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

Case round-up: Equal pay and unfair dismissal

This report relates to 2 case(s)

  • expand disabled

    Clark v Midland Packaging Ltd [2005] All ER (D) 10 (Mar) EAT (0 other reports)

  • expand

    Robertson and others v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2005] IRLR 363 CA (3 other reports)

    • Equal pay: case law update

      Date:
      2 March 2007

      This article looks at some of the significant judgments in the area of equal pay over the past year and their implications.

    • 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: Pay must be set by 'single source' for comparison to be legitimate

      Date:
      25 March 2005

      In Robertson and others v Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Court of Appeal holds that the ECJ case of Lawrence v Regent Office Care sets out the correct approach to equal pay cases under art 141 of the EU Treaty. This states that male and female workers must have their pay and conditions set by a "single source" before they can make comparisons for equal pay purposes under art 141.

This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering comparators for equal pay and time limits in unfair dismissal cases.

Departmental comparisons

Robertson and others v Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, CA, 22 February 2005

Six male civil servants, who worked in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), brought equal pay claims.