The employee had taken on a job substantially similar to that of a previous male employee, but had been paid less. She succeeded in a claim under the 1971 Act before the industrial tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal. The employer appealed again. The employer argued that usung the ordinary and natural meaning of the words in the Act, a former employee was not a possible comparator.
Held: The CA framed four questions to be referred to the ECJ: ‘1. Is the principle of equal pay for equal work, contained in article 119 of the eec treaty and article 1 of the eec council directive of 10 february 1975 (75/117/eec), confined to situations in which men and women are contemporaneously doing equal work for their employer? 2. If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, does the said principle apply where a worker can show that she receives less pay in respect of her employment from her employer: (a) than she would have received if she were a man doing equal work for the employer ; or (b) than had been received by a male worker who had been employed prior to her period of employment and who had been doing equal work for the employer? 3. If the answer to question 2(a) or (b) is in the affirmative, is that answer dependent upon the provisions of article 1 of the said directive? 4. If the answer to question 3 is in the affirmative, is article 1 of the said directive directly applicable in member states?’
Citations:
[1981] QB 180, [1980] 3 WLR 929, [1981] 1 All ER 111, [1980] ICR 672
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Defrenne v Sabena (No 2) ECJ 8-Apr-1976
ECJ The principle that men and women should receive equal pay, which is laid down by article 119, is one of the foundations of the community. It may be relied on before the national courts. These courts have a . .
Appeal from – Smith v Macarthys Ltd EAT 14-Dec-1977
Mrs Smith was employed by the respondents, wholesale dealers in pharmaceutical products, as a warehouse manageress at a weekly salary of andpound;50. She complained of discrimination in pay because her male predecessor whose post she took up after . .
Cited by:
Reference From – Macarthys Ltd v Smith ECJ 27-Mar-1980
The first paragraph of article 119 of the EEC Treaty applies directly, and without the need for more detailed implementing measures on the part of the community or the member states, to all forms of direct and overt discrimination which may be . .
At CA (1) – Macarthys Ltd v Smith (No.2) CA 17-Apr-1980
The parties had disputed a difference in payment between the woman applicant and men doing similar work. After a lengthy dispute the parties now disputed the costs.
Held: The company had correctly been ordered to pay the costs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200626