Equality Officer’s Decision No: DEC-E/2008/063
Parties
Cahill & 8 Other Named employees
(Represented by Civil & Public Service Union)
And
An Post Billpost
File No: EE/2004/258
Date of issue 28 November, 2008
DISPUTE
This dispute involves a claim by Ms. Hilary Cahill and eight other named employees (See Appendix 1) that they perform “like work” in terms of sections 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2004 with a named male comparator and are therefore entitled to the same rate of remuneration as paid by the respondent to that comparator in accordance with section 19 of those Acts.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The complainants are employed as Business Support Officers and Team Leaders by the respondent at its premises in Kilrush, Co. Clare. The comparator is a Post Office Clerk at Kilrush Post Office. The complainants referred a complaint to the Equality Tribunal on 4 November, 2004 contending that they performed “like work” with the named comparator in terms of section 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 and 2004 and consequently they were entitled to the same rate of remuneration as that paid to the named comparator in accordance with section 19 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 Part VII of the Act on 17 November, 2006. A Preliminary Hearing took place on 15 February, 2007.
2.2 At this Hearing the respondent disputed the existence of “like work” between the complainants and comparator and notwithstanding this, argued that the complaint was one of indirect discrimination and the rates of remuneration were objectively justified in accordance with section 19(4) of the Acts, as they were connected with grounds other than gender. The parties agreed to select a representative group of four complainants from the full list of complainants covered by the claim. Work inspections took place on 9 and 10 May, 2007 and a Final Hearing was held on 21 June, 2007. Issues arose at the hearing which required further clarification and gave rise to considerable correspondence between the Equality Officer and the parties.
3. SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT’S CASE
The respondent disputes the existence of “like work” between the complainants and comparator and notwithstanding this, argues that the complaint is one of indirect discrimination and the rates of remuneration are objectively justified in accordance with section 19(4) of the Acts. The respondent accepts that the gender breakdown of the complainants’ grades has always been predominately female (they has never dipped below 95%) and that the gender breakdown of the comparator group is as set out by the CPSU. It submits that the gender breakdown of the comparator group could not be considered predominately male as required by the caselaw – from ECJ, the Equality Tribunal and the Labour Court. It contends therefore that the complainants have failed to establish a prima facie case of indirect discrimination. Notwithstanding this assertion, the respondent submits that the rates of pay are objectively justified in that they are necessary to meet the needs and objectives of Billpost having regard to the competitive environment in which it operates and states that such circumstances are acknowledged by the Communications Workers Union (which represents other staff at the complainants’ grade) in a Collective Agreement in April, 2006. It adds that the need for (and application of) flexibility and adaptability to hours of work by An Post workers is a factor which should be included when determining objective justification. Finally, it argues that the comparator grade is “red-circled” since the adoption of the “Post Office/CWU Clerical Pay and Grade Agreement, 2002” which was brokered with the intervention of the Labour Relations Commission and that the replacement grade of Retail Clerk has operated since that time and that this fact also demonstrates that there are objective factors unrelated to gender for the difference in the rates of remuneration.
4. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINANTS’ CASE
The complainants submit that they perform “like work” in terms of sections 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2004 with a named male comparator and they are therefore entitled to the same rate of remuneration as that paid to that comparator in accordance with section 19 of the Acts. The complainants allege that the grades of Business Support Officer and Team Leader in Billpost are almost 100% female and that the gender breakdown of the Post Office Clerk Grade (at the time of the referral of the complaint) was 64% Male – 36% Female. It is argued on the complainants’ behalf that these breakdowns support the assertion that the payscales of the grades are indirectly discriminatory on grounds of gender (on the assumption that like work exists between the complainants and comparator) and that the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to objectively justify the difference in the rates of remuneration paid to the complainants and comparator and seeks to rely on the judgement of the ECJ in Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Secretary of State for Health[1] in this regard. It is further argued on behalf of the complainants that the respondent cannot rely on the argument that the rates of pay resulted from a collective bargaining process to demonstrate objective justification for the pay differential[2] and submits that the reasons advanced by the respondent do not satisfy the test of objective justification as set out by the ECJ in Bilka Kaufhaus v Weber von Hartz[3].
5. CONCLUSIONS OF EQUALITY OFFICER
5.1 The issues for decision by me are (i) whether or not the complainants perform “like work” with the comparator in terms of sections 7(1)(b) and/or 7(1)(c) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2004, (ii) if “like work” is established – whether or not the rates of remuneration paid by the respondent constitute indirect discrimination of the complainants on grounds of gender in terms of section 6(2) of the Acts, (iii) if indirect discrimination is established whether or not the rates of remuneration are objectively justified in terms of section 19(4) of the Acts and therefore no entitlement to equal pay (with the comparator) exists for the complainants. In reaching my decision on these matter I have taken into consideration all of the submissions, oral and written, made to me by the parties as well as the information furnished by the complainants and comparator in the course of the work inspections.
5.2 The first issue for consideration by me is whether or the complainants perform “like work” with the comparator in terms of sections 7(1)(b) and/or 7(1)(c) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2004 for if “like work” is not found to exist the complainants have no entitlement to equal pay under the Acts. Section 7(1)(b) of the Acts defines “like work” in the following terms -
“ 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 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,”
Having regard to my findings of the respective tasks associated with the posts of each of the complainants and the comparator, as set out at Appendix 2 of this Decision, I am satisfied that the complainants and comparator are not engaged on “like work” in terms of section 7(1)(b) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2004.
5.3 Section 7(1)(c) of the Acts defines “like work” as follows -
“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 requirements, responsibility and working conditions.”
Appendices 3 and 4 set out my analysis of the complainants’ and comparator’s job across the five factors provided in the subsection. Appendix 5 sets out my comparison of the respective posts across these factors. I therefore find that the complainants and comparator are not engaged on “like work” in terms of section 7(1)(b) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2004. In light of my findings in this and the preceding paragraph I find that the complainants are not entitled to the same rate of remuneration as that paid by the respondent to the comparator.
