header-logo header-logo

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

Employment—Equal pay

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll