her having a knowledge of using the Nominal Ledger on the computer system. In this job the complainant needed an aptitude for figures and an appreciation of accounting concepts and the reconciliation of accounts.
The named comparator had to know how to use the computer package Microsoft Office. She had to be able to import information from Excel to Powerpoint. The named comparator had to be familiar with the e-mail system and accessing the General Manager's e-mail. When doing presentations in Powerpoint the named comparator had to have an ability to create clear, eye catching and attractive presentations. She had to be able to use the scanner to scan documents into the system which she had to do occasionally. There was a high level of organisation required of the named comparator in her job. She had to organise venues for meetings and ensure that the venue met the requirements for the meeting i.e. layout, equipment working properly and participants receiving adequate notice. The named comparator handled a lot of phone calls as part of her job. She had to have a good telephone manner at all times and she had to deal with calls efficiently and effectively. In directing calls the named comparator had to use her discretion and direct calls appropriately. She set up the filing system to facilitate the retrieval of information. It was the named comparator's duty to reconcile the petty cash monthly. When preparing information for the website the named comparator had to ensure that it was properly laid out before passing it to Corporate Affairs.
I am satisfied that the skills required of the named comparator were greater than those required of the complainant.
Physical Requirements
There were no physical requirements associated with complainant's job.
There were no major physical requirements associated with the named comparator's job. On occasion she went to local venues where meetings were being held to check out room layout. She went to the local newsagent daily for newspapers for the General Manager and to the Bank monthly to cash cheques for petty cash. On rare occasions she would have to collect boxes for hampers.
I am satisfied that there were greater physical requirements associated with the job performed by the named comparator.
Mental Requirements
The complainant had to monitor accounts and ensure that they reconciled. She had to check invoices to ensure that they reflected the purchase requisition in respect of 3rd party materials. On a monthly basis the complainant would calculate the total for accruals before VAT and apportion them out among the regions.
When preparing presentations the named comparator needed to concentrate on this task to ensure that the product of her work was acceptable to the General Manager, Financial Controller and the Head of Purchasing and Nutrient. The named comparator had to filter telephone calls and decide how best to handle them especially when the caller may be irate. She kept a record of all calls received for the General Manager. In the absence of the General Manager the named comparator used her discretion in dealing with messages for the General Manager.
I find that the demands made on the complainant in relation to mental requirements were equal to those made of the named comparator.
Responsibility
The complainant was responsible for maintaining accounts in relation to the respondent's transport fleet. This involved the cross-checking of invoices against requisitions, doing journal entries and producing standard reports. In relation to accruals the complainant had to use her discretion to apportion them among the regions. The complainant updated information of suppliers on the computer system. The named comparator was fully responsible for generating presentations which were clear, concise and pleasing to the eye and for the preparation of reports for Board Meetings on a monthly basis all of which had to be circulated to the appropriate persons in full and on time. She was responsible for organising meetings in terms of time, venue, room layout, equipment availability, etc. She acted as Secretary to the General Manager and as such was responsible for organising travel and accommodation for him when he was away from the office. The named comparator had to deal with messages (callers in person, phone calls, voice messages and e-mails) in his absence. She was responsible for handling money and maintaining the petty cash. On a weekly basis the named comparator was responsible for organising a conference call. When the named comparator amended feed and fertiliser prices and formula for Poultry it was her responsibility to ensure that they were amended correctly.
I am satisfied that the demands made on the named comparator, in terms of responsibility, were greater than those made on the complainant.
Working Conditions
The complainant worked in an office environment.
The named comparator worked in an office environment. She had to go to the local newsagent daily and the bank monthly in all weather conditions.
I find that the demands made on the named comparator, in terms of working conditions, were greater than those made on the complainant.