Topics

Equal pay

New and updated

  • Date:
    24 August 2010
    Type:
    Law reports

    Equal pay: A local authority employer must be presumed to be a single establishment for equal pay purposes unless the facts demonstrate otherwise

    In City of Edinburgh Council v Wilkinson and others EATS/0002/09, the EAT held that the different departmental and geographical locations of the jobs held by the claimants and their comparators were not sufficient to rebut a presumption that the local authority was a single establishment. Even if that was not the case, the claimants and their comparators were engaged on common terms and conditions. Failing that, they were in the same employment because the comparators' conditions would be the same if they were to be employed at the claimants' establishments.

  • Date:
    8 July 2010
    Type:
    Law reports

    "Stable employment relationship" equal pay test turns on the nature of the work done

    The Court of Appeal has reaffirmed that a "stable employment relationship" equal pay case can arise where there is a succession of consecutive contracts, and held that the word "employment" in that phrase refers to the nature of the work, rather than the terms under which it is carried out. 

  • Date:
    2 June 2010
    Type:
    Law reports

    Equal pay: EAT takes liberal approach to what is "same establishment"

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that a group of administrative and clerical female workers in a local authority could compare themselves with a group of male manual workers who were based in different locations when making equal pay claims. 

  • Date:
    5 May 2010
    Type:
    Law reports

    Equal pay: Productivity bonus favouring men had to be justified

    In Gibson and others v Sheffield City Council [2010] IRLR 311 CA, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, even in cases of indirect pay discrimination, it remains open to the employer to establish that any apparent difference in treatment was not in any way tainted by sex, so that the need for objective justification of the disparate impact is not engaged. However, on the facts of the case, it was plain that the employer had not discharged that burden, so objective justification of the differential treatment was required.

  • Date:
    2 March 2010
    Type:
    Law reports

    Gibson and others v Sheffield City Council

    The Court of Appeal has held that an employment tribunal was wrong to find that a pay differential between male street cleaners and female carers, which had been caused by a productivity bonus given to the cleaners that was not appropriate for the carers due to the nature of the work, was not tainted by sex.

  • Date:
    18 January 2010
    Type:
    Law reports

    Equal pay ruling against Audit Commission

    An employment tribunal has held that nine female inspection support officers were unlawfully paid less than their two male comparators employed on like work after a restructuring.

  • Date:
    14 December 2009
    Type:
    Law reports

    Equal pay: The use of a length-of-service criterion was justified for a period of five years only

    In Wilson v Health and Safety Executive [2009] EWCA Civ 1074 CA, the Court of Appeal agreed with the EAT that the ECJ decision in Cadman allows a tribunal to examine the practical application, as well as the adoption, of a length-of-service criterion in a pay scheme. However, the EAT had set the threshold for establishing the requisite "serious doubts" about the criterion too high. To challenge the particular use of such a criterion, "the employee only has to show that there is evidence from which, if established at trial, it can properly be found that the general rule" that such a criterion is appropriate "does not apply".

  • Date:
    13 November 2009
    Type:
    Law reports

    Case of the week: Equal pay

    This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers equal pay.

  • Date:
    10 November 2009
    Type:
    Law reports

    Equal pay: Rule in Teachers' Pension Scheme excluding retired teachers who return to part-time work potentially indirectly discriminatory

    In Somerset Council and another v Pike [2009] IRLR 870 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a pension scheme that excluded part-time work done by employees already in receipt of a pension was potentially discriminatory because it had a disproportionate impact on women. The Court of Appeal ruled that, in assessing whether or not there has been indirect discrimination, the relevant pool for comparison must exclude those who have no interest in the effect of the practice under challenge - in this case employees not yet in receipt of their pension.

  • Date:
    30 September 2009
    Type:
    Law reports

    Equal pay: Court of Appeal rules on time limits for equal pay claims in context of TUPE transfers

    In Gutridge and others v Sodexo Ltd and another [2009] IRLR 721 CA, the Court of Appeal held that equal pay claims in respect of employment prior to a TUPE transfer must be brought against the transferee within six months of the transfer. The six-month time limit for claims in respect of the post-transfer period does not start to run until the claimant's employment with the transferee ends.