206 / 342
GAZETTE
JULY/AUGUST 1987
Stores (Navan) Limited,
33
the part-
time female sales assistants were
considered to be doing work of
equal value (like work) with the full-
time male porters. It was recom-
mended the females be paid the
same hourly
rate and be
assimilated on to the full-time
salary scale on the basis of
cumulative hours worked — (ob-
viously taking them longer to reach
various service points on the
scale). In
19 Female Employees-v-
St. Patrick's College,
2
*
part-time
female cleaners sought an equal
rate of pay with the full-time male
operatives. It was recommended
that the same hourly rate be paid
to the cleaners.
More recently, there was a judg-
ment from the European Court of
Justice which considered rights to
pensions for part-time employees
- Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH -v- Weber
von Hartz
.
35
It was held that the
exclusion of part-time employees
f r om
occupa t i onal
pension
schemes contravenes Article 119
of the Treaty of Rome, if this
exclusion affects significantly
more women than men, unless the
employer can show that the exclu-
sion is based on objectively
justified f ac t ors unrelated to
any discrimination on grounds of
sex. It might be noted that pension
schemes are considered to fall
within the definition of 'remun-
e r a t i on' in the Irish An t i-
Discrimination (Pay) Act. Accor-
d i ng l y, pa r t - t ime
emp l oyees
could well found such a claim in
this country assuming such al-
leged discrimination is on the
grounds of sex and the employer
cannot show that the alleged
discrimination is on grounds other
than sex.
In
Employment Equality Agency
-v- Packard Electric Ireland Limited,
/T&GWU
and A T&GWY,
26
a
clause in a collective agreement
between the company and the
unions was considered under the
1977 Ac t. The clause barred
twilight shift staff (part-time) who
had been laid-off or made redun-
dant from that shift from apply-
ing for full-time work until 26
weeks had elapsed from date of
redundancy (and in practice the
lay-off). This practice was con-
sidered to be indirect discrimination
towards twilight shift workers
which mainly comprised married
women.
Job Sharing
Job sharing as a form of work ar-
rangement has been receiving con-
siderable attention in recent years.
It may be defined as one full-time
permanent post and its benefits be-
ing shared by, more usually, t wo
employees. There are many per-
mutations and combinations of job
sharing. It provides for certain flex-
ibility in work arrangements for
employees who wish to work only
pa r t - t ime but the d i f f e r ence
being that they are wo r k i ng
within the confines of a full-time
post.
Such arrangement is more usual-
ly taken up by female employees
who may wish to devote more time
to family responsibilities. From the
legal viewpoint, the law as describ-
ed above would apply.
Employee Participation
The Worker Participation (State
Enterprise) Act, 1977 (as amend-
ed) provides for the election of
employees of designated state
enterprises to the Board of Direc-
tors. In order to vote in such elec-
tions an employee must be over 18
years and have one years service,
and in order to stand for such elec-
tion the employee must have three
years service, such employees be-
ing f u l l - t ime. Recently
the
Employee Participation (State
Enterprises) Bill, 1986 was publish-
ed — the definition of employee
has been widened to include part-
time staff working a minimum of
18 hours per week.
Conclusions
The application of the law and pro-
tective legislation is complicated
and further, arguably restrictive for
both employer and employee. Such
restrictions are immediately ap-
parent in relation to fixed term con-
tracts. Statistically, there is an
increase in the number of
employees doing part-time work.
However, the legal constraints
do not seem to be keeping
abreast with the requirements for
flexibility by both employer and
employee.
REFERENCES
1.
OECD, Employment
Outlook,
September 1985, pp. 26-27.
2.
CSO, Labour Force Sample Survey —
April, 1985 — (latest figure available)
(percentage of full-time workers not
available).
3.
Handy, Charles, — 'The Future of
Work' - Basil Blackwell Ltd.,
London, 1985.
4.
Hepple, Bob, — Restructuring
Employment Rights, ILJ, Volume 1 5,
No. 2, pp. 69-83.
5.
Internationl Labour Conference, 'The
Changing World of Work — Majoi
Issues Ahead' — Report of Directoi
General (Part I) 72nd Session, 1986,
ILO, Geneva.
6.
11978) ICR 1210.
7.
[19831 IRLR 369.
8.
EAT, 17th April, 1985 (unreported)
Employment Law Cases, Volume 1,
IDS, London.
9.
1048/1983 - redundancy claim.
10.
14, M50 and UD 23/1985
-
redundancy claim dismissed.
11.
Carroll, J. unreported High Court, 1st
October, 1984.
12.
Clarke, J. unreported Circuit Court,
19th November 1985.
13.
Minimum Notice and Terms of
Employment Acts, 1973 and 1984.
14.
119701 3 All ER 220.
15.
Barron, J. unreported High Court,
16th April, 1986.
16.
392/3,
M
820/1
and
UD
326/7/1984.
17.
UD 1183/1983.
18.
See
McFadden - v- Ryan t/a Zodiac
Apparel
M 294/1981.
19.
UD 1213/1983.
20.
UD 302/1985.
21.
UD 178/1978.
22.
M 1883 UD 1117/1982.
23.
M 2683 and UD 960/1984.
24.
UD 347/1983.
25.
Application of paragraphs 5 and 8
and see section 8 1967 Act.
Section 8 in summary provides that
if an employee has been made
redundant or laid-off for an average
annual period of more than 12 weeks
in a four year period, there will not be
an entitlement to redundancy
payment:
until the average annual period has
elapsed
— if he resumes work before the
period has elapsed
- i f before the period elapses there
is an offer of re-employment which
the employee
unreasonably
refuses.
26.
1054, M 2749 and UD 1068/1983.
27.
M 542 and UD 244/1978.
28.
[19821 ILRM 390.
29.
Gleeson, J. Circuit Court, 26th
March, 1980.
30.
123 and UD 131/1979.
31.
UD 864/1984.
32.
UD 808/1984.
33.
EP 15/1982.
34.
EP 4/1984.
35.
[1986] IRLR 317.
36.
EE 14/1985
GENERAL REFERENCES
1.
Hepple and O'Higgins, B. Hepple
Employment Law, 4th Edition 1981,
Sweet and Maxwell, London.
2.
Leighton, Patricia, Job Sharing, ILJ
Volume 15, No. 3, 1986, p. 173.
3.
Redmond, Mary, Beyond the Net —
Protecting the Individual Worker
1983 2 JISLL p. 1. •
196