FOURTEEN WOMEN employed as civilian clerical officers in Garda stations have brought a test High Court action alleging gender discrimination because they are being paid less than gardaí doing the same work.
In proceedings regarded as a test case for hundreds of other women employed in this capacity, the plaintiffs are appealing a Labour Court decision they are not entitled to equal pay with gardaí.
They claim the Labour Court erred in law in finding that, while there may be a presumption of indirect discrimination, the pay differential is not unlawful because it had been proved there was objective justification for not treating them equally.
The Garda Commissioner and Department of Justice, which employs the plaintiffs, have disputed the women’s claims. It is argued the work of gardaí employed as clerical officers differs from civilians in that gardaí are involved in sensitive policing matters which they were trained to deal with.
The proceedings opened yesterday before Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy, who adjourned the case to allow it be referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on a point of law. The parties are to prepare papers relating to referral to the ECJ, and the case will be mentioned in the High Court at the end of this month.
The women, represented by the Civil Public and Services Union, claim no evidence was given to the Labour Court hearing regarding the nature of duties performed and whether they required Garda expertise or training.
Indirect discrimination is alleged on grounds clerical work of equal value was being remunerated at a higher rate when performed by a group made up predominantly of men as against another group made up almost exclusively of women.
A designated number of clerical posts (219) were reserved for gardaí arising out of an industrial relations agreement between Garda management and the Garda representative bodies, the Labour Court was told.
Opening the case for the women yesterday, Gerard Durcan SC said the Labour Court finding of objective justification for indirect discrimination was fundamentally flawed. The finding should be set aside because there was no adequate or credible evidence before it to sustain its finding of facts.
An industrial relations agreement with Garda representative bodies could not be used as a justification for discrimination, counsel also argued.
The Department of Justice argues the Labour Court’s decision was balanced and involved no mistake of law. No evidence was given to the Labour Court to contradict assertions by a chief superintendent that certain clerical posts required the holder to have experience of policing.