This is a preview. To continue reading, register for free access now. Register now or Log in

Equal pay: Compared jobs must be rated as equivalent under same study

This report relates to 1 case(s)

  • expand disabled

    KD Paterson & others v (1) London Borough of Islington (2) Caxton Islington Ltd (3) Castle Independent Ltd EAT/347/03 (0 other reports)

Key Points

In Paterson v London Borough of Islington and others, the EAT holds:

  • To constitute "work rated as equivalent" for the purposes of s.1(2)(b) and 1(5) of the Equal Pay Act 1970, the compared jobs must have been assessed under the same study.
  • Where a local authority employer had adopted a national-level scheme for the evaluation of jobs that was implemented at local level, a material departure from the requirements of that scheme in assessing a particular job was sufficient to put that assessment outside the scheme. This meant that it could not be said to have been carried out under the same study as the assessments for the complainants' jobs that were carried out within the terms of the scheme.
  • Therefore, the complainants' jobs and the comparator job were not "rated as equivalent" for the purposes of s.1(2)(b) and 1(5), and there was no obligation for the complainants to be paid the same bonus as their chosen comparator.