EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Other establishments
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
Three groups of appeals arising out of mass equal pay litigation
(A) Amendment permitted to correct misdescriptions by Claimants of the jobs that they were doing
(B) Employees employed by the Council in non-teaching roles in community schools entitled to compare themselves with employees in other Council establishments, notwithstanding power of school governors to require Council to engage employees in schools otherwise than on recommended terms – ‘Single source’ requirement discussed – North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust v Potter and South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council v Anderson followed
(C) Claimants who had purported to submit grievances under the modified procedure which failed properly to state the basis of their complaints – see City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Pratt – not debarred by section 32 (2) of the Employment Act 2002 because the grievances in question fell within the terms of reg. 9 of the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 – Discussion of whether agreement to the use of the modified procedure can be withdrawn
Judges:
Underhill P J
Citations:
[2010] UKEAT 0037 – 10 – 0905
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Act 2002, Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 9, Equal Pay Act 1970
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.439852
