EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Like work
The Claimant had been employed by the Respondent since 1984 before becoming Production Planning Manager at the Respondent’s Blackpool site. She brought a claim under the Equal Pay Act 1970 against the respondent comparing her position with that of existing and former production planning managers at other sites. All four managers fell within the category of junior managers being answerable to their own senior management team in their respective sites.
The Employment Judge concluded that the Claimant had not satisfied them that she was in ‘the same employment’ as the main comparators for the purposes of section 1(6) of the Equal Pay Act 1970. The Claimant appealed contending that the correct principles had not been applied and that the decision of the Employment Tribunal was perverse.
Held: The appeal was dismissed because:-
(a) The Employment Judge applied the correct principle of adopting a broad common sense approach applying Leverton v Clwyd CC [1989] ICR 33, 60 per Lord Bridge of Harwich and British Coal Corporation v Smith [1996] ICR 515, 528 per Lord Slynn of Hadley;
(b) The Employment Judge was entitled to take the view that the terms of the comparators were not broadly similar to those of the Claimant because they were different in respect of holiday pay, notice pay provisions, pay structure, discipline and grievance procedure, collective bargaining and there was no over arching company handbook. No steps had been taken to harmonise terms and conditions across the three sites either collectively or through individual consultation and variation save for the introduction of a standardised appraisal system. Pay at each site was fixed through local collective agreements or through an internally approved outcome;
(c) In those circumstances and for those reasons, the claim of perversity had to be rejected as there was nothing approaching the threshold required for a claim of perversity to succeed, namely ‘an overwhelming case is made out that the Employment Tribunal reached a conclusion which no reasonable tribunal, on a proper appreciation of the law and evidence would have reached’ (Statement of Mummery LJ in Yeboah v Crofton [2002] IRLR 634,643 applied).
Silber J
[2010] UKEAT 0514 – 09 – 0607
Bailii
Equal Pay Act 1970 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Leverton v Clwyd County Council HL 1989
The claimant, employed as a nursery nurse by the respondent in an infant school sought to compare herself with clerical staff employed by the respondent, but not in schools.
Held: The employee’s appeal succeeded. The majority of the Employment . .
Cited – Yeboah v Crofton CA 31-May-2002
The industrial tribunal had made a finding of direct race discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found the decision perverse, and ordered a rehearing. The applicant appealed that order.
Held: The EAT must be careful not to take . .
Cited – British Coal Corporation v Smith and Others HL 23-May-1996
The phrase ‘common terms of employment’ means broadly comparable terms. There is no need for them to be identical, and the phrase should be construed liberally, though there can be no general commonality where there is no commonality in terms and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.420261
