Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd: HL 19 Jan 1981

There was a dispute between an employee of the company, a subsidiary of the British Railways Board, a body created by the Transport Act 1962 to manage the railways in the united kingdom, and her employer concerning discrimination alleged to be suffered by female employees who on retirement no longer continue to enjoy travel facilities for their spouses and dependent children although male employees continue to do so.
Held: The House referred to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling under article 177 of the EEC Treaty two questions as to the interpretation of article 119 of the Treaty, article 1 of Council Directive 75/117/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women and of Article 1 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions.

Lord Diplock
[1983] 2 AC 751, [1982] 2 WLR 918, [1982] ICR 420, [1982] 2 All ER 402
Transport Act 1962, Council Directive 75/117/EEC
England and Wales
Cited by:
Reference fromGarland v British Rail Engineering Ltd ECJ 9-Feb-1982
The fact that an employer (although not bound to do so by contract) provides special travel facilities for former male employees to enjoy after their retirement constitutes discrimination within the meaning of article 119 against former female . .
CitedPickstone v Freemans Plc HL 30-Jun-1988
The claimant sought equal pay with other, male, warehouse operatives who were doing work of equal value but for more money. The Court of Appeal had held that since other men were also employed on the same terms both as to pay and work, her claim . .
See AlsoGarland v British Rail Engineering Ltd (No 2) HL 22-Apr-1982
Under English law and under Community law, the national court should construe a regulation adopted to give effect to a Directive as intended to carry out the obligations of the Directive and as not being inconsistent with it if it is reasonably . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, European

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.200622