The Gazette 1975

There is a confusing variety of methods of enforcement. Misogynists will be pleased to learn that section 11 enacts that the equal pay provisions are to be applied "to a man in relation to his remuneration relative to that of a woman." As regards the EEC Directive, the Act goes beyond its requirements by providing a remedy for women bv utilising the Labour Court for its purposes with- out any cost to the litigants. However, it fails to comply with the Directive's requirements that the equal pay provisions be posted up in every place of work. Also, the Directive requires provisions for enforcement of equal pay "at the level of the undertaking"; and the equal pay officers cannot operate at that level. It now only remains for the Oireachtas to lay to rest forever De Lolme's proverbial assertion "that Parliament can do everything but make a woman a man, and a man a woman."

innocence. However important it is to protect workers' rights, it is a sad day for our legal system when its fundamental democratic principles can so easily be trampled upon by ruffled female cx- employecs. Quite apart from the principle of Criminal Law involved, it is recognised that a "negative does not admit of the simple and direct proof of which an affirmative is capable" (Taylor on Evidence, 12th ed., Vol. I, p.252). So the Legislature has relieved the so- callcd weaker sex of the burden of "simple and direct" proof and laid the heavy alternative onus on her employer. The Dnil debate on this point was, to say the least, feeble. In the Upper House, Senator Yeats clearly saw the danger and made a valiant effort to have this provision amended. Contemporaneously, a similar provision was being debated in the Dail in connec- tion with the Food Standards Bill, and the Minister gave this same simplistic reply to the Senate: there are isolated statutory precedents for such a reversal of the burden of proof, e.g. The Health Act, 1947, section 64(2)(c). Mr. D. O'Malley, T.D., in the Dail debate on the Food Standards Bill did not let the matter pass him by, but he did not appear to see the danger in the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act. At any rate, there was a division in the Senate and of course the majority was for the Government's provision. The really disturbing factor is, not that a statutory pre- cedent carried the day, but that similar provisions appear to be favoured by the Government in further legislation, as witness the Food Standards Bill: a definite pattern seems to be emerging. In addition to the conviction under section ? (1), section 9(3)(a) provides that, on such conviction, where the Court is satisfied that the employee would be entitled to recover in such -civil action. The latter is to be paid to the employee, and will be a good defence to any subsequent civil action for such arrears. Dircct complaint to Labour Court Section 10 grants a female employee the right to complain direct to the Labour Court of her dismissal solely or mainly because she had claimed from her employer equal pay. In such case the Labour Court is to investigate the complaint, hear the interested parties as in the case of an appeal from the recom- mendation of an 'equal pay officer, and may order payment to the employee of the remuneration she would have received to date of the order of the Court if she had not been dismissed, but not more than 104 weeks' remuneration, and may recommend her re- instatement. Penalties are provided' for such case as under section 8(4)(b). Where there is such a convic- tion, the Court may impose a fine of arrears of remuneration, as under section 9(3)(a), payable to the employee. Notwithstanding section 17 of the Indus- trial Relations Act, 1946 which bars appeals from the Labour Court to a court of law) appeal against the order lies to the Circuit Court (in whose Circuit the employer carries on business). Appeal against the amount of the fine may be made by the plaintiff to the High Court, or the Circuit Court.

SOCIETY OF YOUNG SOLICITORS

TRANSACRIPTS SERVICE

c/o 94, Grafton Street, Dublin 2.

The following transacripts from the Kinsale Seminar are now available:— Lecture 87. Damages, 50p; by post, 59p. Lecture 88. Hire Purchase, 80p; by post, 89p. * The draft scripts for the Lectures on Advocacy and Injunction are out for approval, estimated availablity for these will be early June. The 1974 Waterford scripts available are:— No. 84. Farm Taxation & Finance Act 1974. £1.00; by post, £1.09. No. 85. Modern Developments in Conveyancing Contract, 40p; by post, 50p. No. 86. Solicitors of today, 70p; by post, 77p. Due to high postage approximately £75.00 and other costs including 1,500 envelopes and 9 reams of paper plus labour charges, general circulation of price lists has been discontinued. Members can assist in avoid- ing unnecessary expenses by either asking for lists when ordering transcripts and returning these lists or by sending stamped addressed envelope when list only required. 93