6. DECISION OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
I find that the complainants and comparator are not engaged on “like work” in terms of either sections 7(1)(b) or 7(1)(c) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2004 and they are therefore not entitled to the same rate of remuneration as paid to that comparator by the respondent in accordance with section 19 of the Acts.
_______________________________________
Vivian Jackson
Equality Officer
28 November, 2008
Appendix 1
List of Complainants and Comparatorcovered by this complaint
Complainants
Ms. Hilary Cahill Business Support Officer
Ms. Bridget Whelan Business Support Officer
Ms. Deirdre Purcell Business Support Officer
Ms. Annie O’Flynn Business Support Officer
Ms. Mary Nolan Business Support Officer
Ms. Kay McDonough Business Support Officer
Ms. Emily Cunningham Business Support Officer
Ms. Geraldine Moloney Business Support Officer
Ms. Dawn O’Driscoll Team Leader
Comparator
Mr. John Cahill Post Office Clerk (now entitled Retail Clerk)
Appendix 2
Equality Officer’s Job Descriptions in respect of complainants
and comparator on foot of Work Inspection
Job Holder: Ms. Hilary Cahill
Job Title: Billpost Services Officer
Reports to: Team Leader
No. of Staff: None
Rate of Pay: €21,115 per annum. Hours in excess of normal hours attract overtime payment at agreed rates
Hours of Work: 8am to 1:30pm Monday to Friday
General
The Complainant currently works in the Garda Penalty Points Section. She has worked in that Section since October, 2006. Prior to that she also worked in Data Capture, Billpay (CABS), Customer Services Section, Prepping Section and Revenue. She commenced employment with the respondent in February, 2002. She is occasionally required to work in other sections as the need arises.
Customer Service Section involved dealing with unpaid payments, a process that is now handled by each individual section.
Garda Penalty Points Section
The complainant opens post containing payments in respect of the Garda Penalty Points Scheme. She initially checks that all details on the Offence Forms are completed and that the correct payment is attached. If there is any omission on the details contained on the form the complainant checks the details from the computer database using the PC in the section. If the payment cannot be processed the payment is treated as a reject and is returned to the customer (see below). Once the payment is suitable for processing the complainant collated them into batches of fifty payments, prepares a paper calculator tot for the batch, completes a batch ticker and places the batch in a metal basket for subsequent data capture. If the payment is in cash the complainant records the details of the payment in the cash records book located in the Prepping Area. She then attached the cash to the Offence Form and processes it in the normal fashion. The complainant estimated she handles 4/5 cash payments per day.
The complainant then scans in (by running a scanning device over the barcode contained on the payment counterfoil) of manually keys in the details of the payment on the PC located in the section. She checks the details on screen with those on the Offence and Declaration Forms and must ensure that the driver license details are identical on both to enable the payment to be processed. The complainant must also ensure these details are correct for customers who do not hold an Irish Driver’s licence, otherwise the system will reject the payment. The system will also reject the payment if the statutory period for the different phases of the scheme has expired. If there is an overpayment the complainant will process the payment, enter the details of same in the overpayment book retained in the section and place a note of same on the batch ticket. The complainant is responsible for ensuring that the batch of payments balances before passing it on.
If the payment cannot be processed for any reason it is treated as a reject. The complainant scans in (by running a scanning device over the barcode contained on the Offence Document) or manually keys in the details of the payment on the PC located in the section. The system automatically produces a list of reasons for rejecting the payment. The complainant selects the appropriate reason, checks that the details of the customer are correct and prints off the appropriate rejection letter. This letter and the reject documentation are places in an envelope and returned to the customer. The complainant then records the number of letters issued in an internal log. The complainant may deal solely with her own rejects or may also process rejects of her colleagues. She estimates that there may be 20+rejects per day. Any rejects, which are atypical and cannot be handled in the standard way are highlighted and passed to the Team Leader.
The complainant also deals with payments where another driver is nominated as the offending driver, the vehicle concerned has hanged ownership or the matter is subject of appeal. These payments are processed and details of same are communicated to the Garda Fines Headquarters in Dublin.
The complainant also deals with telephone enquiries on a daily basis. These calls commence from 9am and cover a wide range of queries in relation to the Penalty Points Scheme and may be general in nature or relate to a specific case. In the latter case the complainant requests the customer’s reference number. If the reference number is not available the complainant must either contact the Garda Fines Headquarters or check the “live database” to verify that she is dealing with the correct customer. Sometimes the call may be transferred direct to the Garda Fines Headquarters for it to deal with the matter. The complainant must possess a comprehensive knowledge of how the customer must complete the Declaration Form attached to the Offence Form - and must also possess the capacity to relate this information to the caller - this is becoming more problematic with the number of non-national customers. The complainant does her best to deal with the query herself but recruits the support of her Team Leader where callers become very irate of abusive. The complainant will check payments for processing whilst “on the switch”. All of her contact with customers is by telephone.
Revenue
The complainant worked in the Revenue Section for approximately 6 months. During this time her sole task was to take batches of revenue documents from a central area and transfer the data from the hard copy document to a template on the PC screen, print off the data entered and pass it on to Team Leader, who was responsible for checking the accuracy of the data.
Data Capture
The complainant selected a batch of payments from a central location. She inserted the total value of the batch from the tot attached to the batch. She then scans in (by running a scanning device over the barcode contained on the payment counterfoil) or manually keys in the details of the payment on the PC located in the section and endorses the cheque etc. by passing it through the machine ensuring that the value of the payment matches the value on the counterfoil. If the payment was for an amount smaller than on the counterfoil the complainant would manually key in the correct amount. She selects the appropriate client (ESB, Eircom etc.) by selecting the correct logo on the PC Screen and touching it. She repeated this task until all items in the batch were entered. At the end of this process the screen should display a zero balance indicating the batch was correctly entered on the system. The complainant signs the batch ticket, prints off a report from a pre selected menu, binds all the items with an elastic band and brings them to the lodgement table.
If the batch does not balance the complainant would firstly check the cheque values against the tot and make the necessary adjustments. If the difference was not identified by this the complainant would then check the checks against the cheques against the printout and make the necessary adjustment. The complainant must identify the necessary adjustments and thus balance the batch before passing it on to the next phase of the process.
If a single cheque related to multiple payments (and these numbers in excess of ten) the payment is entered as a batch in its own right. These batches could not be scanned and required each payment to be manually keyed in by the complainant. In addition, similar checks and manually key in was necessary in respect of credit card payments. She estimates that this represented approximately 25% of the work she performed in Data Capture. The complainant worked in this area for approximately eighteen months.
Prepping Section
The complainant gathers bundles of post and places them in an automatic letter opening machine. She removes the contents, checks the accuracy of the payment and customers details and that cheques are signed etc. The complainant then sorts the payments and places them in appropriate trays for collation into batches later. The payments are collated into batched of one hundred, totted and given a batch ticket. The complainant then logs the batch on her time sheet. The complainant then “data captures” the batch or places it in a metal basket for same by one of her colleagues. The complainant worked in this area for six months.
CABS
The section covers payments received from Non-Automated Post Offices in relation to payment of utility bills and social welfare payments. The items are received in a pouch along with a C22 Form which is completed by the individual Post Office. The complainant empties the pouch and sorts the items into utility payments and social welfare payments. She takes the totals for each batch from the C22 Form and scans or manually keys in the payment details. The batch must balance with the total on the C22 Form and if not the complainant must identify the difference and make the necessary adjustment. All adjustments were recorded on an Interim Adjustment Form. She then prints off the appropriate batch report. When all batched from the pouch have been processed the complainant prints a full Teller Report (which refers to the batched processed by the complainant) and passed all documentation to a Team Leader. A similar process is performed for social welfare payments. However, the Team Leader logs all batched of social welfare payments before date capture is completed by the complainant. If the batches balance then the complainant archived the batch(es) as necessary. The complainant worked in this area for about a year.
Job Holder: Ms. Kay McDonough
Job Title: Billpost Services Officer
Reports to: Team Leader
No. of Staff: None
Rate of Pay: €21,115 per annum. Hours in excess of normal working hours attract overtime payments at agreed rates.
Hours of Work: 8am to 4pm Monday to Friday
General
The complainant currently works in the CABS. She has worked in that section since early 2006. Prior to that she also worked in Data Capture, Customer Services Section, Prepping Section and Unprocessed Payments. She commenced employment with the respondent in January 2001 on a part-time basis and commenced fill-time employment in May, 2001. She is occasionally required to work in other sections as the need arises. Customer Service Section involved dealing with unpaid payments, a process that is now handled by each individual section.
CABS
The tasks carried out by the complainant in this area as set out for Ms. Cahill above. In addition the complainant prepares batches and enters details of cash accounts. The complainant is responsible for ensuring the batches balance. The complainant also handles data entry of cash account transactions from Non-automated Post Offices. These Post Offices are required to make returns on a regular basis. Documentation is received by the respondent in an envelope bearing the Post Office’s individual reference number and the date. The complainant logs receipt of the envelope, prepares the batch and transfers the data (by scanning the Postal Order/Money Order reference or by manual entry) into an electronic batch and sends details of this batch (balanced or unbalanced) along with the other documentation, to the Cash Account Office in the GPO, Dublin. The complainant estimated that these transactions total approximately 160 per week. The complainant has some dealing in cash on a daily basis, although they are less than ten in number per day. The complainant records the items in a cash records book and they are processed in the normal manner. Any problems are raised with the Team Leader.
General Prepping
The tasks carried out by the complainant in this area as set out Ms. Cahill above.
Unprocessed Payments
The complainant only dealt with unprocessed payments for Eircom. The complainant would make every effort to facilitate processing of payment, including ringing the customer or Eircom to identify correct details. If the complainant was unable to process the payments she entered all details of unprocessed payments and adjustments on a pre-set spreadsheet on the PC in the section, which was sent, along with the unprocessed payment, to Eircom at the end of each day.
Data Capture
The tasks carried out by the complainant in this section are similar to those set out in respect of Ms. Cahill above. In addition, in mid 2003, the complainant acted up as Team Leader (on less than 10 occasions). On these occasions she had responsibility for the preparation and reconciliation of the lodgement to the bank in Cabinteeley, Dublin. She checks the totals of the value of checks for each batch of payments is the same as the total on the batch ticket. These batch values and the total number of cheques are then entered on a template spreadsheet and the total of the lodgement must match the total on the spreadsheet. A number of batch lodgements are placed in a lodgement pouch- after the number of cheques has been electronically counted as a second check- and the complainant completes a lodgement slip for the total value of the lodgement in each pouch. The spreadsheet is saved on the system and the counterfoils are placed in an area for archiving. The pouches are collected by a Courier in the mid-afternoon and the various clients are e-mailed details of the value contained in that lodgement in respect of it.
Another task completed by the complainant in Data Capture was the processing of unpaid cheques returned to the respondent from the bank in Cabinteeley. The complainant photocopied the returned cheques and identified which client account needed to be debited with the value of the cheque. Details of the returned cheque were entered on individual client spreadsheets on the system and a copy of this spreadsheet, along with the unpaid cheque are sent to the client. The complainant would then advise the Central Processing Section in the GPO (which is responsible for processing the payments to the respondent’s various clients) by email of the details to be debited. This task involved approximately 15 cheques per day and was usually performed on a weekly basis.
Job Holder: Ms. Bridget Whelan
Job Title: Billpost Services Officer
Reports to: Team Leader
No. of Staff: None
Rate of Pay: €21,115 per annum. Hours in excess of normal working hours attract overtime payment at agreed rates.
Hours of Work: 8:30am to 4:30pm Monday to Friday
General
The complainant currently works in the Data Capture Section. She has worked in that section since June, 2006. Prior to that she also worked in CABS, Prepping Section and Revenue Section. She is occasionally required to work in other sections as the need arises.
Data Capture
The complainant performs the full range of tasks in this section as outlined above. However, in addition to those, she processed payments with are being made by Laser Card or Credit Card (Visa, Access etc). The process of data capture is similar to processing other batches although there are some additional tasks associated with these payments. The complainant knows from the card number which type of card the payment is to be debited from- Visa etc., and selects the payment type by touching the appropriate logo on the PC screen. She keys in the card details and expiry date and awaits authorisation. If authorisation is received the payment is processed. If the payment is declined she re-checks the card details and attempts authorisation a second time. If the payment is rejected the complainant prepares a rejection letter for the customer and she makes an appropriate adjustment to the batch total on the tot. The complainant must balance the batch before passing it on the Lodgement. Once the batch is balanced the complainant prints off the necessary report and passes all documentation on. A similar process is carried out for Laser Card Payments. However, if the card is rejected first time the complainant prepares the rejection letter - no second attempt is made to process the payment. Similar processes are followed for payments by Postal/Money Orders.
Prepping Section.
The complainant performed the full range of tasks in this section as outlined above.
Revenue Section
The complainant performed the full range of tasks in this section as outlined above.
Job Holder: Ms. Dawn O’Driscoll
Job Title: Team Leader
Reports to: Office Manager
No. of Staff: 4
Rate of Pay: €25,909 per annum. Hours in excess of normal working hours attract overtime payment at agreed rates.
Hours of Work: 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday
General
The complainant is currently Team Leader in the Garda Fines Section. She has worked in that section since June, 2006. Prior to that she also worked in Prepping Section, Data Capture, Customer Service and Revenue Section. She is a Team Leader since February, 2002. She is also expected to perform (and does perform) Billpost Service Officer duties every day and can as the need arises be required to act as Team Leader in other sections within the respondent company.
The complainant is a key holder- and is required to attend the respondent premises as necessary should the alarms activate after normal working hours. She estimates that she is required to attend the premises about three times a year for this purpose. As a key holder she is also responsible for opening and closing the premises as necessary.
Staff Management etc.
The complainant has four staff who report to her. During her time as a Team Leader she has had different amount of staff reporting to her depending on the section she had responsibility for. On a daily basis she is responsible for ensuring staff are in attendance and liaising with other Team Leaders and the Head of Operations to monitor the volume of work in the various sections and deploy staff as necessary.
She is responsible for recording staff sick absences and dealing with return to work discussions with staff following absences. She is responsible for completing all staff attendance records and passing same onto the Head of Operations. In particular she must record and update the attendance patterns of each of the employees in her area on a computerised spreadsheet and print this record off on a weekly basis for salary purposes. The complainant also participates in the performance assessment process of staff in her area in conjunction with the Head of Operations.
The complainant is responsible for training of staff in her area of responsibility. This involves training of new staff as well as training of more experienced staff in new processes/techniques. Generally the complainant is given formal training and she must transfer/mentor her team on those issues.
She is also responsible for maintaining a computerised spreadsheet recording the volume of telephone calls received by staff in the Garda Fines Section/work flow statistics and transferring them on to another computerised file on a weekly basis, prior to passing them on to the Head of Operations. These statistics must be accurate as they are used by Management, inter alia, for calculating bonus payments for staff
Monitoring of problems with Payments etc. in Garda Fines
The complainant is responsible for dealing with queries where difficulties arise with payments. These fall into two distinct categories – those where details are incorrect and those where the payment is stopped (chargeback). These number 3-4 per day. The complainant must check back on the database to identify full details of the payment and identify which of the numerous batches the original payment in located. She must then physically retrieve the record/original paperwork from the appropriate batch, place a pro forma slip in its place, photocopy the document and fax the copy documentation to the bank with a standard letter which is generated by the database from a dropdown list on the computer. In addition to the above where the payment is a chargeback she must record the details of the original payment on the computer system under the category of “unpaid credit cards”. She performs this function by entering the original payment details from the original paperwork. She records all chargebacks on a separate computerised spreadsheet which is sent to the General Post Office in Dublin so that an appropriate adjustment can be made to the client’s account. Where the payment relates to a Garda Fine the details must be sent to the Garda Fines HQ in Dublin.
The complainant also deals with queries (on average 1-2 per day) from the Garda Fines Office – predominately by e-mail. She also provides advice to staff as necessary when dealing with customers and if necessary she takes calls where the customer becomes irate and requests to speak with a Manager. In addition, she handles queries, as necessary, from Post Offices around the country in respect of Penalty Points/Fines. She is therefore required to have a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the Penalty Points System. Virtually all contact with customers in on the telephone – she has been required to deal with approximately 6 personal callers since the Garda Fines Section opened.
On occasion, approximately every two weeks the complainant is called on to assist with troubleshooting in respect of the computer system. Although more serious issues are handled by external IT support.
Prepping Section etc.
Prior to her time in Garda Fines the complainant was Team Leader in Prepping Section. Her duties there were broadly similar in respect of Staff Management and queries. However, in addition she had responsibility for recording batch totals and making them ready for lodgement. Where an error arose she was responsible for cross checking the Bank Statement against the Daily Spreadsheet on which lodgements were recorded, identifying the appropriate batch and dealing with the query.
She had responsible for recording foreign currency cheques. She records the details of the payment in a specific spreadsheet, obtain the appropriate currency conversion rate from the Bank, enter these details on the spreadsheet, and reconcile the spreadsheet in terms of euro values. She photocopies the cheque, enters the appropriate euro value on it, return the photocopy tot the BSO who processes the payment as usual. At the end of the day she must total the various spreadsheet values and pass it on for lodgement.
The complainant was also Team Leader in Revenue. She was responsible for ensuring the accuracy of data captured from hard copy P45 by BSO. She spot-checked approximately 10% of data captured versus the forms to ensure accuracy and amended computer file as necessary. She e-mailed the full file of data captured to Revenue on a daily basis. This was done via a dropdown list of prompts on the PC screen. Files were automatically encrypted by the system before transmission was completed.
Job Holder: Mr. John Cahill
Job Title: Post Office Clerk
Reports to: Post Office (Branch) Manager
No. of Staff: None
Rate of Pay: €645 per week plus 12.5%.
Hours of Work: 8:50am to 5:30pm Monday to Friday and every second Saturday. The comparator is required to work O/T as necessary although he has not been required to do so since 2004.
General
The complainant is a Post Office Clerk since 1992. As such when the Branch Manager is absent he is Acting Branch Manager. Each morning the comparator removes the drawer of stocks and cash from the safe in the Manager’s Office where it is kept overnight for security reasons. The comparator then opens the Post Office to the public.
The first task generally carried out by the comparator each morning is to deal with PO Box customers. He brings the contents of the PO Box to the customer and has him/her sign for the contents of the Box – the number of items is recorded.
The comparator delivers the full range of An Post services to customers on a daily basis. In general payment of the Department of Social and Community Affairs allowances takes place as follows – Pensions (Wednesday-Friday), Employment Assistance -Dole (Tuesday) and Children’s Allowance (1st Tuesday of every month). In delivering these services the comparator uses An Post’s IT System Riposte.
Payment Social Welfare Allowances
Customers seeking dole payment have a personal swipe card containing a magnetic strip (similar to a credit card). The comparator swipes this card through the connection on the Riposte Consol. The system automatically prints off duplicate receipts for the payment. The comparator has the customer sign the receipts and pays over the appropriate amount of cash. Pension and Children’s Allowance payments are made on presentation of a book of pre-printed vouchers. The comparator must check the signature on the voucher against the signature on the book (although he knows most of the customers now) and this is not such a big imposition. He then pays the customer the correct amount of cash.
Billpay
The comparator processes a large number of utility bill payments each day. Payments can be made in cash or by cheque and can be for the full or partial amount of the bill. The comparator first attempts to scan the bill details to the Riposte system by touching the appropriate bill logo on the PC screen and running the electronic pencil across the computerized barcode although in almost 90% of the case he must enter the details into the system manually. The system prints an automatic receipt (in duplicate) for the payment and the comparator must ensure that the correct payment is remitted.
Western Union Payments
The comparator commences the process by touching the appropriate logo on the PC screen. He types in the sender and recipient’s names and addresses and amount to be transferred for the application form. The system calculates the total cost of the transaction (including the appropriate fee) and prints off a standard receipt in duplicate. The comparator ensures the correct amount of cash is remitted and passes the receipt and carbon copy of the application form to the customer. Approximately 10 transactions per day.
Savings Bank and Saving Bonds/Certs
Transactions in respect of the Saving’s Bank can only be completed on production of a Deposit Book by the customer. The comparator commences the transaction by touching the appropriate logo on the PC screen and scanning the Deposit Book magnetic strip through the connector on the Riposte Consol (or entering the details manually if necessary), entering the value of the deposit/withdrawal and the system automatically prints off a receipt (in duplicate). The comparator has the customer sign the receipt and he must ensure that the signature on the receipt matches that on the book by comparing them. As an extra security measure if the customer is not known to him he will request a second form of photo ID. When he is satisfied as to the validity of the customer he manually updates the Deposit Book and ensures the correct amount of cash in paid/remitted. This is a daily task.
The comparator is also involved with issuing Saving Bonds/Certs (about 2/3 weekly). The comparator assists the customer to fill out the form (if necessary). He must ensure that the application complies with money laundering legislation by ensuring the identity and residence of the customer by checking photo ID and the production of a current utility bill in the applicant’s name. The comparator photocopies these documents and attaches the copies to the application form. The comparator detaches a Cert from a booklet, scans the barcode onto the Riposte system and places it in the printer. He keys in the name of the recipient and amount into the system and the system prints off these details on the Cert along with a receipt (in duplicate). The customer signs the receipt, retains a copy and the other copy is kept by the comparator. The application forms etc. are retained by the comparator and are sent to the Head Office in Dublin (along with other similar documents) at the end of each day.
Prize Bonds and Gift Vouchers
The comparator processes about 10/12 Prize Bonds weekly. The process is broadly similar with the Saving Certs above. A similar process is followed with Gift Vouchers/Cards. This is not a daily occurrence but can happen several times a week.
Postal Money Orders
The customer presents an application form to the comparator. He ensures that the correct money is remitted and manually records the details of the transaction in the PMO Summary Book. He detaches a Money Order from a booklet, scans the barcode onto the Riposte system and places it in the printer as necessary. The system prints of the details and a receipt in duplicate. If however, the value of the Money Order is less than €450 the comparator manually fills in the details on the Order himself. The customer signs the receipt and retains a copy. The other copy is kept by the comparator.
AIB Deposits/Withdrawals
The comparator handles deposits and withdrawals to AIB bank accounts – personal and commercial customers. The customer must produce a Card and Pin to access withdrawals. The same is true for deposits although these transactions can also be affected using pre-printed lodgement slips. The comparator uses the Riposte system to process the transactions by scanning the barcode on the lodgement slip or swiping the card. The system produces a receipt in duplicate which the customer must sign. Before releasing any money the comparator must check the signature on the card with that on receipt. The comparator processes about 10/12 of these transactions daily.
Garda Fines
The comparator uses the Riposte system to process these transactions. He does so by selecting the correct logo on the PC screen and either scanning the details from the Offence Form barcode or keying in the details. The system will prompt him with the details of the offence and the comparator must ensure that the details match. If the fine is in order he will receive the correct remittance from the customer and process the payment, issuing an appropriate receipt. If the payment is rejected for any reason the system will prompt with a number/list of reasons, the comparator selects the relevant reason and the system prints off the rejection notice. The same process is followed in respect of people who do not hold an Irish Driver’s licence. In those cases the comparator must physically enter the licence number on the system before the payment can be processed. If the payment cannot be processed the system will automatically produce a rejection notice as above. The comparator processes 4/5 of these transactions daily.
MBNA Credit Cards and Mobile Phone Bills.
The comparator selects the correct bill logo from the screen on the PC. If the payment is being made in full he scans the details from the barcode at the end of the bill and the system prints off a receipt in duplicate – one retained by the customer and the other by the comparator. If payment is being made in part the comparator must manually enter those details into the Riposte system ensuring the accuracy of same.
TV Licences
The comparator again selects from the PC screen on the Riposte system. The comparator scans the barcode at the end of the renewal notice, detaches a licence form the booklet, places it in the printer and the system enters the details on the licence. The system prints a receipt in duplicate, one for the customer and the other for the comparator. If the application is for first licence the comparator must enter those details manually into the system.
Passports
The comparator checks that the application form is completed correctly and that the necessary supporting documentation is attached and fully completed/witnessed. If there is any problem with the application it is returned to the customer for correction. The comparator takes a pre-prepared envelope and scans the barcode on it onto the Riposte system having first selected the appropriate logo on the screen. He then selects the correct passport type and the system indicates the amount to be remitted by the customer. The comparator ensures the correct amount is remitted and the system prints of a receipt in duplicate as above. The comparator places all the necessary documentation into the envelope, seals it and places it immediately in the Swiftpost bag as the application is a priority – the customer is entitled to a refund of the fees if the passport is not processed and returned to the customer within 10 days. The complainant processes on average 10/12 passport applications daily.
An Post Mail Products.
The comparator deals with the full range of postal services offered by the respondent on a daily basis. He assists customers, as necessary, to decide the most appropriate mode of delivery (Swiftpost, Registered etc.), highlighting the features of each. The comparator will weigh the item and select the method of postage by touching the relevant icon on the Riposte PC screen. The system will indicate the cost of postage. The comparator will scan the barcode of the relevant label and the system prints off the appropriate stamp. The comparator affixes the stamp and barcode to the item (this is to enable tracking of the item) and the system will print of a receipt in duplicate as above. Details of the items are recorded manually in the relevant Daily Record Book. The comparator must ensure that items which are addressed to destinations outside the country have the necessary declaration form completed. The comparator travels to the hatch with this type of post about 20 times daily.
The comparator is responsible for the dispatch of Swiftpost and Registered Post items on alternate weeks. He must first ensure that the number of parcels matches the details in the relevant Daily record Book. The items are scanned (to commence the track and trace system) and placed into bags. The system prints out a list of the items and the reference numbers which is also placed in the bag. The comparator handles about 4-5 queries daily about track and trace records.
Reconciliation of Cash Drawer
The comparator is responsible for reconciliation of the contents of his drawer and stock on a continuous basis and balancing of same on a weekly basis. The comparator retains (in general a float of €6,000 at any given time). Reports in respect of each of the various types of transactions (benefits, pensions Garda Fines, Savings Bank etc.) are printed off by the system. The comparator must check the report against the receipts in his drawer and reconcile each category before sending it off to the appropriate section in HQ. In addition the information must also be sent electronically to the HQ. He must also reconcile his cash balances on a weekly basis (he carries out about 45 of these balances annually so it is not every week) to within €10, although the drawers are counted on a daily basis and the values are recorded on the system. Sanctions are applied where a differential in excess of this amount occurs (up to and including deductions from salary). The comparator is also subject to unannounced external Audit Checks about 4 times per year where a full Audit of his drawer and stock is conducted.
General Security
The comparator has the full range of keyholder when the Manager is away (Annual Leave and Sick Leave). He is also responsible (for the last five years or so) for securing the building at lunchtime. From a personal perspective he ensures that his drawer is locked and the keys are in his possession at all times when he is away from the counter. He is also responsible for returning his drawer to the safe at the end of each day. He must also ensure that blank certs, licences etc. are secure and locked away when not required
Appendix 3
Equality Officer’s Analysis
Of
Jobs of Ms. Hilary Cahill, Ms. Kay McDonough,
Ms. Bridget Whelan and Ms. Dawn O’Driscoll
SKILL
The complainants (at BSO Grade) require proficiency in numeracy, literacy and basic IT keyboard skills, including data entry. In addition, in the case of Ms. Cahill she must have good communication skills to deal with the Garda Fines Call Centre queries. She requires, on occasion, good interpersonal skills to deal with irate customers although where such callers become abusive and difficult to handle she seeks the assistance of her Team Leader. The data entry work requires a significant degree of accuracy but errors are generally identified and corrected through the internal checks and balances in the process.
Ms. O’Driscoll also displays all of the above skills in the course of her post, some to a greater degree e.g. communication/interpersonal skills and IT skills (in terms of troubleshooting and Excel Spreadsheets). In addition she exercises planning and organizational skills in that she must manage and direct her staff (sometimes in consultation with the Head of Operations and other Team Leaders) so as to structure and control the work flow(s) in the Team (and elsewhere in the organization) in response to the demands of the respondent’s clients and customers and in order to achieve the internal work targets set.
PHYSICAL DEMANDS
There are no significant physical demands of the complainants other that those generally associated with working in a modern office environment. In the case of Ms. O’Driscoll there is the occasional requirement to retrieve records from the File Storage Area. This may entail moving heavy file bins and lifting batches of records to retrieve the correct record.
MENTAL REQUIREMENTS
The complainants display significant levels of concentration when processing data. Whilst this is a repetitive task mistakes can easily creep in for the very reason. They are also processing high volumes of data in a pressurised environment (on a daily basis) in order to fulfil the customer and client needs of the respondent. Care must also be taken when prepping documentation to ensure that related documents and payments are linked together and that the initial “tot” of the batch is correct as errors at this level may give rise to delays at processing.
The above characteristics are also displayed by Ms. O’Driscoll, sometimes to a greater degree as she may have to double check her staff’s work where variations cannot be easily identified.
RESPONSIBILITY
The complainants (at BSO Grade) are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of their own work. This feeds into the overall Team responsibility in the context of meeting targets for “bonus purposes”. In addition the accuracy of their work has the potential if (as a group) errors arise in their work and the customer/client withdraws the contract for processing the data from Billpost – although it is difficult to see such a scenario arising in reality.
Ms. O’Driscoll has all of the foregoing and in addition, has staff management and training responsibilities. She also has significant financial responsibilities in the context of preparing batches for lodgement, recording details of these transactions and subsequently reconciling (to some extent) the bank statements with the lodgements. She also had responsibility for “spot-checking” the accuracy of data manually entered onto the Database when she was in Revenue section. Ms. O’Driscoll has keyholder responsibilities, although she is not frequently required to exercise them.
WORKING CONDITIONS
All of the complainants work in a modern IT focused work environment. Due to telephone calls the area can be noisy at times. The area has adequate natural light and ventilation. There is no facility for members of the public to visit the area and all of the contact with customers is phone or e-mail based.
Appendix 4
Equality Officer’s Analysis
Of
Mr. Cahill’s Job
SKILL
The comparator requires significant proficiency in numeracy, literacy skills and to a lesser degree, basic IT skills, including data entry. He also displays significant interpersonal skills in the context of his daily interaction with members of the public on a face to face basis, particularly when he must make a judgement on the bona fides of an individual customer. The comparator also displays organizational skills, particularly on days in the week/month when certain Social Welfare Benefit payments are made. Finally, the comparator must acquire/possess a comprehensive knowledge of the full range of services offered by An Post at post offices and the legal requirements/procedures associated with these.
PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS
The comparator works in at standard post office general counter. Much of the day is spend sitting/standing at this counter or moving between sitting and standing positions. The comparator also transfers parcel post from the counter to the Post Room hatch around 20 times daily. These parcels can range from 1kg to 10/15kg.
The comparator handles many (if not all of these parcels) a second time during the day when he is required to scan and bag Swiftpost and Registered Post on every alternate week.
MENTAL REQUIREMENTS
The comparator must operate in a pressurised environment daily – this is more relevant on days in the week/month when certain Social Welfare Benefit payments are made. Given the multiplicity and variety of transactions he processes each day the comparator must ensure that each transaction is recorded correctly in the Riposte system as errors cannot easily be identified. The comparator is dealing with significant amounts of cash and he must therefore ensure that the correct amount is issued/remitted and that the transaction is recorded/receipted correctly. He must again ensure accuracy (particularly as regards the amount) when issuing Saving Certs and Money Order as these are effectively cash based documents. Finally, he must ensure that the correct documentation is furnished in respect of each transaction, whether required by statute or otherwise.
RESPONSIBILITY
The comparator is responsible for the security of significant amounts of cash and stock on a daily basis. At the end of the day/week he is responsible for balancing/reconciling these items and there are sanctions against him should he not succeed in this process. He is also responsible for the security of these items against theft and he must secure the area where they are kept during his working day every time he leaves the counter. The accuracy of his work is also subject to periodic audit by external, independent examiners.
The comparator has full responsibility for the security of the building on occasions when the Manager is not present e.g. holidays and sick leave. He is responsible for securing the building at lunchtime every day.
WORKING CONDITIONS
The comparator works in a standard post office working environment behind a counter. In this environment he interacts with customers on a face to face basis every day and he must attend to their requirements in a timely fashion. The area is a busy customer focused environment and there is the potential for the comparator to be the subject of armed robbery.
The comparator has rigid hours of work - the post office operates standard opening hours and he is required to work alternate Saturdays.
Appendix 5
Comparison of Complainants’ and Comparator’s
Jobs in terms of Section 7(1)(c) of the Acts
General
The four complainants evaluated in the course of the work inspection were selected by the complainants as representative of the entire group of complainants who are listed as parties to the complaint (see Appendix A). Three of them hold the grade of Business Support Officer and the other (Ms. O’Driscoll) holds the grade of Team Leader.
Having conducted the work inspection I am satisfied that the three complainants at the grade of Business Support Officer - Ms. Cahill, Ms. McDonagh and Ms. Whelan perform “like work” with each other in terms of section 7 of the Acts and my comparison of the post of Business Support Officer with that of the comparator will apply to all posts of that grade which are covered by the complaint.
I am satisfied that Ms. O’Driscoll carries out work of a higher value than that of the other of three complainants covered in the work inspection and a separate comparison of her post with that of the comparator will be completed.
Comparison of the post of (i) Ms. Cahill, (ii) Ms. McDonagh and
(iii) Ms. Whelan with that of Mr. Cahill
SKILL
Both the complainants and the comparator are required to be numerate and literate in order to perform their duties. In addition both utilise basic IT skills, including data entry on a daily basis. Whilst the complainants require communication/interpersonal skills on a regular (if not daily) basis these skills are exercised internally or with customers/clients on the telephone.
The comparator must possess excellent interpersonal skills as his interaction with the clients/customers is on a face to face basis. In addition, he must possess and exercise good judgement about the bona fides of a customer as the customer may be attempting to defraud the respondent (and/or its client). In addition, the comparator must possess a comprehensive knowledge of the full range of services offered by An Post at post offices and the legal requirements/procedures associated with these.
I find that the skills required of the comparator to be greater than those
required of the complainants.
PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS
The complainants operate in a modern office environment. It is well lit and ventilated. On occasion the background noise can be high. The vast majority of their working day is spent sitting at a desk with just sporadic movement around the area.
The comparator works behind the counter in a standard post office. His duties, of necessity, involve a considerable amount of movement during the course of the day. He is required to carry large parcels approximately 20 yards to the Post Room hatch approximately 20 times daily. The weight of these items varies but the majority are less than 10kg. Every second week he is required to place these items in a bag (after scanning them) for collection.
I find that the demands made on the comparator are greater than those placed on the complainants in terms of physical effort.
MENTAL REQUIREMENTS
The complainants exercise significant mental effort when processing data. On the occasion that the item is not suited for scanning they must manually input the data. A significant degree of care is required with this to ensure that credit is not given to the wrong customer account. This is a repetitive task and is therefore subject to error. They are performing these functions is a reasonably pressurised environment where volume of items processed is a measurable target.
The respondent exercises similar functions and under similar conditions, although his tasks vary from customer to customer. Similar risks apply, although in his case errors are more difficult to rectify as the customer has left the building. The comparator must also ensure that he processes Saving Certs etc. correctly as they have a real cash value.
I find that the mental effort required of the comparator is greater than that required of the complainants.
RESPONSIBILITY
The complainants have little responsibility other than to ensure the accuracy of their work insofar as possible.
The comparator is responsible for significant amounts of cash and stock on a daily basis and for balancing/reconciling these items on a periodic basis. There are sanctions against him should he not succeed in this process. He is also responsible for the security of these items against theft and he must secure the area where they are kept during his working day every time he leaves the counter. The accuracy of his work is also subject to periodic audit by external, independent examiners.
The comparator has full responsibility for the security of the building on occasions when the Manager is not present e.g. holidays and sick leave. He is responsible for securing the building at lunchtime every day.
I find that the demands made on the comparator in terms of responsibility exceed those placed on the complainants
WORKING CONDITIONS
The complainants work in a modern IT focused work environment which is well lit and airy. They are not exposed to direct contact with members of the public. There hours are flexible (shifts) and they are not required to work atypical hours save on overtime.
The comparator operates on a face to face basis with his customers every day. He must deal with customers immediately and can be subject to direct abuse from customers. Given he handles cash he is constantly exposed to armed robbery. His hours are rigid and he works alternate Saturdays.
I find that the demands made on the comparator are greater then those placed on the complainants in terms of working conditions.
Comparison of Ms. O’Driscoll’s post with that of Mr. Cahill
SKILL
Both the complainant and the comparator are required to be numerate and literate in order to perform their duties. In addition both utilise basic IT skills, including data entry on a daily basis. The complainant exhibits further IT skills in terms of troubleshooting and operation of Excel spreadsheets. Whilst the complainant requires communication/interpersonal skills on a regular (if not daily) basis these skills are exercised internally or with customers/clients on the telephone. In addition she exercises planning and organizational skills in that she must manage and direct her staff (sometimes in consultation with the Head of Operations and other Team Leaders in response to work demands.
The comparator must possess excellent interpersonal skills as his interaction with the clients/customers is on a face to face basis. In addition, he must possess and exercise good judgement about the bona fides of a customer as the customer may be attempting to defraud the respondent (and/or its client). In addition, the comparator must possess a comprehensive knowledge of the full range of services offered by An Post at post offices and the legal requirements/procedures associated with these.
I find that the skills required of the comparator to be equal with those required of the complainant.
PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS
The complainant operates in a modern office environment. It is well lit and ventilated. On occasion the background noise can be high. The vast majority of their working day is spent sitting at a desk with just sporadic movement around the area. On occasion she is required to retrieve record from the file room which requires the movement of some file bins.
The comparator works behind the counter in a standard post office. His duties, of necessity, involve a considerable amount of movement during the course of the day. He is required to carry large parcels approximately 20 yards to the Post Room hatch approximately 20 times daily. The weight of these items varies but the majority are less than 10kg. Every second week he is required to place these items in a bag (after scanning them) for collection.
I find that the demands made on the comparator are greater than those placed on the complainant in terms of physical effort.
MENTAL REQUIREMENTS
The complainant exercise significant mental effort when processing and checking data. On the occasion that the item is not suited for scanning they must manually input the data. A significant degree of care is required with this to ensure that credit is not given to the wrong customer account. This is a repetitive task and is therefore subject to error. They are performing these functions is a reasonably pressurised environment where volume of items processed is a measurable target. The complainant must also ensure accuracy when processing lodgements and reconciling bank statements.
The comparator exercises similar functions and under similar conditions, although his tasks vary from customer to customer. Similar risks apply, although in his case errors are more difficult to rectify as the customer has left the building. The comparator must also ensure that he processes Saving Certs etc. correctly as they have a real cash value.
I find that the demands placed on the complainant and comparator to
be equal in terms of mental requirements
RESPONSIBILITY
The complainant is responsible for the accuracy of her own work as well as that of her Team. Ms. In addition, has staff management and training responsibilities. She also has considerable financial responsibilities in the context of preparing batches for lodgement, recording details of these transactions and subsequently reconciling (to some extent) the bank statements with the lodgements. She also had responsibility for “spot-checking” the accuracy of data manually entered onto the Database when she was in Revenue section.
The comparator is responsible for significant amounts of cash and stock on a daily basis and for balancing/reconciling these items on a periodic basis. There are sanctions against him should he not succeed in this process. He is also responsible for the security of these items against theft and he must secure the area where they are kept during his working day every time he leaves the counter. The accuracy of his work is also subject to periodic unannounced audit by external, independent examiners.
The comparator has full responsibility for the security of the building on occasions when the Manager is not present e.g. holidays and sick leave. He is responsible for securing the building at lunchtime every day.
I find that the demands made on the comparator in terms of
responsibility exceed those placed on the complainant
WORKING CONDITIONS
The complainants work in a modern IT focused work environment which is well lit and airy. They are not exposed to direct contact with members of the public. There hours are flexible (shifts) and they are not required to work atypical hours save on overtime.
The comparator operates on a face to face basis with his customers every day. He must deal with customers immediately and can be subject to direct abuse from customers. Given he handles cash he is constantly exposed to armed robbery. His hours are rigid and he works alternate Saturdays.
I find that the demands made on the comparator are greater then those placed on the complainants in terms of working conditions.