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

Basic salary to be compared

This report relates to 1 case(s)

  • expand

    Jämställdhetsombudsmannen v Örebro Läns Landsting [2000] IRLR 421 ECJ (2 other reports)

    • Equal pay: case law update

      Date:
      3 February 2006

      We review recent significant equal pay cases and their implications. Developments of note include the application of the "single source" test to comparators within an employment unit, and a reference to the ECJ on whether use of length of service as a pay system criterion requires specific objective justification.

    • Equal pay: Inconvenient-hours supplement did not count towards basis for pay comparison

      Date:
      1 July 2000

      In Jämställdhetsombudsmannen v Örebro Läns Landsting, the European Court of Justice rules that, in comparing the pay of two midwives and that of a clinical technician assumed to be doing work of equal value, no account should be taken of the fact that the midwives were paid a supplement for working inconvenient hours and that they worked fewer hours per week. The midwives' monthly basic salary should be compared with that of their comparator.

The European Court of Justice has ruled in Jamstalldhetsombudsmannen v Orebro Lans Landsting that the equal pay principle applies to each of the elements of remuneration.

This case was brought by the Swedish Equal Opportunities Ombudsman on behalf of two midwives who complained that their basic pay was lower than that for a clinical technician employed on work of equal value, although they also received a supplement for working inconvenient hours.