Equal Pay Act The claimants brought various equal pay claims naming refuse collectors as comparators. The claimants were in predominantly female jobs and the comparators in an almost exclusively male job. The council advanced three genuine material factor (GMF) defences. They lost on two and succeeded on the third. They succeeded on the basis that they were justified in limiting a pay protection scheme to those who actually suffered a reduction in income when a new job ...
|
Equal Pay Act - Material factor defence and justification These appeals relate to the Genuine Material Factor defence in Equal Pay claims and whether objective justification required from employer. ET distinguished permissibly between 2 groups of (predominantly female) workers, finding that in relation to one group the defence was made out and in relation to the other it was not. Both findings permissible and upheld. No error of law. Surtees [2008] IRLR 776 (CA) and earlier c ...
|
Equal Pay Act - Material factor defence and justification These appeals relate to the Genuine Material Factor defence in Equal Pay claims and whether objective justification required from employer. ET distinguished permissibly between 2 groups of (predominantly female) workers, finding that in relation to one group the defence was made out and in relation to the other it was not. Both findings permissible and upheld. No error of law. Surtees [2008] IRLR 776 (CA) and earlier c ...
|
The CPAG challenged the government policy of seeking repayment of overpaid social security benefits under common law powers. The overpayments were ones without fault on the part of the recipient (for which there was a statutory recovery scheme). The issue raised was whether common law powers for the recovery of mistaken payments were applicable in light of the existence of the powers for recovery under s71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. It was held that there was no inco ...
|
The CA considered for the first time the question of whether a penal notice addressed to the local authority could be attached to an order for contact under s.34 CA 1989 and whether such an order is enforceable by committal. The CA found that a penal notice could be attached and the order enforced by committal although on the facts of the instant case they removed the penal notice as contact was working smoothly.
|
Redundancy - Definition This is an appeal regarding protective awards made in a collective redundancy situation.
|
Transfer of Undertakings - Acquired rights directive As a matter of construction of TUPE Reg 5(1), a contractual term entitling employees to pay “in accordance with collective agreements negotiated from time to time by [the NJC]” is protected on a TUPE transfer to the private sector so as to give a right to pay increases negotiated post-transfer. See Whent v Cartledge. This construction is unaffected by the subsequent construction of the Business Transfers Directive by the ECJ in We ...
|
A patent in the field of manufacture of cans for the drinks industry, which claimed machinery for introducing a neck into the upper body of a can, was invalid for lack of inventive step (but not for lack of novelty) and was not infringed by the defendant’s necking machines because their drive means were not “housed within an internal chamber defined within the shaft support portion” but were housed in an external chamber attached to the outside of the support means.
|
Jurisdictional Points - Worker, employee or neither Whether an accountant was a partner or employee in circumstances where a former partnership traded through limited companies under the terms of a Shareholders Agreement, itself said not to constitute a partnership. On the particular facts the Employment Tribunal were entitled to find that he was a partner and not an employee. Thus his Age Discrimination claim could proceed (see reg. 17 Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006) but not ...
|
Practice and Procedure - Appearance/Response This is an appeal regarding a Default Judgment where no response was entered by Respondent company (in administration) within 28 day period. Judgment entered on liability finding part of the Claimant’s claim not well-founded. Appeal allowed. Default judgment procedure designed to allow judgment to be entered in favour of Claimant, in an appropriate case; not in favour of Respondent who is in default. That part of default jud ...
|
| 1 |