Pay inequity at Garda stations, say women

FOURTEEN women employed as civilian clerical officers in Garda stations are claiming gender discrimination because they are paid less than gardaí doing the same work, the High Court heard yesterday.

In what is a test case for hundreds of other women employed in this capacity, they are appealing a Labour Court decision which found they were not entitled to equal pay.

They claim the court had erred in law by finding that, while there may have been a presumption of indirect discrimination, it was not unlawful because it had been proved that there was an objective justification for not treating them equally.

The Garda Commissioner and Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which employs them, disputed their claim saying that the work of gardaí employed as clerical officers differed from civilians in that they were involved in sensitive policing matters which they had also been trained to deal with.

The proceedings opened before Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy, who adjourned the case to allow it first to be referred to the European Court of Justice, on a point of law. The parties are to prepare papers for the referral to the European Court and the case will be mentioned in the High Court at the end of this month.

The women, represented by the Civil and Public Service Union, claimed no evidence had been given in the Labour Court hearing regarding the nature of duties performed and whether to any extent they required Garda expertise or training.

The union argued there was indirect discrimination because 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 posts, 219, were reserved for gardaí arising out of an industrial relations agreement between Garda management and the Garda representative bodies, the court was told.

Opening the case for the women yesterday, Gerard Durcan SC, said the Labour Court finding that there was objective justification for indirect discrimination was fundamentally flawed.

Mr Durcan said the Labour Court finding should be set aside because there was no adequate or credible evidence before it to sustain its finding of facts and that the inferences it drew from those facts were not reasonable in the circumstances. An industrial relations agreement with the Garda representative bodies could not be used as a justification for discrimination, counsel said.

The Department of Justice argues the Labour Court’s decision was coherent and balanced and made no mistake of law, nor had it reached any conclusion not open to it on the evidence it heard.

No evidence was given to the Labour Court to contradict assertions by a chief superintendent that certain clerical posts required the holder to have knowledge and experience of policing and was also needed to provide continuity of service, the department says.