Mrs Smith was employed by the respondents, wholesale dealers in pharmaceutical products, as a warehouse manageress at a weekly salary of andpound;50. She complained of discrimination in pay because her male predecessor whose post she took up after an interval of four months, received a salary of andpound;60 per week. She brought proceedings before the industrial tribunal on the basis of the 1970 Act. The tribunal held that the applicant was employed on like work with her predecessor and ordered Macarthys to pay the applicant a salary equal to his salary.
Held: The employer’s appeal was dismissed.
Citations:
Unreported, 14 December 1977
Statutes:
Equal Pay Act 1970, Council Directive 75/117/EEC
Citing:
Applied – Defrenne v Sabena (No 2) ECJ 8-Apr-1976
ECJ The principle that men and women should receive equal pay, which is laid down by article 119, is one of the foundations of the community. It may be relied on before the national courts. These courts have a . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Macarthys Ltd v Smith CA 1980
The employee had taken on a job substantially similar to that of a previous male employee, but had been paid less. She succeeded in a claim under the 1971 Act before the industrial tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal. The employer appealed . .
At EAT – Macarthys Ltd v Smith ECJ 27-Mar-1980
The first paragraph of article 119 of the EEC Treaty applies directly, and without the need for more detailed implementing measures on the part of the community or the member states, to all forms of direct and overt discrimination which may be . .
At EAT – Macarthys Ltd v Smith (No.2) CA 17-Apr-1980
The parties had disputed a difference in payment between the woman applicant and men doing similar work. After a lengthy dispute the parties now disputed the costs.
Held: The company had correctly been ordered to pay the costs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Employment
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.200627