Reforming equal pay laws

Industrial Law Journal

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 193-218

  Fredman, Sandra ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 52249095485     PISSN: 03059332     EISSN: 14643669     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/indlaw/dwn008     Document Type: Article

References (118)

1. Discrimination Law Review, A Framework for Fairness (Department of Communities and Local Government, 2007), Ch 3.
2. Framework for Fairness, above n 1, para 3.5.
3. Guardian, 2 January 2008.
4. A Framework for Fairness, above n 1, p 53.
5. Unless otherwise indicated, the statistical information in this section is taken from H. Daniels, Patterns of Pay: Results of the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 1997-2007 (Employment, Earnings and Innovation Division, Office for National Statistics).
6. Women and Equality Unit, What is the Pay Gap and Why Does IT Exist? http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/pay/pay_facts.htm.
7. A. Manning and B. Petrongolo 'The Part-Time Pay Penalty for Women in Britain' (2008) 118 Econ J 000.
8. Women and Pensions: The Evidence (Department of Work and Pensions, 2005), p 6.
9. Ibid, p 9.
10. Ibid, p 10.
11. Women and Work Commission, Shaping a Fairer Future (2006), para 8.
12. Ibid, paras 3-27.
13. See further below.
14. Employment Tribunal and EAT Statistics (GB), 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007, www.employmenttribunals.gov.uk/publications/documents/ annual_reports/ETSAS06-07.pdf.
15. EqPA 1970 s.1(6).
16. Ibid.
17. Leverton v Clwyd County Council [1984] IRLR 28 (HL) para 8.
18. Ibid.
19. British Coal Corporation v Smith [1996] ICR 515.
20. Ibid, p 526.
21. South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council v Anderson [2007] ICR 1581(CA).
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. See further below.
25. Case 43/75, Defrenne v Sabena [1976] ECR 455 (ECJ).
26. C-256/01, Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College [2004] IRLR 224 (ECJ).
27. C-320/00, Lawrence v Regent Office Care Ltd [2003] ICR 1092 ECJ; para 17-18.
28. Above n 26.
29. Robertson v DEFRA [2005] IRLR 363 (CA)
30. Armstrong v Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Trust [2006] IRLR 1124 (CA).
31. Armstrong, above n 29.
32. Armstrong, above n 29, para 30.
33. Murphy v Bord Telecom Eireann [1988] ICR 445 (ECJ).
34. Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge [2007] IRLR 984 (CA).
35. On the defence and indirect discrimination, see further below.
36. Pay Equity Taskforce and Departments of Justice and Human Resources Development Canada, Pay Equity: A New Approach to a Fundamental Right (2004) (henceforth 'Canadian Taskforce'), Recommendation 6.10, pp 505-6.
37. Canadian Taskforce, above n 35, p 328.
38. Ibid.
39. SEIU, Local 201 v Ontario (Attorney-General) (1997), 35 O.R. (3d) 508.
40. Canadian Taskforce recommendations 11.12-14, p 513.
41. SDA 1975 s1(1)(a).
42. A Framework for Fairness, above n 1, paras 3.25-3.29.
43. Case 129/79 Macarthys Ltd v Smith [1980] ECR 1275 (ECJ).
44. Above n 25.
45. Macarthys v Smith, above n 42, para 15 (italics added) and see Worringham v Lloyds Bank Limited [1981] ICR 558 (para 23)
46. Coloroll Pension Trustees Limited v Russell [1995] ICR 179 at 103.
47. Directive 2006/54/EC Articles1(c) and 2(a)
48. see further I Steele 'Beyond Equal Pay?' (2008) 37 ILJ 119-124.
49. UKEAT/0564/07/MAA 23 May 2008.
50. Jenkins v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Limited [1981] ICR 592.
51. Bilka Kaufhaus v Weber von Hartz [1986] IRLR 317 ECJ para 31.
52. EqPA s.1(3).
53. See SDA 1975 s.1(1)(b) and (2)(b)
54. Bilka, above n 47.
55. Glasgow City Council v Marshall [2000] IRLR 272 (HL) at 274.
56. Bilka, above n 48, para 31.
57. Nelson v Carillion Services Ltd [2003] IRLR.
58. Armstrong v Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Trust [2006] IRLR 1124 (CA).
59. Armstrong, above n 54, para 33.
60. Ibid, para 110.
61. Middlesbrough Borough Council v Surtees (No.1) [2007] IRLR 869 (EAT).
62. Surtees, above n 57, paras 28-9.
63. Ibid, n 57, para 31 italics in the original.
64. Surtees, above n 57, para 46.
