header-logo header-logo

02 July 2009
Issue: 7376 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-detail

Men win landmark equal pay claim

Employment

Councils will have to review their pay structures after a landmark equal pay discrimination ruling in a claim brought by men against higher paid male colleagues.

In McAvoy and Ors v Llewellyn and Ors the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that 300 men working in jobs such as care assistants, caretakers and leisure attendants were entitled to the same pay as men in better paid jobs such as gardeners and refuse collectors, who received bonuses.
The men lodged their equal pay claim at the same time as a group of women. The women were successful but the men were not. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has now redressed the balance, in a decision that opens the gates to about 12,000 similar claims by men.

Barrister Yvette Genn, from Cloisters, says: “This is an important decision as it demonstrates that equal pay laws can be applied not only by women who compare themselves with men, but also by men who are comparing themselves with better paid men. There is no doubt that many of the similar 12,000 cases in the system will now proceed and are likely to be successful.
“First the Employment Tribunal and now the Employment Appeal Tribunal has made it clear that the position adopted by South Tyneside Council is simply unacceptable. Councils up and down the country will now have to undertake a pay review following this decision. ”

Issue: 7376 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll