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

No need for male comparator in maternity equal pay claims

This report relates to 1 case(s)

  • expand

    Alabaster v Barclays Bank plc and Secretary of State for Social Security (No.2) [2005] IRLR 576 CA (3 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

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.