Court of Appeal
Published November 28, 2007
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge and Others

A woman, who could clearly base an equal pay claim with a man in the same grade, under section 1(2)(b) of the Equal Pay Act 1970, where their two jobs were rated as equivalent following a job evaluation study, could also base such a claim on comparison with a man placed in a lower grade by such a study but who in fact received more pay than her.

The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Lord Justice Wilson) so held in a reserved judgment on September 21, 2007 dismissing the appeal of Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council from part of the judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Mr Justice Elias, Mrs M. V. McArthur and Mr P. M. Smith) on November 15, 2006, dismissing its appeal from the decision of a Newcastle upon Tyne Employment Tribunal on December 13, 2005, that the claimants, Ms Patricia Bainbridge and 24 other test claimants employed by the council on manual work such as caterers and care workers, could rely on their male comparators placed on a lower grade.

LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY said that section 1(2) implemented the Community law principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value, and it was appropriate to give it a purposive construction.

Section 1(2)(b) was to be read with section 1(5). Subsection (5) was to be interpreted by inserting the words “or her job has been given a higher value” after the first appearance of the term “equal value”, and inserting “or her job would have been given a higher value” after that term’s second appearance.

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure