E-mail this to a friend
Print this
Changing the law on equal pay - test cases
03 October 2006
Cadman v Health & Safety Executive
In this notoriously complex area of law, we acted for Mrs Cadman in the Court of Appeal and on a reference to the European Court of Justice.
Our client received less pay than men in the same grade as her at the Health & Safety Executive, but they had been employed for longer, which was the reason they were paid more. The Court of Appeal referred the matter to the European Court of Justice, to decide whether the use of length of service as a factor in a pay system requires objective justification.
The European Court of Justice's ruling confirmed that it will be unlawful to use length of service criteria where there is no good reason to do so. The case will now return to the Employment Tribunal for the case to be reconsidered in the light of the ECJ's ruling.
Before the ECJ's ruling in this case, the principle that length of service is a valid criterion in a pay system was generally accepted. But in this case, the ECJ was persuaded that because length of service is a criterion which weighs disproportionately against women, who are more likely to have taken a career break than men, there will be some circumstances in which its use requires justification .
The case is likely to have a significant impact on closing pay disparities within the civil service and throughout the public and private sectors, wherever long service-based pay schemes exist.
Emma Hawksworth acted on this case.
Sharp v Caledonia Group Services Limited
In another complex Equal Pay claim, we succeeded in persuading the Employment Appeals Tribunal to depart from a previous ruling by applying European caselaw, thereby instituting a change in the law. The EAT extended the requirement for employers to objectively justify pay differences to all equal pay claims.
Our client was employed by an established city institution but was paid significantly less than her male colleagues. While her specific role was different to other employees, the tribunal agreed that her work is of equal value.
This test case was funded by the Equal Opportunities Commission and is now proceeding to the Court of Appeal. If the case is upheld, it will ensure that tribunals can look behind the reasons put forward by employers for differences in pay to test their fairness and validity.
Julie Morris acted on this case.
Advocate General's opinion in Cadman v HSE 18th May 2006