THE Labour Relations Commission has found against two women who claimed they were being paid less than male colleagues doing similar work.
In the first case, an assistant solicitor in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor claimed she was entitled to the same rate of remuneration for bank holidays and privilege days" as a male colleague of the same rank.
Her union, IMPACT, claimed that Ms Grainne Glynn was a job sharer who, while she worked five mornings a week, had received her normal day's pay, i.e. a half day for each holiday or privilege day occurring.
The problem arose when she acquired a job sharing partner, since "when she had worked each Monday and Tuesday and every other Wednesday. The court was told that she was now paid only for holidays on which she was due to attend for work.
Over a year, she received pay or leave for only six bank holidays and privilege days, compared with 12 for the named male colleague, who worked full time. The union argued that entitlement to public holidays was the right of all permanent workers regardless of the number of hours worked.
It cited a ruling by the European Court of Justice, which found that a part time nurse should be paid for the full duration of a training course. The case qualified as sexual discrimination, the court found, because a far greater proportion of part time workers were women.
But the LRC ruled that Ms Glynn was receiving the same prorata remuneration as her male colleague within the meaning of the Anti Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974.
In the second case, a woman employee of the confectionary company, Leaf Ireland Ltd, claimed she was entitled to equal a with six named male colleagues. The commission heard that Ms Marie McTiernan was a colour/flavour maker with the Kildare based company, which makes bubble gum and liquorice products.
The union representing her, SIPTU, said Ms McTiernan held a grade two post, paid at £5.32 an hour. The six male colleagues named were employed in a range; of different grade one jobs and paid at £5.86 an hour. The grade one jobs included that of "mixer operator", which involved making bulk product and "pan operator", which involved adding various products to raw materials.
The equality officer of the LRC compared Ms McTiernan's job with the six other positions, under the headings of skill, responsibility, physical effort, mental effort and working conditions.
She concluded that the work of the claimant was very different from any of the six colleagues. She ruled that Ms McTiernan did not, perform "like work" as defined by the Act, and was not entitled to the same rate of payment as the grade one operators.
