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 Community law and this had been done by regulations made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. If the applicant has terms in her contract which are more favourable than equivalent terms in the comparator’s contract the applicant keeps the benefit of those terms and in addition is entitled to have any less favourable term in her contract modified so as to be not less favourable than the equivalent term in the comparator’s contract or, if the comparator has in his contract a beneficial term which does not appear in the applicant’s contract, to have such a term included in her contract. It is not open to an employer to say ‘I have not modified that clause in the applicant’s contract because although it is less favourable than the similar clause in the comparator’s contract, looked at overall the applicant’s contract is as favourable to her as the comparator’s contract is favourable to him.’ Lord Mackay ‘Generally speaking primary legislation in the United Kingdom could confer a greater [employment] benefit on the appellant than she would be entitled to under the community legislation. The present case is special since the particular provisions on which the appellant relies for her case were inserted by regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972 and accordingly it might be questioned whether, if higher rights than those conferred under community law were provided in this way under domestic law, the making of the regulations was a proper exercise of the statutory power conferred by the European Communities Act 1972.’
Judges:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern LC, Lord Bridge, Lord Brandon and Lord Griffiths
Citations:
[1988] 2 All ER 257, [1988] ICR 464, [1988] 2 WLR 1134, [1988] AC 894
Statutes:
European Communities Act 1972 2(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Hayward v Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd (No. 2) CA 1987
. .
See Also – Hayward v Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd HL 1984
The system of job evaluation when selecting for redundancies, for which there is uniquely by statue the designation of an expert, is one which is susceptible to different methodologies. . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Hayward v Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd (No. 2) CA 1987
. .
Cited – Pickstone 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 . .
Cited – Pickstone 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 . .
Cited – Oakley Inc v Animal Ltd and others PatC 17-Feb-2005
A design for sunglasses was challenged for prior publication. However the law in England differed from that apparently imposed from Europe as to the existence of a 12 month period of grace before applying for registration.
Held: Instruments . .
Cited – Brownbill and Others v St Helens and Knowsley Hospital NHS Trust EAT 6-Aug-2010
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination, European
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.200624
