| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name
 | Date | Lines | 
|---|
| 379.1 | How about... | DEALIN::ONEILL | Its a LONG way to Tipperary... | Thu May 12 1988 10:59 | 16 | 
|  |     
    	Hi Willie,
    
    	I heard about that forum but cant remember from where ... you
    	could put an entry in the WOMANNOTES file - Im sure some of
    	those ladies could point you in the right direction if you're
        having problems finding someone to help here
             
    	Will u publish any findings here on the subject?  Being fired
        because a woman got married seems to be a bit too sexist to
        be even tried by an employer - no matter what the job was!
    
    Ann
    
    
    	Ann
 | 
| 379.2 | Not True | GAO::FERRIE | Liam Ferrie - Galway | Thu May 12 1988 12:29 | 20 | 
|  |     I found this a hard statistic to swallow.  From time to time we
    hear of individual cases in the newspapers but these are fairly
    rare. 
    I decided to phone the Employment Equality Agency [1] in Dublin to
    see if they could throw light on the matter.  First of all I was
    told (and already knew) that it is illegal to discriminate against
    a woman in the work place, by reason of her sex or marital status.
    Where a woman believes she has been discriminated against, she is
    entitled to take the matter to the Labour Court. The person I
    spoke said that "to the best of my knowledge there are NO such
    cases pending" and categorically discounted the allegation
    regarding the 300. 
    [1] The Employment Equality Agency was set up some years ago by
        the Government to ensure that women are treated fairly in all
        aspects of employment.
    
    		Liam 
 | 
| 379.3 |  | VAXWRK::DENIS |  | Thu May 12 1988 15:02 | 7 | 
|  |     Re .2: Liam, I don't know if it's true, but in an English humorous
    book, (I could find the reference when I'll be back over the pond)
    I read a while ago that when accused by the EEC of salary
    discrimination between men and women, the Irish government hired some
    controllers to check the government offices to see if this was true:
    The wages offered were lower for women...
    			Denis.
 | 
| 379.4 | Not quite true | GAO::FERRIE | Liam Ferrie - Galway | Thu May 12 1988 16:33 | 31 | 
|  |     I would not believe everything I read about Ireland in an English
    humorous journal but they might have been referring to the
    following news story which I summarised in The Irish Emigrant, on
    February 7 last, as follows:
     
    
                      EQUAL PAY FOR UNEQUAL WORK
       Bord Telecom refused to grant some female staff pay
       equality with their male colleagues on the grounds that
       the men were doing lesser work.  The existing legislation
       only calls for equal pay for equal work.  The females were
       left on a lower rate of pay. The case eventually went to
       the European court (with the backing of the Government)
       where the women won out. 
    
    Bord Telecom is a semi-state body and it is not clear to me
    why it had to go to court at all but I can think on two possible
    reasons:
    
    a) the Government wanted to set a precedent so that private
       employers could not use this excuse?
    
    b) Bord Telecom were afraid that if they paid the women more
       without going to court then the Unions might have insisted on 
       an increase for the men to maintain traditional pay 
       differentials?  Maybe I am being unfair to the Unions. 
    
		Liam
 | 
| 379.5 |  | VAXWRK::DENIS |  | Fri May 13 1988 08:30 | 4 | 
|  |     Re .4: I remember that article in "The Irish Emigrant", Liam, but
    what I was refering to was published in a book about 9 or 10 years
    ago. I guess the case is still not resolved...
    			Denis.
 |