EAT EQUAL PAY ACT
Material factor defence
European law
Certain employees of the Council claimed equal pay with respect to their chosen comparators. In some cases the claim related to a period before a new job evaluation scheme had been introduced. As part of the implementation of the job evaluation scheme, the employers introduced a protected pay arrangement designed to cushion those in receipt of higher pay when the new scheme was introduced from suffering an immediate and significant drop in pay as a result of the operation of the scheme. The claimants submitted that they should also receive the benefits of the protected pay arrangements, even though they were not in receipt of the higher pay when the scheme was introduced, because they would have received it had the equality clause been applied to them at the right time. The Employment Tribunal acceded to that argument and rejected the Council’s justification defence. The EAT upheld the Council’s appeal and found justification established.
There were two further categories of claim in which the Council contended that the difference in pay was caused by a non-sex tainted collective bargaining. The Employment Tribunal rejected that claim, and the EAT rejected the appeal.
Observations on the circumstances in which prima facie indirect discrimination arises, so as to trigger the need to establish objective justification.
Judges:
Elias P J
Citations:
[2007] UKEAT 0077 – 07 – 1707, [2007] ICR 1644, [2007] IRLR 869
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 . .
Cited by:
See Also – Middlesbrough Borough Council v Surtees and others EAT 24-Aug-2007
EAT Equal Pay Act – Equal value
When an Independent Expert has been appointed by an Employment Tribunal to report on an equal value question, rule 11(4) of Sched 6 to Employment Tribunal Regulations 2004 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.254592