The Equal Opportunities Commission sought judicial review to test whether English employment law was in breach of EC law where threshold conditionsions for part time workers to make unfair dismissal and redundancy law claims were discriminatory.
Held: The different employment rights for part timers were a form of indirect discrimination because they affected women more than men. Provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 were incompatible with EU law. The claim to redundancy payable under the applicable community law should appropriately be brought against employers in the Industrial Tribunal and not against the Secretary of State in proceedings for Judicial Review. The Secretary of State had not discharged the burden of showing that indirect discrimination against women resulting from the provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 was objectively justified.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson
Times 04-Mar-1994, Gazette 11-May-1994, Independent 09-Mar-1994, [1994] 2 WLR 409, [1994] IRLR 176, [1995] 1 AC 1, [1994] 1 ALL ER 910, [1994] UKHL 2, [1994] ICR 307, (1994) 92 LGR 360
Bailii
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 54 64 68, Sex Discrimination Act 1975 53(1)(a)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State Employment, ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission and Another CA 1993
. .
Referred to – Boyle and Others v Equal Opportunities Commission ECJ 27-Oct-1998
It was not discriminatory to offer additional pay over and above statutory entitlements to workers taking maternity leave on condition that they return to work for at least a month after the birth or repay the additional sums allowed . .
Cited by:
Cited – Tayside Regional Council v Ann McDiarmid Morrison EAT 27-Aug-2001
The applicant had been employed under a contract for four hours per week. At the time of the dismissal, the minimum requirement for job security was 16 hours. The later decision of the Lords that that rule was discriminatory served to start her . .
Reference from – Boyle and Others v Equal Opportunities Commission ECJ 27-Oct-1998
It was not discriminatory to offer additional pay over and above statutory entitlements to workers taking maternity leave on condition that they return to work for at least a month after the birth or repay the additional sums allowed . .
Cited – Rutherford and Another v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 3-Sep-2004
The claimants alleged that the legislation governing retirement was indirectly discriminatory against men. Though the right not to be unfairly dismissed maximum age limit was the same for men and for women, that did not apply on a redundancy.
Cited – T-Mobile (Uk) Ltd. and Another v Office of Communications CA 12-Dec-2008
The claimant telecoms companies objected to a proposed scheme for future licensing of available spectrum. The scheme anticipated a bias in favour of auctioniung such content. It was not agreed whether any challenge to the decision should be by way . .
Cited – Age UK, Regina (On the Application of) v Attorney General Admn 25-Sep-2009
Age UK challenged the implementation by the UK of the Directive insofar as it established a default retirement age (DRA) at 65.
Held: The claim failed. The decision to adopt a DRA was not a disproportionate way of giving effect to the social . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination, European
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.87693