EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Case management
This appeal by some of the Claimants in a multiple equal pay claim, from a judgment on a PHR, raised the important question of the meaning of section 1(2) of the Equal Pay Act, as interpreted by the House of Lords in Hayward v Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd [1988], and the nature of the ‘term’ of the contracts of both the Claimants and comparators to be compared. The issues also concerned the effect of the CA’s decision in Degnan v Redcar and Cleveland BC [2009] and whether this is consistent with Hayward. The term under consideration related to enhanced rates of pay contingent upon the working of unsocial hours during normal working hours. Domestic and European law considered.
The Employment Judge was found to have erroneously conflated terms of the contract relating to pay for normal working hours, which he had already found to be distinct terms which were capable of comparison, and to have erred in concluding as a result that the Claimants could not show any less favourable contractual term.
The appeal was allowed and the correct decision substituted. The matter was remitted for consideration on the other issues raised.
Judges:
Cox J
Citations:
[2010] ICR 1383, [2010] UKEAT 0074 – 10 – 0608, [2011] IRLR 128
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hayward v Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd (No. 2) HL 1988
A woman complained that she was not being paid as much as male colleagues who were doing work of equal value. An Act of Parliament had made certain provisions in that regard. Later, that Act had been amended for the purpose of complying with . .
Cited – Degnan and others v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council CA 17-Jun-2005
Equal Pay claims. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.421394
