A Birmingham employment tribunal (Chair: A B Rees) in Crossley v ACAS finds that a service-based pay structure which indirectly discriminated against women could not be objectively justified and upholds a claim of equal pay from a woman who, because of her shorter service, was paid substantially less than her male comparators employed on like work.
In Evesham v North Hertfordshire Health Authority and Secretary of State for Health the EAT has ruled that the terms of a successful equal value complainant should mirror those of her comparator. She is not entitled to be placed at a point on the comparator's pay scale as is appropriate for her own service.
In Hill v Revenue Commissioners (17 June 1998) EOR81B, the European Court of Justice holds that rules which treat full-time workers who previously jobshared disadvantageously compared with other full-time workers, must in principle be treated as contrary to Article 119 of the EC Treaty, and that indirect sex discrimination cannot be justified on cost grounds.
A female speech therapist whose job was scored 55 compared with 56.5 for her male comparator's job by an independent expert, as adjusted, was employed on work of equal value because there was no "overall measurable and significant differences" in job demands, holds a London South industrial tribunal (Chair: E R Donnelly) in Worsfold v (1) Southampton District Health Authority and (2) Secretary of State for Health.
A local education authority indirectly discriminated on grounds of sex by refusing to value a woman's unpaid experience in raising a family when it awarded incremental points for "relevant experience", a Carmarthen industrial tribunal (Chair: M Thomas) decides in Charles v Pembrokeshire County Council and Governors of Haverfordwest VC School.
The European Court of Justice has ruled that German legislation on public sector employment, under which part-time employees had to complete a longer period of service than full-time workers in order to be eligible for promotion and exemption from a qualifying examination, is indirectly discriminatory.
In Owusu v London Fire & Civil Defence Authority the EAT has held that an act extends over a period, for time limit purposes, if it takes the form of some policy, rule or practice, in accordance with which decisions are taken.
In Young v University of Edinburgh the EAT finds that an employer can establish a defence to an equal pay claim by showing that the difference in pay was genuinely due to an administrative error, which the employer could not rectify without creating further anomalies.
Women warehouse operatives whose work was evaluated as scoring three points less than the work of their male comparator were employed on work of equal value, rules a Bedford industrial tribunal (Chair: C Tribe) in Pickstone and others v Freemans plc.
In Sougrin v Haringey Health Authority (4 June 1992) EOR45C, the Court of Appeal rules that a discriminatory grading decision is an act of discrimination with continuing consequences rather than a continuing act of discrimination for time-limit purposes.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to pay and grading systems.