EAT EQUAL PAY ACT: Material factor defence and justification
The claimants brought various equal pay claims naming refuse collectors as comparators. The claimants were in predominantly female jobs and the comparators in an almost exclusively male job. The council advanced three genuine material factor (GMF) defences. They lost on two and succeeded on the third. They succeeded on the basis that they were justified in limiting a pay protection scheme to those who actually suffered a reduction in income when a new job evaluation scheme was introduced.
The council appealed the two GMFs that it lost and the claimants cross appealed the successful GMF.
The EAT held that the Tribunal had been entitled to find that the council had failed to establish the two GMFs on which they failed. They allowed the cross appeal on the grounds that the Employment Tribunal had placed significant emphasis on the EAT decision in Middlesbrough City Council v Surtees [2007] IRLR 869 but that had been overturned by the Court of Appeal in Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge [2008] IRLR 776.
The issue remitted to the same Tribunal to consider the protected pay GMF afresh.
Judges:
Elias P J
Citations:
[2009] UKEAT 0162 – 08 – 2702, [2009] IRLR 345
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Discrimination – Shifting Burden of Proof
(Preliminary Ruling) A woman was employed as a speech therapist by the health authority. She complained of sex discrimination saying that at her level of seniority within the NHS, members of her profession which was overwhelmingly a female . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.317865