A LOSS of pay increments by two Irish job-sharing women when they returned to full-time work constituted sexual discrimination, an oral hearing of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg was told yesterday.
The case, which is likely to prove a landmark test of job-sharing rights, arises from a referral from the Labour Court to the ECJ of a ruling by the Department of Finance that every two years of a job-share would only count as one in assessing service.
The case was initially taken the Labour Court by the Civil and Public Service Union (CPSU) on behalf of two Revenue Commissioners' clerical assistants, Ms Anne Stapleton and Ms Kathleen Hill. They had returned from two years' job-share to full-time work in 1990 to discover that the Commissioners were only allowing them one year's worth of increments.
The CPSU challenged the ruling under the 1974 Equal, Pay Act and the EU's equal pay directive. It insists that as 98 per cent of job-sharers are women, and as the ruling effectively reduces their hourly pay, it is discriminatory in its effects. The Department of Finance contends that service should be calculated according to actual time worked.
The Labour Court decided to refer the issue to the ECJ, the first time it has done so. The women's case is being supported by the European Commission.
A ruling from the court can be expected in a few months.
