Golding v Labour Court

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Keane
Judgment Date14 March 1994
Neutral Citation1994 WJSC-HC 804
Date14 March 1994
CourtHigh Court
Docket NumberJudicial Review No. 241JR/93

1994 WJSC-HC 804

THE HIGH COURT

Judicial Review No. 241JR/93
GOLDING v. LABOUR COURT
IN THE MATTER OF THE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT 1974

BETWEEN

GOLDING AND OTHERS
APPLICANTS

AND

THE LABOUR COURT
RESPONDENT

AND

CAHILL MAY ROBERTS LIMITED
NOTICE PARTY

Citations:

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT 1974 S3

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT 1974 S8(1)(A)

ANHEUSER BUSCH INC V CONTROLLER OF PATENTS 1987 IR 329, 1988 ILRM 247

CREEDON, STATE V CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1988 IR 51, 1989 ILRM 104

NORTH WESTERN HEALTH BOARD V MARTYN 1987 IR 565

FAULKNER V MIN FOR INDUSTRY & COMMERCE (1993) 4 ELR 187

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT 1974 S3(a)

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT 1974 S3(b)

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT 1974 S3(c)

Synopsis:

TRIBUNAL

Decision

Reasons - Disclosure - Duty - Discharge - Woman - Remuneration - Equality required if woman employed on like work as man - Recommendation of equality officer affirmed by Labour Court - Whether determination of Labour Court disclosed the reasons for such determination - Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, ss. 2, 3, 8 - (1993/241 JR - Keane J. - 14/3/94)

|Golding v. The Labour Court|

EMPLOYMENT

Discrimination

Employees - Remuneration - Women - Equality - Statute - Requirement - Whether male and female employees performed like work - Tribunal - Decision - Obligation to state reasons - (1993/241 JR - Keane J. - 14/3/94)

|Golding v. The Labour Court|

1

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Keanedelivered the14th day of March 1994

2

The Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act 1974a seeks to give effect in our law to the principle of equal pay for equal work. It establishes a machinery under which a dispute between an employer and an employee as to whether women are doing the same work as men so as to be entitled to equal pay in respect of that work may be referred to an officer of the Labour Court, called an "Equality Officer" for his or her investigation and recommendation. There is then provision for an appeal by either party from any recommendation of theEquality Officer to the Labour Court. In turn, a party may appeal from the Labour Court to the High Court on a point of law.

3

In the present case, the Applicants, who are all women employees of the Notice Party, claimed that they were performing work which was "like work" (to use the terminology of the Act of 1974) to work performed by a male employee and hence were entitled to the same rate of remuneration. The claim was disputed by the Notice Party and referred to an Equality Officer. Having conducted an investigation, she issued a recommendation to the effect that the work performed by the Applicants was not "like work" within the meaning of the Act of 1974. The Applicants appealed to the Labour Court from that recommendation and in their determination the Labour Court upheld the recommendation of the Equality Officer. On the 26th July, 1993, Flood J gave leave to the Applicants to apply for Orders of Declaration and Mandamus by way of application for judicial review in respect of the determination of the Labour Court. The Respondents and the Notice Party having delivered Statements of Opposition, the present application was brought by way of Notice of Motion seeking the relief in question.

4

While a number of grounds were set out in the statement filed on behalf of the Applicants, at the hearing before me one ground only was relied on, i.e. that the Respondents gave no reasons for their determination. In the result, it was said, the Applicants were wrongfully deprived of an opportunity to appeal to the High Court on a point of law and the High Court was also prevented from carrying out its supervisory jurisdiction over tribunals of this nature inthe present case. It followed, it was submitted, that the requirements of natural justice had not been met and that, since one member of the Court which issued the determination had retired, this could not be met by remitting the case to the Respondents for a statement of its reasons: it would be necessary for the decision to be set aside and a fresh hearing of the appeal to be held by a differently constituted division of the Respondents.

5

The Applicants are employed as clerical staff in the Telesales Department of the Notice Party, a pharmaceutical wholesale company. They claimed to be entitled to the same rate of remuneration as that paid to one named "comparator". The Equality Officer set out her findings in a detailed written report following an investigation and a hearing at which the Applicants were represented by the Services, Industrial, Professional and Technical Union. In the course of her report, she considered the application to the facts as found by her of S.3 of the Act of 1974 which sets out three circumstances in which persons are to be regarded as employed on "like work", i.e.

6

a "(a) where both perform the same work under the same or similar conditions, or where each is in every respect interchangeable with the other in relation to the work, or

7

(b) where 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 occur only infrequently or are of small importance in relation to the work as a whole, or

8

(c) where the work performed by one is equal in valueto that performed by the other in terms of the demands it makes in relation to such matters as skill, physical or mental effort, responsibility and working conditions."

9

She concluded that, in the light of the factual findings made by her, the work performed by the Applicants was not "like work" within the meaning of any of the three sub-paragraphs cited. She accordingly made her recommendation in these terms:

"In view of my conclusions in paragraphs 21, 27 and 29 that the claimants do not perform like work to that performed by the named comparator in terms of Section 3(a), 3(b) or 3(c) of the Act, I find that the claimants have no entitlement to the same rate of remuneration as that paid to the named comparator."

10

The Union, acting on behalf of the Applicants, gave Notice of Appeal to the Registrar of the Respondents on the 28th April 1992 in a letter which stated

"The grounds for the appeal are:-"

11

1. That the recommendation fails to recognise the effective split in the job of the comparator between the telesales and warehouse.

12

2. The recommendation fails to recognise the real rate of the comparator including the fixed overtime.

13

3. The recommendation wrongly assumes the existence of a supervisor in the Telesales Department.

14

4. The recommendation fails to recognise the role of the second hospital specialist i.e. one of the claimants.

15

5. The recommendation seriously undervalues the workof the claimants.

16

6. The recommendation has errors in the matter of time spent by the comparator in the warehouse and in the nature of the duties carried outthere.

17

7. The recommendation is wrong in that the change in the work practices of the comparator arose solely from the claimants' case.

18

8. The recommendation fails to recognise the work of the claimants in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT