SECTION 8(1)(A), ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT, 1974
THE STEEL COMPANY OF IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
MS. DENISE WILTON
(REPRESENTED BY MS. B. SELIGMAN INSTRUCTED BY BERNARD L. GAUGHRAN AND COMPANY SOLICITORS)
1. Appeal by Ms. Denise Wilton against Equality Officer's recommendation No. EP3/1996 concerning a claim that she is entitled to the same rate of pay as a male comparator in that she is employed on like work in terms of Sections 3(a),(b) and (c) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974.
2. The Steel Company of Ireland is owned by British Steel. In 1992 British Steel owned six companies operating in the steel business in the Republic of Ireland and it was decided to rationalise the business onto one site. As a result four of the six companies were closed down and both the Steel Company of Ireland and Lister Tubes Limited were retained. In 1993 it was decided to transfer the non-critical functions in Lister Tubes to the Steel Company of Ireland. The credit control area was one of the first to be transferred.
Mr. Clarke, the comparator was recruited Credit Controller to Lister Tubes in April, 1993 and he held a Grade 8 position. Ms. Wilton, the claimant held a Grade 7 position in the Credit Control Department in the Steel Company of Ireland at the time. In September, 1993 the Steel Company of Ireland and Lister Tubes were amalgamated. Mr. Clarke subsequently left the Company and his duties were taken over by the claimant whose salary, which was £11,000 at the time, was not increased to £14,000 which is what had been paid to the comparator.
On the 15th February, 1995 Services Industrial Professional Technical Union, on behalf of the worker, submitted the claim to an Equality Officer for investigation. The Equality Officer's recommendation which was issued on the 16th May, 1996 found that Ms. Wilton was not entitled to the same rate of remuneration as Mr. Clarke.
On the 27th June, 1996 the claimant's legal representative appealed the Equality Officer's recommendation to the Labour Court on the following grounds:-
1. The Equality Officer erred in law and in fact in not identifying the grounds other than sex upon which she based her decision.
2. Any other such grounds as may be submitted during the Labour Court hearing.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 21st November, 1996. Both parties made written submissions (details to the Court) and expanded orally on their submissions at the hearing.
The Court considered all of the evidence put forward and the submissions made by both parties, and finds that no grounds have been put forward to warrant altering the conclusions reached by the Equality Officer. The Court is satisfied that the Equality Officer was correct in her findings of fact that there were grounds other than sex for the payment of different rates of remuneration, and agrees with those findings. The Court is further satisfied that the grounds on which the equality officer relied can be adequately identified in paragraph 5.9 of her Recommendation.
Accordingly the Court finds that the claimant's appeal fails and determines that she is not entitled to the same rate of remuneration as the comparator.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th April, 1997______________________
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.