Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: AEP922
Case Number: DEP933
Section / Act: S8(1)AD
Parties: CAHILL MAY ROBERTS LIMITED - and - TWELVE FEMALE EMPLOYEES;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
|
Subject:
Appeal by the Union against Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EP2/1992 concerning a dispute as to whether or not 12 female employees are entitled under the Act to the same rate of remuneration as that paid to one named comparator.
Recommendation:
4. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, and having visited the workplace to examine the work of
those concerned, is satisfied that the conclusions of the Equality
Officer,
(a) "that the work being done by the comparator is more demanding,
in terms of physical effort, responsibility and working
conditions than the work performed by the claimants",
and
(b) "that the differences between the work of the comparator and
the work of the claimants constituted objective reasons which
would warrant a difference in remuneration" were well founded
and that her rejection of the claim for equal remuneration was
therefore justified.
The Court therefore upholds the Equality Officer's Recommendation.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEP922 DETERMINATION NO. DEP393
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT, 1974
SECTION 8(1)(A)
PARTIES: CAHILL MAY ROBERTS LIMITED
and
TWELVE FEMALE EMPLOYEES
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Equality Officer's Recommendation
No. EP2/1992 concerning a dispute as to whether or not 12 female
employees are entitled under the Act to the same rate of
remuneration as that paid to one named comparator.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The background to this dispute is set out in the Equality
Officer's Recommendation in Appendix 1. The Recommendation
was issued to the parties on 8th April, 1993.
2. By letter dated 28th April, 1992, the Union on behalf of
the 12 female employees appealed the Equality Officer's
Recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 8(1)(A) of
the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974. The Union's letter
stating its grounds of appeal is attached as Appendix 2.
3. A Labour Court investigation was held on 13th October,
1992. The Court heard the oral and written submissions of the
parties. The Company's and Union's written submissions are
attached as appendices 3 and 4.
4. The Court visited the Company to examine the work of the
claimants and the comparator on 18th March, 1993.
DETERMINATION:
4. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, and having visited the workplace to examine the work of
those concerned, is satisfied that the conclusions of the Equality
Officer,
(a) "that the work being done by the comparator is more demanding,
in terms of physical effort, responsibility and working
conditions than the work performed by the claimants",
and
(b) "that the differences between the work of the comparator and
the work of the claimants constituted objective reasons which
would warrant a difference in remuneration" were well founded
and that her rejection of the claim for equal remuneration was
therefore justified.
The Court therefore upholds the Equality Officer's Recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
15th June, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
APPENDICES
1. Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EP2/1992.
2. The Union's letter of appeal.
3. The Company's submission.
4. The Union's submission.