header-logo header-logo

Employment—Equal pay

10 January 2014
Issue: 7589 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Wallace and another v Calmac Ferries Ltd UKEATS/0014/13/BI, [2013] All ER (D) 242 (Dec)

The proceedings concerned the first case relating to the equal terms and conditions, in particular in respect of pay, under the Equality Act 2010. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the starting point was for the employer to show that the difference between the man’s pay and the woman’s pay was because of a material factor. It was clear from the terms of s 69(2) of the Act that the burden of proof, which was the subject matter of the Nelson decision, was clearly set out in that sub-section. Where a pay disparity arose for examination, it was not sufficient for an employer to show why one party was paid as one party was. The statute required an explanation for the difference, which inevitably involved considering why the claimants were paid as they were, on the one hand, and separately, why the comparator was paid as he was. Discrimination claims in particular should not be struck out where they involved a core disputed fact.

 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll