EAT Equal Pay: the claimants challenged the respondent’s Job Evaluation Study. They argued it was invalid because it produced two separate scores for each job; further, it was not shown to be objective. They argued that the ET had inverted the onus of proof and erred in its treatment of expert evidence.
Held: the ET had made findings it was entitled to make. There was no error of law in the ET’s decision.
Pay Protection: the claimants argued that the respondent had shown no justification for its pay protection policy, which protected pay of those in detriment prior to implementation.
Held: the ET did not set out a legitimate aim and then consider whether the pay protection policy was a proportionate way of achieving that aim.
Appeal allowed in part.
Lady Stacey
[2015] UKEAT 0011 – 14 – 1205
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565073