EAT EQUAL PAY – Material factor defence and justification
EQUAL PAY – Indirect discrimination
Appeal from decision of Employment Tribunal on issues remitted by the Court of Appeal in Armstrong v Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Hospitals Trust [2006] IRLR 124.
Held: The Tribunal was entitled to find:
(a) that the factor relied on by the Respondent was ‘tainted by sex’ because it originated in the Respondent’s intention (on a CCT exercise) to match market rates which it appreciated were depressed by factors peculiar to women (Ratcliffe v North Yorkshire County Council [1995] ICR 833 applied);
(b) that the continuation of the resulting differential in the period to which the complaint related had not been shown to be objectively justified by the costs or industrial relations implications of removing it or by the Respondent’s attempts to phase it out.
Discussion of ratio of Ratcliffe and of whether the Court of Appeal adopted the correct analysis of the necessary steps in considering a ‘GMF’ defence where the factor relied on is alleged to be indirectly discriminatory.
Citations:
[2010] UKEAT 0069 – 09 – 2202
Links:
Citing:
See Also – Armstrong and others v Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Hospital Trust CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants claimed equal pay, asserting use of particular comparators. The Trust said that there was a genuine material factor justifying the difference in pay.
Held: To constitute a single source for the purpose of article 141, it is not . .
See Also – Armstrong and others v The Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Hospital Trust EAT 22-Nov-2004
EAT Equal Pay Act
Equal pay. No common terms of employment between different hospitals in the same Trust. No single source responsible for purposes of Article 141. Equality clause would survive a TUPE . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401671
