In Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group (17 May 1990) EOR32A, the European Court of Justice takes the historic decision that a pension paid under a contracted-out occupational scheme falls within the scope of the directly enforceable prohibition against sex discrimination in Article 119 of the EEC Treaty. Discrimination on grounds of sex by employers in setting pensionable ages and in benefits provided is unlawful from the date of the Court's decision.
In Finnegan v Clowney Youth Training Programme Ltd (17 May 1990) EOR32B, the House of Lords holds that the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, which enacted identical provisions to those contained in the British Sex Discrimination Act 1975, was not intended to implement the EC Equal Treatment Directive 76/207 even though it was made after the Directive was adopted.
In Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (No 2) (21.6.88) EOR21D, a Southampton industrial tribunal awards the complainant £19,405 compensation, holding that the maximum compensation obtainable in an employment case under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA), currently £8500, does not provide an adequate remedy as required by Article 6 of the EEC Equal Treatment Directive.
In Foster and others v British Gas plc (13.5.88) EOR21E, the Court of Appeal holds that whether a public employer is an "emanation of the State" so as to give its employees directly enforceable rights under EEC law depends upon whether its powers fall within the province of government.
In Duke v GEC Reliance (11.2.88) EOR19E, the House of Lords ruled that discriminatory retirement ages operated by private employers prior to the Sex Discrimination Act 1986 amendments were not unlawful either under UK law or EEC law.
In Murphy and others v Bord Telecom Eireann (4.2.88) EOR19F, the European Court of Justice rules that Article 119 of the EEC Treaty prohibits a difference in pay between sexes where the lower paid category of workers is engaged in work of higher value.
In Newstead v Department of Transport and HM Treasury (3.12.87) EOR18D, the European Court of Justice rules that present EEC law does not prevent an obligation on male employees only to contribute to a survivor's pension under a contracted-out occupational pension scheme.
In Hammersmith & Queen Charlottes Special Health Authority v Cato (9.9.87) EOR17A, the EAT rules that a contractual redundancy payment which followed the statutory redundancy payment scheme by proportionately reducing payments for women over age 59, but not reducing payments for men until they were over age 64, contravenes the equal pay requirements of Article 119 of the EEC Treaty.
In Rolls Royce plc v Doughty (28.7.87) EOR16B, the EAT holds that the company (before it was privatised) was not a State employer against whom the provisions of the Equal Treatment Directive relating to discriminatory retirement ages could be directly enforced. Another division of the EAT has held that British Gas, before privatisation, was not a State authority.
In Rummler v Dato-Druck (1.7.86) EOR11B, the European Court of Justice rules that the EEC Equal Pay Directive does not preclude the use in job evaluation schemes of factors such as physical effort which favour one sex, provided the system does not discriminate overall on grounds of sex.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to EU employment measures.