English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

it is to do with the 1987 legislation, men and women get paid the same money for the same jobs. She took the authority to europe, because she was told she could only claim 6 yrs comp. She fought and won all the years she was owed. Does anybody know anything about this case?

2006-11-08 21:56:39 · 4 answers · asked by angela o 1 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

4 answers

Was this what you wanted?

European Court of Justice decides important equal pay case
26/10/2006

In one of the most important equal pay cases in the last decade, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that pay scales based on length of service do not generally have to be objectively justified, even though they might result in unequal pay between men and women.

Mrs Cadman, who had worked for the Health and Safety Executive for a number of years, discovered she was paid less than the average salary of her male colleagues on the same grade. The HSE defended her equal pay claim on the basis that the pay scales were service-related i.e. employees with longer service were paid more regardless of their sex – and the men in this case had been employed longer.

The employment tribunal found that women were disproportionately adversely affected by pay systems based on length of service because, statistically, their length of service is less than that of men (for reasons related to childcare responsibilities, etc) and it held the HSE could not objectively justify the pay differences. However, the EAT overturned this and ruled that the HSE was not required to produce specific objective justification once it had shown that the differences in pay were due to length of service, not sex. The Court of Appeal then referred the issue to the ECJ.

The ECJ has now ruled that an employer does not generally have to objectively justify using length of service as a criterion in a pay system. This is because using length of service rewards experience acquired in the job which in turn enables the worker to perform their duties better and this is a legitimate objective and it does not need the employer to specifically establish this as regards a particular job.

However, the ECJ made one important caveat. They said that objective justification will still be required where the worker provides evidence raising “serious doubts” as to the appropriateness of the employer rewarding experience in this way, having regard to the particular job in question. The case will now return to the Court of Appeal to decide whether Mrs Cadman’s particular case raises “serious doubts”.

Employers should note that this case is only concerned with equal pay. There is, of course, also now an age discrimination angle to pay scales related to length of service, because the longer an employee’s service, the older they are likely to be, so this can result in indirect discrimination against younger workers. The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 allow an exemption from discrimination claims in respect of service-related pay and benefits based on length of service up to and including five years. Where the length of service is over five years, the regulations contain a specific “business need” test which the employer will need to demonstrate he satisfies.

2006-11-08 22:30:13 · answer #1 · answered by Doethineb 7 · 0 0

If she had claimed for her mother and her grandmothers alleged underpayments, the EU would have probably given her those as well. Incidentally, it isn't necessarily the same job, it is jobs that are considered to be equal. Something which is impossible to measure, except in the minds of feminists. Her claim would also be tax free, so she would end up better off than the men. Can men claim for having to pay pension contributions for five years longer than women, and as a double whammy, not be able to claim until five years after women. Then, as a triple whammy, women live several years longer than men. Will you take that case up as well at the same time?

2006-11-09 06:22:50 · answer #2 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0 0

Caicos is right.

By the way, Veritas - not sure if you read, but women and men now have equal retirement ages.

2006-11-11 11:39:09 · answer #3 · answered by Wendy T 1 · 0 0

no but I bet you could find it on the net.

2006-11-09 06:13:37 · answer #4 · answered by angel 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers