Women civil servants appeal Labour Court pay case ruling

Twenty-six women former clerical assistants employed in various Government departments have taken a High Court challenge to a Labour Court finding that they are not entitled to the same pay as nine male former "paperkeepers".

The women are all members of the Civil and Public Service Union (CPSU) and their action is backed by the union.

Since the first complaint about the pay scales was made in 1991, the grades of both clerical assistant and paperkeeper have been merged into that of clerical officer. However, the former clerical assistants claim the discrimination continues because they should be higher on the increments scale than they are.

In their submission, the women claim they did similar work to the former paperkeepers. Their claim was rejected by the Minister for Finance and the dispute was referred by the CPSU to an equality officer in 1991. The union claimed the women did similar work to the men under the terms of Section 3 of the Anti-Discrimination Pay Act 1974 and should receive the same pay.

The equality officer concluded that, although they were performing like work, there were "legitimate grounds other than sex" for the different rates of pay. The officer did not consider the union's claim of indirect discrimination, or the question of objective justification, because he considered that indirect discrimination was outside the scope of the 1974 Act.

The CPSU appealed the equality officer's findings to the Labour Court but that court, in a finding of July 26th 1999, upheld the decision. The Labour Court ruled that although the women were employed on like work to the nine male paperkeepers, there was no unlawful discrimination against them. It found the grade of clerical assistant was a recruitment grade while that of paperkeeper was a promotional grade and it was possible to gain promotion from the clerical assistant grade but not from paperkeeper. The Labour Court accepted the paperkeeper grade was created and existed to maintain motivation among staff in that section of the Civil Service to which the grade applied. It found the differences in remuneration were appropriate because, as there were no further outlets from the paperkeeper grade, the only appropriate means of encouraging staff was through a pay differential. Accordingly, it found there were grounds other than sex for the different rates of pay and there was, therefore, no unlawful discrimination.

The Labour Court decision was appealed to the High Court. The matter was heard yesterday by Mr Justice Murphy, who reserved his decision.

The plaintiffs argued that the Labour Court was wrong in holding that the Minister for Finance's policy was unrelated to discrimination based on sex. They also argued that the court was wrong in finding that the motivation for the policy was a "ground other than sex" for the discriminatory practice.

They further claimed that, as the grades of clerical assistant and paperkeeper were merged from 1995 into the grade of clerical officer, the Labour Court was wrong in law in accepting as justification for the different pay scales a policy which no longer existed at the time the Labour Court made its ruling. The CPSU had told the Labour Court that the paperkeeper grade had a promotional outlet to the clerical officer grade.

The Minister for Finance, represented by Ms Eileen Barrington, opposed the appeal and contended that the Labour Court was correct in its finding that there was objective justification for any discriminatory practice. Ms Barrington said yesterday her instructions were that it was not the case that the women had been paid less than the men.

Ms Barrington also said the question of whether objective justification existed did not require reference to the European Court of Justice.