Equal pay: No need for specific justification of length of service criterion
This report relates to 1 case(s)
Health & Safety Executive v Cadman  IRLR 29 EAT (2 other reports)
In Health & Safety Executive v Cadman  IRLR 29, the EAT holds that where a woman claims equal pay on the basis that she is paid less than her longer-serving male comparators doing work rated as equivalent, the employer is not required to produce specific justification for using length of service as a pay criterion in circumstances where it was distinguishing between full-time workers. The employment tribunal erred in law in ruling that the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case on this point had been qualified by later decisions of the Court. The subsequent decisions referred to by the tribunal were distinguishable from Danfoss in that they related to hours worked as a criterion, where the distinction was made between full-time and part-time workers.