WELDON
AND
CRAMPTON BLIND SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.
1. DISPUTE
This dispute concerns a claim by Mr. Damien Weldon that he is entitled to the same rate of remuneration as that paid by Crampton Blind Supply Company Ltd. to a named comparator in circumstances where he performs "like work" with that comparator in terms of sections 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2004 and in accordance with section 29 of those Acts. The complaint was referred on grounds of age.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The complaint was employed as a General Operative/Storeperson by the respondent at its factory in Dublin from July, 2001 until March, 2006. He had previously worked for the respondent in a similar capacity between September, 2000 and March, 2001. The comparator was also employed by the respondent as a General Operative/Storeperson and commenced employment with it in February, 2001.
2.2 The complainant submitted a claim on 8 September, 2005 to the Equality Tribunal contending that he performed "like work" with the named comparator in terms of section 7(1)(b) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 and 2004 and consequently he was entitled to the same rate of remuneration as that paid to the named comparator in accordance with section 29 of the Acts. In accordance with her powers under the Acts the Director delegated the complaint to Mr. Vivian Jackson, Equality Officer, for investigation and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions under the Act. A preliminary hearing took place on 24 April, 2007. Work inspections took place on 19 June, 2007. Following the work inspections the Equality Officer advised that parties that he was of the opinion that the issue of "like work" should also be examined under section 7(1)(c) of the Acts and invited the parties' comments on same. A final hearing took place on 30 August, 2007. Issues arose at the hearing which required further clarification and the final piece of information was furnished to the Equality Officer on 4 September, 2007.
3. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINANT'S SUBMISSION
The complainant states that he was employed as a General Operative/Storeperson by the respondent at its factory in Dublin from July, 2001 until March, 2006. He had previously worked for the respondent in a similar capacity between September, 2000 and March, 2001. He states that he performed a wide range of tasks/duties including preparation of customers' orders, stock management, dispatch of customers' orders and duties on the Sales Desk. The complainant adds that the comparator commenced employment with the respondent as a General Operative/Storeperson in February, 2001 and from the outset was paid a higher hourly rate of pay. The complainant contends that he performed "like work" with the comparator for the full period of their employment and his claim of equal pay is therefore for the maximum period of three years from the date of referral of his claim permitted under the Acts until he ceased employment with the respondent i.e. 9 September, 2002 until 1 March, 2006.
4. SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION
The respondent rejects the complainant's assertion that he performs "like work" with the named comparator and notwithstanding this submits that there are grounds other than age for the difference in the rates of remuneration paid to them. The respondent accepts the dates of employment submitted by the complainant. It also accepts that the comparator is older than the complainant and was paid a higher hourly rate of pay at all times during the period in question. These rates of pay are set out at Appendix 1.
5. CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
5.1 In reaching my decision on this claim I have taken into consideration all of the submissions, both oral and written, made to me by the parties. I have also taken into consideration the work inspection and interviews I carried out with the complainant and comparator on the role and duties of each of their jobs. In the course of the Final Hearing both parties accepted that the work inspections were comprehensive and the respondent advised that they had no comment to make on examining the issue of "like work" in terms of section 7(1)(c) of the Acts. Details of my analysis of the jobs of the complainant and comparator are at Appendices 2 and 3 respectively.
5.2 The complainant submits that he performs "like work" with the comparator in terms of sections 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 and 2004. I must therefore examine his claim under each of these provisions. Section 7(1)(b) of the Acts states that two persons shall be regarded as performing "like work" with each other if " the work performed by one is similar in 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,". From my analysis and comparison of the roles of each job (See Appendices 2-4) I am satisfied that the work performed by Mr. Weldon is similar in nature to that performed by Mr. Cody and that he performs "like work" with the named comparator in terms of section 7(1)(b) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 and 2004. It follows that he is therefore entitled to the same rate of remuneration as that paid to Mr. Cody in accordance with section 29(1) of the Acts, unless the respondent can show that the rates paid to them are lawful in terms of section 29(5) of those Acts.
5.3 In the interests of completeness I propose to examine Mr. Weldon's claim under section 7(1)(c) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 and 2004. That section provides that two persons shall be regarded as performing "like work" with each other if "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 effort, responsibility and working conditions.". From my analysis and comparison of the roles of each job (See Appendices 2-4) I am satisfied that the work performed by Mr Weldon is higher in value that that performed by the named comparator. Section 7(3) of the Acts provide that in circumstances where a complainant is receiving a lower rate of remuneration than a comparator and the work performed by that person is greater in value than the work performed by the comparator, the work performed by the complainant shall be regarded as equal in value to that performed by the comparator. I therefore find that the complainant and comparator perform "like work" in terms of section 7(1)(c) of the Acts. It follows therefore that Mr. Weldon is entitled to the same rate of remuneration as that paid to Mr. Cody in accordance with section 29(1) of the Acts, unless the respondent can show that the rates paid to them are lawful in terms of section 29(5) of those Acts.
5.4 The respondent submitted that there were grounds other than age which rendered the rates of remuneration paid to the complainant and comparator lawful in terms of section 29(5) of the Acts. In the course of the Final Hearing it merely asserted that Mr. Cody was more experienced than the complainant but adduced no tangible evidence to support this assertion. Consequently, I am not satisfied that the respondent had demonstrated that the rates of remuneration paid to the parties are lawful.
6. RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION
6.1 I find that complainant performs "like work" with the named comparator in terms of sections 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 and 2004. I further find that he is entitled to the same rates of remuneration as that paid to the comparator in accordance with section 29(1) of the Acts and the respondent has not discharged the burden on it to demonstrate that the rates of remuneration paid to the parties are lawful in terms of section 29(5) of the Acts.
6.2 In light of my findings in the preceding paragraph, I order, in accordance with my powers under section 82 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2007, that the respondent pay the complainant the same hourly rate of basic remuneration as that paid to the comparator for the period 9 September, 2002 until 1 March, 2006. The calculation of these arrears should take account of the various increases paid to both parties, as detailed at Appendix 1 to this Decision. These basic rates should be applied to all overtime worked by the complainant during that period (at the appropriate hourly rates having regard to the dates detailed at Appendix 1) and the appropriate arrears in respect of this element should also be paid to the complainant.
Vivian Jackson
Equality Officer
22 October, 2007