Nathan v. Bailey Gibson Ltd
| Author | Leo Flynn |
| Published date | 01 March 1997 |
| Date | 01 March 1997 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/135822919700200306 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
223
Nathan
v.
Bailey Gibson
Ltd
(Irish Supreme Court, 29 February
1996, unreported)
Introduction
The organisation
of
paid employment outside the home has tradition-
ally excluded and marginalised women. One result
of
this history is
a set
of
structures and behaviour patterns which make it difficult for
women to enter into and succeed in paid employment. This structural
disadvantage reinforces the original exclusion. There has been a com-
mitment in Irish law to redressing this situation since the introduction
of
the Employment Equality Act 1977 and the Anti-Discrimination
(Pay) Act 1974. These provisions can address direct discrimination
without major conceptual difficulty but as the more obviously irra-
tional forms
of
discrimination are removed, improving
women's
status may become more difficult. A recent decision
of
the Irish
Supreme Court, Nathan
v.
Bailey Gibson Ltd, illustrates how import-
ant
it
is to be aware
of
the legacy
of
a sexist history, and not to
assume it away as pre-ordained in some gender-neutral fashion. The
decision is also a reminder
of
the important role played by European
Community law in the way European Union Member States address
these issues.
Nathan
v.
Bailey Gibson Ltd: Facts
The facts
of
Nathan v Bailey Gibson
Ltd
are relatively straight for-
ward. Breda Nathan had been employed by Bailey Gibson Ltd for
almost twenty years, ten
of
which were spent as an assistant to the
operator
of
a carton folder/gluer machine.
In
January, 1988 the man
operating this machine retired and
Ms
Nathan applied for the posi-
tion. The company had a 'closed shop' agreement with the Irish Print
Union (I.P.U.) that an operator
of
a carton folder/gluer must be a
member
of
the union
if
a suitably qualified union member was avail-
able. The company wrote to the I.P.U. requesting it to consider the
training
of
Ms Nathan for the post. The union replied that the normal
practice must apply and so the company advertised the vacancy and
subsequently interviewed a number
of
candidates, all
of
whom were
male and members
of
the union. However, both the first and second
preferences rejected the company's
job
offer. The company wrote to
the union stating that it would again like to propose training Ms
Nathan for the position. The I.P.U. requested the company to inter-
view unemployed union members with a view to retraining one
of
these for the position. Seven male unemployed union members were
To continue reading
Request your trial