DEC-E2005-014 Full Case Report

Mr Enda Dillon Heatonsgrove Ltd.

1. DISPUTE
   1. This dispute concerns a claim by Mr Enda Dillon who was employed at Heatonsgrove Ltd., Tullamore, Co Offaly that he was entitled to receive the same rate of remuneration as that paid to an older comparator employed by the company.
      
2. BACKGROUND
   1. The complainant, aged 32 at time of the complaint, had been employed as a welder for five years at Heatonsgrove, Tullamore engineering works and left the company in disputed circumstances on 22nd November, 2002. The complainant alleges that he was paid a lower rate of remuneration than the comparator, who was aged 40 at the time, because of his younger age.
   2. The complainant referred a complaint to the Director on 16th 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 on 14th February, 2003 to Raymund Walsh, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision. A preliminary hearing was held on 28th May, 2003. The respondent indicated at the preliminary hearing that it was disputing ‘like work’ between the complainant and the named comparator and submissions were sought from the parties. Arising from difficulties in corresponding with the complainant’s nominated representative at the time, submissions were not exchanged until 27th May, 2004. A work inspection took place at the respondent’s premises on 8th July, 2004. The respondent’s accountant who was present at the work inspection indicated that the respondent may make a further response to points emerging in the course of the work inspection however no additional material was supplied and I am satisfied that I have sufficient evidence before me to bring the matter to conclusion and to issue my decision.
      
3. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANT’S CASE
   1. The complainant worked as a welder at the respondent’s engineering firm having previously trained with the national railway company as a fitter / turner with experience in diesel engines and welding. The main production items at the plant are large industrial scale screens or sieves and related conveyors used in quarrying type operations. Steel arrives mainly in sheet and cylindrical form and is cut and turned to form the various components i.e. bearing housings, shafts etc. before assembly and spray painting. The complainant’s describes his duties as follows :
      
      Lathe Operations (Colchester 1600 Shortbed Lathe)
      • Screen shafts
      • Bearing housings
      • Head-drums and tail-drum shafts for conveyors
      • Cut piping and back plate for screens
      • Cut piping and lids for head-drums and tail drums
      • Profiling
      • Milling on internal and external keyways
      • Bandsaw work and welding
   2. The complainant states that in addition to the steelwork he also carried out maintenance on the forklift trucks, cranes and management’s cars and spray painted finished assemblies. The complainant describes the comparator’s duties as similar to his own but accepts that he was a team leader and checked his work. The complainant states that this checking was necessary to ensure that the parts he was working on would fit into the housings that the comparator was making.
   3. In the course of the work inspection the complainant stated that he was not seeking the same rate of pay as the comparator but was seeking to maintain relativity with the comparator and went on to say that when the comparator got an increase his own pay stood still.
      
4. SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT’S CASE
   1. The respondent states that the comparator in this case is a machinist with 25 years experience, 15 of which were dedicated to the design and production of screen parts and is one of five team leaders at the plant. The complainant was one of three of his team members and describes his functions as lathe helper / handy man. The respondent states that the comparator’s most basic function is to assign work to each of his team members and oversee that the work was carried out correctly. He is also responsible for ordering the materials required by the team for the work in hands.
   2. The respondent states that as chief machinist, the comparator works with the drawing staff to design any new bearing housing / screen part that is required and adds that every bearing housing manufactured at the plant in the past twelve years was designed by the comparator. The respondent states that of all the screen parts that are manufactured on the premises, the bearing housing is the most complex and most expensive part of the screen and can cost up to €2,500. The respondent states that there are three stages in the manufacture of a bearing housing :
      1. Profiling
         High tolerance (low accuracy) turning where work can be oversize by 20mm to 30mm. Can be done by anybody with limited profiling experience and would be done by complainant or another team member.
      2. Cleaning up parts
         Reduced tolerance (more accuracy) to within 5mm oversize. Work requires basic lathe skills and usually done by the complainant or comparator.
      3. Final cut
         The final stage of the process which requires ‘the most skill and deftest touch’ where tolerances are down to a few hundredths of a millimetre. This stage is always carried out by the comparator on a higher precision lathe (Colchester 1600 shortbed).
   3. The respondent states that the comparator’s higher rate of pay reflected his additional responsibilities in relation to product design, ordering materials, supervision of team members and finishing parts to high degree of accuracy, functions which the comparator did not have. The respondent furnished payroll records for 14th November, 2002 which showed the comparator’s hourly rate of pay to be €12.95 as against the complainant’s hourly rate of €8.89.
      
5. CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
   1. I carried out a work inspection at the plant accompanied by the complainant, who is no longer employed at the plant, and the respondent’s accountant. The comparator was available as required and outlined his functions including his supervisory role in relation to the complainant’s work and that of the other team members.
   2. It was quite clear from the work inspection that the comparator is a senior machinist who carried additional duties in relation to design, materials, supervision of team members and precision finishing of parts, functions which the complainant did not have and that the complainant was not engaged on like work. The complainant appeared to accept this in the course of the work inspection when he stated that he was not seeking the same remuneration as the comparator but sought to maintain ‘relativity’ for the period that he was employed at the plant. Whether or not there is any merit in that argument it is not a matter for this investigation. In referring a complaint to the Director the complainant set out that his work was the same or of equal value to that of the comparator and that the reason he was paid a lower rate of pay was because of his age. I am satisfied on foot of this investigation that the complainant was not engaged on like work with the comparator within the meaning of Section 7 of the 1998 Act.
      
6. DECISION
   1. On the basis of the foregoing, I find that Heatonsgrove Ltd did not discriminate against the complainant on the age ground with regard to his pay contrary to the provisions of Section 29 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

Gerardine Coyle
Equality Officer

1st March, 2005