Disability History Month: Disability Discrimination in Employment: The Strange Case of B Joyce, Telephonist
This post for Disability History Month is a follow up to this year’s first DHM post about historical evidence for the employment of blind people. Here, Dr Suzanne Jobling introduces a case of disability discrimination in employment, thrown up by her research into sex discrimination in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
While pursuing my doctoral research, I’ve had the privilege to spend happy hours in archives across the UK and Ireland, seeking out stories of extraordinary but unknown individuals who refused to accept that discrimination was an element of their working lives to be stoically endured in order to simply earn a living. Records of equal pay and sex discrimination cases constitute an extraordinarily rich source of social history that bring the workplace of the past to life alongside the dilemmas faced by individual workers. The case of such an individual - Ms B Joyce, a blind Irish telephonist, powerfully illustrates the richness and complexity of the workplace history of disabled people.
In 1976 the Civil Service Blind Telephonists’ Association submitted a claim through their General Council Staff Panel on Joyce’s behalf against the Department of Public Services. This claim asserted that blind female telephonists working in the Irish Civil Service should be paid the same rate of pay as blind male telephonists. While, to modern sensibilities, this argument appears incontestable, equal pay legislation in the form of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act 1974 had only recently come into force in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and early claims such as Joyce’s served the important function of testing its provisions. Since the dispute could not be immediately resolved, the claim was referred to an equality officer of the Labour Court, an individual who would assess the case and issue a recommendation in accordance with the established process in the ROI.
In 1958, pay scales for all blind telephonists had been fixed at approximately 90% of the established scales for sighted telephonists. Blind women telephonists were doubly discriminated against, since the pay rate awarded to blind male telephonists was based on a higher male telephonist rate while, correspondingly, blind female telephonists were paid a percentage of a lower female telephonists’ rate. The decision was made in 1970 to pay blind telephonists in line with full telephonists’ rates, eliminating the differential. However, the disparity between the wages of blind male and blind female telephonists went unaddressed.
The equality officer assessing the case met both parties and visited telephone exchanges to see ‘work in progress’. Joyce’s representatives emphasised that the work performed by the blind male and female telephonists was identical and they worked comparable hours. Representatives of the Department of the Public Service did not attempt to argue that male and female blind telephonists performed different work, but maintained that that the differing pay for male and female blind telephonists was based on grounds other than sex. It originated from the 1970 decision to pay blind telephonists on the same basis as their sighted counterparts. Department representatives maintained that ‘the pay of male and female blind telephonists’ had been tied to ‘the pay of two Post Office grades for reasons unique to this case’. They argued that when they linked ‘male blind telephonists to one grade and female blind telephonists to another’ that they had ‘went as far as possible in improving the pay of both’. Thus, they reasoned, this evolution in pay rates ‘reflected factors that are unusual to say the least’ and any departure from the 1970 arrangement was, in their opinion, likely to cause problems. This explanation for the pay differential was wholly inadequate and it was notable that it failed to truly explain the difference for the gendered pay differential that existed for blind telephonists.
The recommendation issued by the equality officer in this case accepted that the differing pay rates for blind telephonists had been ‘established … by criteria outside of the normal constraints of pay negotiation’. However, the officer noted that the rates for the workers had been linked to particular grades of sighted male and female telephonists ‘for reasons of convenience’. They rejected the Department’s main argument that the ‘linking of blind telephonists’ rates to two different rates of pay can be justified as a “reason other than sex” for paying different rates of pay to male and female blind telephonists’. They ultimately advised that the women were entitled to equal pay with their male colleagues.
While legislation mandating equal pay and forbidding sex discrimination was introduced in the 1970s in both the UK and ROI, societal attitudes would take longer to change and prove more enduring. In this case, the initial discrimination on the grounds of the telephonists’ disability was removed in 1970, an issue that was perhaps seen as worthy of attention because some of the blind telephonists were male. However, gendered discrimination against the blind women telephonists remained, reflecting Irish society’s prioritisation of the concept of the male breadwinner in the workplace. This enduring discrimination demonstrates the complex intersection between gender and disability. It is clear the department had relied on the complexity of the grading system to pay the male blind telephonists more than their women counterparts, despite their work being identical. The civil service, which should have acted as a role model to industry in matters of equality, also actively discriminated against its disabled, women employees.
Joyce’s considerable efforts deserve recognition as a vital part both of Irish women’s history and the history of disabled people in employment. The details of this fascinating case highlight the fact that disability and its history can be revealed in a diverse range of archival records. As a blind woman employee in the Irish civil service in the 1970s, it can be assumed that Joyce’s path to employment was likely to have involved overcoming significant hurdles in order to both obtain and remain in employment. Her decision to pursue such a case, potentially jeopardising her employment, professional relationships and future employment was profoundly brave. Her claim also served a greater purpose in testing the provisions of the new laws and securing a workplace that would be free of discrimination for workers in the future.[1]
Cover image Photograph courtesy of http://www.JoeTourist.net
[1] ‘Equality Officer Recommendation No. 14/1977 – Department of Public Services and Ms B Joyce, Blind telephonist’ (NAI, DL, 2011/61/78).