All items: Equal pay

• expand

  (1) Snoxell and Davies v Vauxhall Motors Ltd (2) Charles Early & Marriott (Witney) Ltd v Smith and Ball [1977] IRLR 123 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

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

    Date:

    1 April 1977

    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.

• expand

  A Dugdale and others v Kraft Foods Ltd [1976] IRLR 368 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Equal pay: "Trivial differences" should be disregarded in determining whether there is like work

    Date:

    24 November 1976

    In the Capper Pass v Lawton, the EAT hold that in determining whether a woman and a man are employed on broadly similar work, Industrial Tribunals should disregard "trivial differences or differences not likely in the real world to be reflected in terms and conditions of employment". And in Dugdale and others v Kraft Foods Ltd, the EAT hold that the time that the work is performed should also be disregarded when considering whether jobs constitute like work within the s.1(4) definition.

• expand

  Abbott and others v Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Trust [2006] All ER (D) 140 (Jan) EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Abbott and others v Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Trust

    Date:

    10 February 2006

    In Abbott and others v Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Trust [2006] All ER (D) 140 (Jan) EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employment tribunal in an equal pay claim failed to consider the balance between the discriminatory effect of not paying bonuses to a group of employees and the objective justification for that decision.

• expand

  Abdoulaye and others v Régie Nationale Des Usines Renault SA [1999] IRLR 811 ECJ (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Pregnancy and maternity: Compensatory maternity allowance does not breach EC law

    Date:

    15 November 1999

    In Abdoulaye and others v Régie Nationale des Usines Renault SA, the ECJ rules that Article 141 of the Treaty of Rome does not preclude the making of a lump-sum payment exclusively to female workers who take maternity leave where that payment is designed to offset the occupational disadvantages which arise for those workers as a result of their being away from work.

  • Maternity bonus lawful

    Date:

    1 September 1999

    In Abdoulaye and others v Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA the European Court of Justice has ruled that a maternity bonus to women did not discriminate against men so as to contravene Article 119 of the EC Treaty.

• expand

  Abdulla and others v Birmingham City Council [2013] IRLR 38 SC (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Equal pay: Claim cannot be more conveniently disposed of by a tribunal if it would be time barred

    Date:

    6 March 2013

    In Abdulla and others v Birmingham City Council [2013] IRLR 38 SC, the Supreme Court held that the civil courts may not strike out an equal pay claim as being more conveniently disposed of by the employment tribunal when the claim cannot be pursued there because it is out of time.

  • Civil courts retain discretion on striking out equal pay claims time-barred in employment tribunals

    Date:

    24 October 2012

    The Supreme Court has held that civil courts should retain their discretion when deciding whether or not to strike out equal pay claims that are time-barred from being heard in the employment tribunal. 

• expand

  Adams v International Insider Publishing Co Ltd [2001] ET/2202350/01 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Additional value to the company justified difference in pay

    Date:

    1 September 2001

    A London Central tribunal (Chair: J R Hill) in Adams v International Insider Publishing Co Ltd rejects a claim for equal pay for work of equal value, after deciding that it was not necessary to appoint an independent expert as there was sufficient evidence to identify the differences between the two posts.

• expand

  Adegbuji v Meteor Parking Ltd EAT/1570/09 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Tribunal procedure: "Fresh evidence" challenges to tribunal decisions should be dealt with by review not appeal

    Date:

    15 September 2010

    In Adegbuji v Meteor Parking Ltd EAT/1570/09, the EAT dismissed an appeal seeking to challenge a tribunal decision on the basis of fresh evidence because the claimant had failed to show that the evidence could not have been put before the tribunal at the time of the hearing. The EAT also remarked that, in general, the appropriate course for parties seeking to rely on new evidence is to apply to the tribunal for a review.

• expand

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust v Reynolds [2003] All ER (D) 10 (Sep) EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Sex discrimination: New pay terms for employees did not amount to indirectly discriminatory "requirement"

    Date:

    2 April 2004

    In Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust v Reynolds the EAT holds that an employment tribunal was wrong to find that an employee who was employed on the terms applicable to all those doing his work who, like him, were appointed after 1993 when the NHS Trust employer came into existence, suffered indirect sex discrimination.

  • Case round-up: equal pay comparators for transferred staff and unreasonable assessment of criteria in redundancy selection

    Date:

    23 September 2003

    This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering: equal pay comparators for transferred staff; and unreasonable assessment of criteria in redundancy selection.

• expand

  Alabaster v Barclays Bank plc and Secretary of State for Social Security (No.2) [2005] IRLR 576 CA (4 reports relating to this case)

  • 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.

  • Maternity leave and equal pay: Male comparator not required in maternity pay claim

    Date:

    24 June 2005

    In Alabaster v Barclays Bank plc, the Court of Appeal holds that the answer to the problem of how to enable an employee effectively to enforce her right to claim arrears of maternity pay (owed to her as a result of a failure to take into account a pay rise awarded before her maternity leave started, but after the reference period for calculating her maternity pay had ended) lay in removing the requirement in s.1(1) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 for her to point to a male comparator.

  • No need for male comparator in maternity equal pay claims

    Date:

    1 June 2005

    In Alabaster v Barclays Bank plc and the Secretary of State for Social Security (3 May 2005), the Court of Appeal holds that in equal pay claims relating to maternity, the requirement for a male comparator in s.1 of the Equal Pay Act should be disapplied in order to comply with art. 141 of the EC Treaty.

  • Ruling leads to changes in SMP pay rise awards

    Date:

    10 May 2005

    Catherine Taylor, employment partner at Olswang, looks at the implications for employers of the recent adjustment of domestic law to comply with the ECJ's ruling that pay rises must be reflected in statutory maternity pay.

• expand

  Alabaster v Woolwich plc and Secretary of State for Social Security [2000] IRLR 754 EAT (2 reports relating to this case)

  • SMP Regulations breach EU law

    Date:

    1 September 2000

    In Alabaster v Woolwich plc and Secretary of State for Social Security, the EAT has ruled that an amendment made to the Statutory Maternity Pay Regulations failed to implement fully the European Court's decision in the Gillespie case because it does not allow women on maternity leave the benefit of pay increases that are not backdated.

  • Maternity pay: Benefit of non-backdated pay increase should have been added to maternity pay

    Date:

    15 June 2000

    In Alabaster v Woolwich plc and another, the EAT holds that a woman was entitled to see the benefit of a pay increase awarded before she went on maternity leave reflected in the calculation of her earnings-related, higher-rate statutory maternity pay ("SMP").