Equal Pay

Front 1

Name the three operations of Equal Pay

Back 1

Equality Act 2010 - Section 65

- Like Work
- Work equivalent to comparator's work

- Work of equal value

Front 2

Explain Like Work

Back 2

- work is broadly similar or same

- differences are of no practical importance

- Requirements for proving unequal pay:

A. Comparator of opposite sex in the same employment as applicant

B. Same employer or associated employer

C. Different employers, branches of civil service, or local authorities as long as they are subject to the same collective agreement

Front 3

Name the cases for Like Work

Back 3

British Coal Corporation v Smith

South Ayrshire Council v Morton

Defrenne v Sabena

Capper Pass v Lawton

Front 4

Explain the Work equivalent to comparator's work

Back 4

- man and woman perform a different job

- Requirements for proving unequal pay:

- As long as the demands are the same and the evaluation was not made on sex-specific system

- different job, but equal skills and demands = possible claim

Front 5

Name the cases for the Work equivalent to comparator's work

Back 5

Bromley & Others v H&J Quick

Front 6

Explain Work of equal value

Back 6

- man and woman perform a different job

- requirements for proving unequal pay:

- Different job, but equal skills and demands

Front 7

Name the case law for Work of equal value

Back 7

- EC Commission v UK

- RedCar & Cleveland council v Bainbridge

Front 8

Explain "Genuine Material Factor" / Defences to employees' claims

Back 8

Differences:

- different qualifications

- length of services (Cadman v HSE)

- market forces (legitimate business objective)

Front 9

Name the GMF cases

Back 9

Wallace v Strathclyde Regional Council

Glasgow City Council v Marshall

Front 10

Remedies

Back 10

EA 2010 - Section 120

- Qualifying period changes according to the case

- Claim possible within 6 months within the contract's end

- 5 years on backdated claim (6 in England)

Front 11

McCarthys v Smith 1980

Back 11

EPA
1970 allowed comparisons only with men employed at the same time as the woman

ECJ
held that under EU law a comparison could be made also with a male predecessor

Front 12

Garland v British Rail
Engineering 1982

Back 12

ECJ
took a wide view of “pay”

- It must include also concessionary rail ravel for dependants of retired rail
employees

Front 13

British Coal Corporation v
Smith

Back 13

- Like Work case

- Comparators were not in the same employment

- Dismissed as there were common terms and conditions

- Were sufficiently similar

Front 14

South Ayrshire Council v
Morton

Back 14

Like Work case

Female teacher used male teacher as comparator – not possible under EPA, but Article
141 Treaty of Rome

Front 15

Defrenne v Sabena 1976

Back 15

Like Work case

Same collective agreement = possible different employers

This cases showed that the comparators that we can choose has widened but it still must be geographically close to the country of the pursuant

Front 16

Capper Pass v Lawton

Back 16

Like Work case

- Female employee worked as a cook for 40 hours a week

- Assistant of chef worker 45 hours

- The differences were of no practical importance

Front 17

Bromley & Others v H&J
Quick

Back 17

- Work equivalent to comparator's work

- Job evaluation schemes was to be based on various headings to make a fair
comparison

Front 18

RedCar & Clevelend council
v Bainbridge

Back 18

Work of equal value case

Evaluation study showed that the male comparator’s job had higher value, but the female claimant was still allowed the comparison

Front 19

Cadman v HSE 2006

Back 19

length of service was a GMF