65. Bilka, above n 47.
66. Case C-127/92 Enderby v Frenchay Helath Authority [1993] IRLR 591 ECJ.
67. Bilka, above n 48, para 31.
68. Armstrong v Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Trust [2006] IRLR 1124 (CA), above n 54.
69. Canadian Taskforce, above n 35, pp 99-104.
70. Ainsworth v Glass Tubes and Components Ltd [1977] IRLR 74, EAT.
71. Bainbridge and others v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council [2007] IRLR 494, EAT.
72. EA 2002, s32, sched 2.
73. The Highland Council v TGWU/Unison [2008] IRLR 272
74. Caroline Cannop v Highland Council [2008] CSIH 38 (Court of Session).
75. Amey Services Ltd v Cardigan [2008] IRLR 279 (EAT).
76. M. Rubinstein 'Highlights' 2008 IRLR 256 at 257.
77. Canadian Taskforce, above n 35, p 98.
78. Contrast Armstrong, above n 54, with Redcar & Cleveland v Bainbridge Appeal No. UKEAT/0135/06/LA (EAT).
79. Although it is not admissible if it is not based on facts relevant to equal value: Sched 6, para 9(1).
80. Sched 6, para 11.
81. EqPA, s2A(2A)). See generally B. Cooper and B. Criddle "Equal Pay" in Fredman, Hill, Millar and Williams, Equality and Discrimination Looseleaf (Oxford, OUP Forthcoming) Part C, chap. 2.
82. Unison Briefing For Crime Justice, Citizenship And Equalities Policy Commission Sub-Group, 5 December 2007.
83. St Helen's Borough Council v Derbyshire [2007] ICR 841(House of Lords)
84. cf Derbyshire v. St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council [2006] ICR 90 (CA).
85. P. Davies, 'The CAC and Equal Pay' [1980] Current Legal Problems 165.
86. R v CAC ex parte HyMac. [1979] IRLR 461 (QBD).
87. Council Directive 75/117 EEC, Article 4.
88. SDA 1986, s.6.
89. SDA 1986, s.6(4A) and 6(4B) inserted by TURER 1993, s.32.
90. The tribunal can grant a declaration that terms of a collective agreement are void even to claimants who also have EqPA or SDA claims: Unison v Brennan [2008] IRLR 492 (EAT).
91. C-33/89, Kowalska v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg [1990] IRLR 447 (ECJ)
92. See also C-184/89, Nimz v Freie und Handesstadt Hamburg [1991] IRLR 222 (ECJ).
93. Canadian Taskforce, above n 35, p 7.
94. Ibid, p 503.
95. Directive 75/117 Article 6.
96. Sex Discrimination Act s.76A.
97. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Public Authorities) (Statutory Duties) Order 2006, para 1(5).
98. Ibid, article 2(6).
99. Ibid, article 3(1) and (2).
100. Equal Opportunities Commission, Code of Practice on Equal Pay, para 3.47.
101. R (Elias) v. Secretary of State for Defence, Commission for Racial Equality [2005] EWHC 1435 (Admin) (QBD (Admin))
102. R (Elias) v. Secretary of State for Defence [2006] 1 W L R 3213 (Court of Appeal): The case went on appeal on a different point; Elias J's opinion on the meaning of due regard still stands.
103. In the particular case, it was held that this duty was breached by the Secretary of State as no regard at all was had to the potentially racially discriminatory nature of the particular policy challenged.
104. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Public Authorities) (Statutory Duties) Order 2006, para 1(5).
105. Code of Practice, above n 93, paras 3.44-45.
106. YL v Birmingham City Council [2007] 3 All E R 957, HL.
107. Code of Practice, above n 93, para 72.
108. Framework for Fairness, above n 1, para 3.7.
109. Ibid.
110. Equal Pay Task Force, Just Pay: A Report to the Equal Opportunities Commission (Equal Opportunities Commission, 2001), p xi.
111. Canadian Taskforce, above n 35, p 398.
112. I am indebted to Sally Brett for this point.
113. Canadian Taskforce Recommendation, above n 35, p 513.
114. Note that in C-408/92, Smith v Avdel Systems Ltd [1994] ECR I-4435 (ECJ), it was held that once discrimination is detected, implementation should be immediate and in full. However, provided that proper interest and back-pay are paid, it is submitted that this should not preclude implementation over a set timescale.
115. I am indebted to Sally Brett for the points expressed in this paragraph.
116. See for example Lord Hope, St Helen's, above n 78, para 11.
117. Council Directive 75/117/EEC: Equal Pay Directive.
118. Lady Hale in St Helens, above n 78, para 000.