Ms Patricia McGrath(Represented by SIPTU) AND Irish Sugar Plc, Carlow
1. DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Ms Patricia McGrath (a) that Irish Sugar Plc discriminated against her contrary to the provisions of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 in the manner in which packaging machine operators were selected for additional duties and (b) that she is entitled to the same rate of remuneration as that paid to a named male comparator who is in receipt of an allowance in respect of those additional duties.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The Complainant is employed at Irish Sugar Plc as an operator on the sugar packaging line. The complainant states that she was paid a lower rate of remuneration than the male comparator because of her gender and also that she was discriminated on the ground of her gender in the manner in which two male operators, including the comparator, were selected for the duties which attract the additional allowance.
2.2 The complainant referred a complaint to the Director of Equality Investigations on 28th March 2001 under the Employment Equality Act, 1998. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of that Act, the Director then delegated the case on 5th April, 2001 to Raymund Walsh, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision. The parties attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the matter at mediation and the complainant requested a resumption of the investigation on 15th January, 2002. A preliminary hearing was held on 23rd August, 2002. The respondent indicated at the preliminary hearing that it was disputing 'like work' between the complainant and the named comparators and submissions were sought from the parties (a) in relation to the alleged discriminatory selection for higher duties and (b) in relation to the matter of 'like work'. A work inspection took place at the respondent's premises in Carlow on 1st April 2003 followed by a further hearing at a nearby hotel. Subsequent correspondence with the parties arising from the work inspection and hearing concluded in April 2003.
3. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANT'S CASE
3.1 The complainant works as an operator on the sugar packaging line at the respondent's factory in Carlow. The packaging machines are referred to as SIG machines and the operators are referred to as SIG operators. SIPTU states that prior to 1997 there were two foremen above the complainant on the SIG line however following an independent review carried out in 1997 the foremen and the complainant were placed at the same level. Certain quality control problems emerged in the year 2000 and the company identified additional quality control duties to be carried out on the packaging line. SIPTU states that the workers convened a general meeting and agreed that the two most senior operators would take on responsibility for the additional quality control checks. The complainant was present at the meeting and voiced her opposition to the proposal but was over-ruled. SIPTU entered a claim for an additional allowance for the two senior operators in respect of the additional duties and an allowance was awarded through the Independent Job Grading Scheme in operation in the Company.
3.2 SIPTU states that the complainant regularly carries out the additional quality control duties on a relief basis when a senior operator is away from the line and for that reason is claiming entitlement to the additional allowance which the duty attracts.
4. SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT'S CASE
4.1 The respondent outlined the background to the case in its submission and concurs with the version of events outlined at 3.1 above with regard to the manner in which the additional quality control duties came about, the selection of the two most senior operatives and the subsequent award of a higher duty allowance for the duty.
4.2 The company states that there are two other operators on the line at the same level as the complainant, they both are male and are paid the same remuneration. All three carry out the quality control duties on a relief basis for short periods during the day e.g. when a senior operator is on break. The company states that the operators are not responsible on a full time basis for the implementation of the quality control measures and are not therefore entitled to the same rate of remuneration as the senior operators.
5. CONCLUSIONS FO THE EQUALITY OFFICER
5.1 I will firstly address the alleged discriminatory treatment in relation to the selection of the most senior operators for the additional quality control duties. This decision was, in the Union's own words, taken collectively by its members, with the Union's agreement and the respondent played no part in it. The complainant herself appears to take the view that the company acquiesced in allowing a discriminatory selection procedure to go ahead, albeit if not of its own design. I note that the two most senior operators were formerly the foremen n the packaging line and I find no grounds for arguing that the complainant was not selected for additional duties because of her gender or that the company oversaw a discriminatory selection process. I formed the opinion that the complainant's dispute in relation to the selection procedure was with the local SIPTU representatives and not with the respondent. I regard the complaint of discriminatory treatment in this regard to be unfounded.
5.2 I examined the operation of the SIG machines and observed the complainant and comparator at their stations. There is no dispute between the parties as to the normal operator duties and there is no need to detail them here. The dispute concerns the additional quality control checks for which the senior operators receive a higher duty allowance. SIPTU accepts that the complainant only carries these duties out on a relief basis and is not responsible for signing off on the daily quality control checks which are listed in Appendix 1. I am satisfied that the senior operator carries an additional responsibility and accountability in relation to the quality control checks and that the complainant is not therefore engaged on like work with the comparator. I note also that two male operators carry out the same functions and receive the same remuneration as the complainant. I must conclude therefore that the complainant is not discriminated against on the grounds of her gender in relation to pay and is not entitled to the same remuneration as the comparator.
6. DECISION
6.1 On the basis of the foregoing, I find that Irish Sugar Plc
- did not discriminate against the complainant on the gender ground in terms of Section 6(2)(a) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and contrary to the provisions of Section 8 of that Act with regard to the selection of operators for additional duties
- did not discriminate against the complainant on the gender ground with regard to her pay in terms of section 19 and section 29 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.
Raymund Walsh
Equality Officer
14 June, 2004
APPENDIX 1
List of Additional Quality Control Duties
1. Magnet Checks
- One extra before start-up
- Bags rejected with 'test' can be put back on the line (before metal detector)
- Genuine rejects - label with a HOLD sticker for Q.C.
2. Conveyor / Belt Checks
- Check to see that there are no major fraying edges. If there are, cut off when the belt is stopped.
3. High Risk Glass and Sharps
- A list will be decided on that contains Glass and Sharps in a High Risk Area - where, if broken pieces could get into the sugar/product.
- Check that all items are intact before start-up and at shut down.
4. Packaging Traceability
- Information regarding the 1kg packaging material must be recorded.
- When using a new roll (for all products) keep the sticker on the inside core - put onto packaging check report.
- If using only ½ a roll - put a blank label on the remainder and put on that day's date (we can trace the order number of that roll).
5. Number of Rejects
- Attempt to monitor number of genuine rejects (due to metal) exclude 'test' rejects, rejects due to bad tops/ deals etc.