Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

Brown & Anor v Coastline Container Line Ltd (Race Discrimination) [2003] NIIT 02646_00 (24 June 2003

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 02646/00

02650/00

APPLICANT: 1. Peter Brown

2. David Russell

RESPONDENT: Coastline Container Line Limited

DECISION

The unanimous finding of the Tribunal is that the respondent did not unlawfully discriminate against the applicants on grounds of race and their applications are therefore dismissed.

Appearances:

The applicants appeared and were unrepresented.

The respondent was represented by Mr J Dunlop, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Carson and McDowell, Solicitors.

1. At all material times the applicants were employed by the respondent as sheet metal workers. The applicants' normal duties were concerned with repairs to the respondents containers and ensuring the appropriate level of maintenance.

On occasions they were asked to carry out dock work or crane driving work. Pursuant to an agreement with their union, the applicants were paid the normal docker's rate or crane driver's rate when they carried out these duties which was different from the normal sheet metal worker's rate.

2. The respondent carries out its business at a number of locations namely Belfast, Dublin, Liverpool and Cardiff. In or about early 1998 the applicants discovered that sheet metal workers at Liverpool and Cardiff received a higher rate of pay than sheet metal workers at Belfast. It is accepted that this fact was a source of grievance among the Belfast workers and a number of meetings took place with management and union officials to resolve the matter, but without success.
3. The applicants allege that they have been subjected to less favourable treatment on grounds of race. In particular they allege that the wage differential is based on the fact that they are Irish, whereas the workers in Liverpool and Cardiff are English.
4. The relevant portion of Article 5(1) of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 which deals with the meaning of "racial grounds", "racial group" etc states that:-

"racial grounds" means any of the following grounds, namely colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins;

"racial group" means a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins, and references to a person's racial group refer to any racial group into which he falls".

5. The relevant portion of Article 3(1) of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 states that:-

"A person discriminates against another in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Order if:

(a) On racial grounds he treats others less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons".

(emphasis added)

6. The respondent accepts that workers at the Belfast plant are paid less and on a different basis than workers at either Cardiff or Liverpool. In relation to the sheet metal workers employed at Liverpool, the respondent contended that the sheet metal workers had been acquired as part of a relevant transfer for the purposes of the Transfer of Undertaking Protection of Employment Regulations and that at the date of transfer, they had been on a higher rate than the Belfast workers which the respondent had continued to pay.
7. The respondent contends however that although workers in Belfast were paid a lower rate for sheet metal work, the fact that they frequently had the opportunity to do dock or crane driving work which was paid at a higher rate meant that in practice their weekly wages could be higher than workers in Cardiff and Liverpool who had no opportunity to do such work.
8. The respondent submitted that the reason for the pay differential between sheet metal workers in Belfast, Cardiff and Liverpool was essentially market forces in the various locations. Mr John Rafferty, General Manager for the Belfast plant gave evidence, which the Tribunal accepts, that the respondent arrived at its rates of pay by talking to a number of manufacturing companies in Northern Ireland to discover what the going rate of pay was for sheet metal workers. The respondent spoke to people in Harland and Wolff, Belfast Harbour Commission and Shortt Brothers. From information which the company was given, it learned that it could expect to pay £230-£240 per week basic for sheet metal workers. The respondent then applied the equivalent rate.
9. The Tribunal is satisfied that all sheet metal workers in Belfast were paid the same rate irrespective of national origin, colour, rate etc. If an employee from Liverpool had been working at Belfast, he would have been paid the Belfast rate and not the Liverpool rate. Similarly, an employee from Northern Ireland working at Liverpool would have been paid the Liverpool rate rather than the Belfast rate.
10. In order to bring a successful claim for race discrimination, the Tribunal would have to be satisfied that the grounds for the pay differential was race which as already indicated includes nationality or national origin. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the grounds for the treatment was race, but rather the "going rate" for the job in the various locations. In any event, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the work carried out by the applicants in Belfast was exactly equivalent to the sheet metal work carried out by workers in Liverpool and Cardiff.

This is because the Liverpool and Cardiff welders were "coded welders" which enabled them to carry out structural work on cranes. The Belfast workers were not qualified coded welders, and if coded welding was required, an outside firm of coded welders named Cypena was used. Although the applicants could have been trained as coded welders within a short time the respondent chose not to invest in this training exercise.

11. Since the Tribunal has concluded that the applicants were not less favourably treated on grounds of race, the applications are dismissed.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 24 June 2002, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: