Pay and grading systems

New and updated

  • Job evaluation must be "analytical" to defeat equal value claim

    Date:
    1 July 1988
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Bromley and others v H & J Quick Ltd (30.3.88) EOR20B, the Court of Appeal holds that in order to defeat an equal value claim on grounds that the jobs in question have been evaluated as unequal, the employer must show that the work of the woman and the work of her male comparator have been rated as unequal under an analytical job evaluation.

  • Job evaluation does not have to be "analytical" to defeat equal value claim

    Date:
    1 November 1987
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Bromley and others v H & J Quick Ltd (28.7.87) EOR16A, a majority of the EAT holds that s.1(5) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 does not require a job evaluation scheme to be "analytical" and that whether a job evaluation relied upon by an employer for the purpose of defeating an equal value claim was discriminatory is a matter for determination by the industrial tribunal.

  • Discrimination: Discriminatory job evaluation schemes

    Date:
    31 March 1987
    Type:
    Law reports

    In RummIer v Dato-Druck GmbH, the European Court of Justice rules that a job evaluation scheme which falls to take into account criteria for which workers of each sex may show particular aptitude may be in breach of EEC sex discrimination law.

  • Speech therapists' equal value claim blocked

    Date:
    1 March 1987
    Type:
    Law reports

    In Clark and others v Bexley Health Authority and others (26.11.86) EOR12C, a London industrial tribunal holds that the health authorities had a material factor defence to any pay inequalities because they were bound to comply with the pay scales laid down by the Secretary of State under Regulations.

  • Discriminatory job evaluation schemes

    Date:
    1 January 1987
    Type:
    Law reports

    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.

  • Packers win equal value claim

    Date:
    1 July 1985
    Type:
    Law reports

    Wells and others v F Smales & Son (Fish Merchants) Ltd (IT, 25.4.85) EOR2A holds that 14 fish packers are employed on work of equal value to that of a male labourer notwithstanding that the independent expert found that five of the women are employed on work of less value. The tribunal reasons that the scores on the expert's assessment were close enough that the differences were not relevant.

  • Employer ordered to disclose job descriptions to equal value applicant

    Date:
    1 May 1985
    Type:
    Law reports

    Clwyd County Council v Leverton (EAT, 13.2.85) EOR1B holds that where an applicant for equal pay for work of equal value has a prima facie case, she is entitled to discovery of job descriptions so as to enable her to name her male comparators.

  • Equal pay: "Red-circling" not automatic defence to equal pay claim

    Date:
    1 April 1977
    Type:
    Law reports

    That men employed on like work with women are in a special "red-circled" category does not automatically provide a defence to a claim for equal pay on grounds that the variation in pay is genuinely due to a material difference, other than the difference of sex, between the men's case and that of the women. This is the major principle established by the EAT in a joint judgment in respect of two "red-circling" appeals - Snoxell and Davies v Vauxhall Motors Ltd and Charles Early & Marriott (Witney) Ltd v Smith and Ball.

About this topic

HR and legal information and guidance relating to pay and grading systems.