This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Gibson and others v Sheffield City Council

This report relates to 1 case(s)

  • expand

    Gibson and others v Sheffield City Council [2010] IRLR 311 CA (1 other report)

    • Equal pay: Productivity bonus favouring men had to be justified

      5 May 2010

      In Gibson and others v Sheffield City Council [2010] IRLR 311 CA, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, even in cases of indirect pay discrimination, it remains open to the employer to establish that any apparent difference in treatment was not in any way tainted by sex, so that the need for objective justification of the disparate impact is not engaged. However, on the facts of the case, it was plain that the employer had not discharged that burden, so objective justification of the differential treatment was required.

equal pay | defence | genuine material factor

The Court of Appeal has held that an employment tribunal was wrong to find that a pay differential between male street cleaners and female carers, which had been caused by a productivity bonus given to the cleaners that was not appropriate for the carers due to the nature of the work, was not tainted by sex.

Care workers brought a claim for equal pay comparing themselves to street cleaners.