The claimants claimed equal pay, asserting use of particular comparators. The Trust said that there was a genuine material factor justifying the difference in pay.
Held: To constitute a single source for the purpose of article 141, it is not enough for the non-RVI claimants to show that they have the same employer as the comparators. They must show that that employer was also the body responsible for setting the terms of both groups of employees. The tribunal could not properly have reached its conclusion on the evidence before it that the outsourcing decision was discriminatory.
Judges:
Lord Justice Buxton Lady Justice Arden Lord Justice Latham
Citations:
[2005] EWCA Civ 1608, [2006] IRLR 124
Links:
Statutes:
Equal Pay Act 1970 1, EC Treaty 141
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 – Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and Others ECJ 17-Sep-2002
The employees claimed sex discrimination, and sought to have as comparators, male employees of an employer who had previously employed some of them, before a TUPE transfer of the services supplied. The Court of Appeal referred to the court the . .
Cited – Robertson and others v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs CA 22-Feb-2005
The claimants argued that civil servants in one government department could establish that civil servants in another department could stand as comparators in their equal pay claim.
Held: It was not necessarily the person with whom the workers . .
Cited – Seymour-Smith and Perez; Regina v Secretary of State for Employment, Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another ECJ 9-Feb-1999
Awards made by an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal are equivalent to pay for equal pay purposes. A system which produced a differential effect between sexes was not indirect discrimination unless the difference in treatment between men and . .
Cited – Glasgow City Council and Others v Marshall and Others HL 8-Feb-2000
Although instructors in special schools, carried out work of a broadly similar nature to qualified teachers, and the majority were women, they were not entitled to an equality of pay clause, since there was no evidence of sex discrimination, and the . .
Cited – Bilka-Kaufhaus v Webers Von Hartz ECJ 13-May-1986
ECJ An occupational pension scheme which, although established in accordance with statutory provisions, is based on an agreement between the employer and employee representatives constitutes an integral part of . .
Cited – Ratcliffe and Others v North Yorkshire County Council HL 7-Jul-1995
Three school dinner ladies had been employed by the Council at National Rates of pay and conditions. Their work which was almost exclusively carried out by females had been rated as of equal value to that of men employed by the council at various . .
Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
Cited – Nelson v Carillion Services Ltd CA 15-Apr-2003
The appellant challenged dismissal of her claim for equal pay. It had been rejected on the ground that the employer had shown a material factor justifying the difference in pay.
Held: Enderby establishes that the burden of proving sex . .
Appeal from – Armstrong and others v The Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Hospital Trust EAT 22-Nov-2004
EAT Equal Pay Act
Equal pay. No common terms of employment between different hospitals in the same Trust. No single source responsible for purposes of Article 141. Equality clause would survive a TUPE . .
Cited – Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Discrimination – Shifting Burden of Proof
(Preliminary Ruling) A woman was employed as a speech therapist by the health authority. She complained of sex discrimination saying that at her level of seniority within the NHS, members of her profession which was overwhelmingly a female . .
Cited by:
Cited – South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council v Anderson and others EAT 26-Mar-2007
The council appealed a finding that there was no genuine material factor justifying a difference in pay, and in particular the availability of bonus schemes. . .
See Also – Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Hospitals Trust v Armstrong and Others EAT 22-Feb-2010
EAT EQUAL PAY – Material factor defence and justification
EQUAL PAY – Indirect discrimination
Appeal from decision of Employment Tribunal on issues remitted by the Court of Appeal in Armstrong v . .
See Also – Gibson and Others v Sheffield City Council CA 10-Feb-2010
The employees appealed against dismissal of their claims of sex discrimination, saying that the employer’s explanation of the pay differential was not adequate.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The tribunal had failed to distinguish between what . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.236607
