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

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

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.

    • Basic salary to be compared

      Date:
      1 September 2000

      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.

In Jämställdhetsombudsmannen v Orebro Läns Landsting [2000] IRLR 421, 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.