The council appealed against a finding of discrimination under the 1970 Act, saying it was impermissible to use as a comparator somebody found after a job evaluation study to be of a different, but lower grade, but with higher pay.
Held: The appeal failed. The Act implemented a European Directive and should be read purposively. Sections 1(2)(b) and 1(5) should be read together, adding after the first occurrence of ‘equal value’ to section 1(5) the words ‘or her job has been given a higher value’ and after the second ‘or her job would have been given a higher value,’
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Civ 929, Times 28-Nov-2007, [2008] ICR 238, [2007] IRLR 984
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge and others EAT 16-Oct-2006
EAT Equal pay in the North East. Women whose jobs had been rated as equivalent with comparator men (and in some cases had been rated higher) were paid less because of the effect of bonuses and other extra . .
See Also – Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge and others EAT 15-Nov-2006
. .
See Also – Bainbridge and others, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, Williams and others EAT 31-Jan-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – Compromise. . .
See Also – Bainbridge and others v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council EAT 23-Mar-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – Compromise
Equal Pay Act – Work rated equivalent; Damages/Compensation
This case raises three issues, two of which are of particular significance in the field of equal . .
Cited by:
See Also – Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge and others (‘Bainbridge 1’) CA 29-Jul-2008
Pay protection provisions are commonly adopted, and provided any differential in pay does not continue for too long, they may justify what would otherwise be unlawful indirect discrimination. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.259671