Glasgow City Council v Marshall - not concerned if the pay is fair what we are concerned with is if pay is unequal

because of sex discrimination this is because of the equality clause. S6 -66 !" s.6 -66 S.66 - " sex equality clause is a provision with the following effect #ayward case - the !$ isnt a wage fixing body only way it can operate is with the equality clause. employer agrued that Mrs. #ayward is paid different from the men because she had better meal brea%s and better holiday. court said that if they too% a whole contract agreement then the equal pay would be undermined so they ta%e a clause by clause approach. $hey found that she was getting lower pay. &ut the negative is that the men can sue the employer because of the better meal time and holiday entitlement of the woman this is called leap frogging. Must have an actual comparitor. Macarthys 'td v Smith - a woman can bring a claim and compare it to her predicesser. (oman wanted to compare her wages to her predisessor but C of " said that she couldn)t do that but the !C* said that they could because of the wording on the !" S 6 +,-. 'everton v Clwyd - because employees at different establishment were wor%ing under the same collective agreements they could be compared li%e wor%. wor% rated as equivalent. equal value Coombes 'td v Shields - &oo%y that is paid /, pence per hour a man employed in the same place same 0ob he was paid 1 pound sixty they said that his 0ob was extra because he was supposed to deal with trouble ma%ers but he never did that and didnt get any training for it. #eld that she should be pay equally with the man because it is the same 0ob. S.62+2- says you can have the 0ob evaluation be thrown out if it is discriminatory. 3ecar case - 4f necessary a woman can compare herself to a man that is paid more but their 0ob is ran%ed lower. !aton case - 0ob evaluation study has to be through in analysis and partial in accessment. $ribunal can have a independent expert to evaluate the 0ob or listen to both claims and decide. #aywood v Cammel case - coo% claiming equal value wor% with people who were capenters etc but she was able to claim. 5ic%stone - claimant has two person to compare herself to but one was getting the same pay so she compared herself to the other one claiming equal value. She was allowed to claim. S.161 !" ,717 Clay Cross case - a cler% who earned 62 pounds per wee% her comparitor was paid 7 pounds per wee% to attract his service they said it was because he was paid more at his old 0ob so they had to pay him well to get him to wor% for them. Court said that mar%et factors cannot be part of the defence only personal factors. 3ainey - overruled they clay case a prospective fitting service set up by the physicians they wanted to attract people for the private sector so they offered them the same pay that they where recieving so they could come and wor% there.#eld that you can go beyond the personal service and that mar%et factors can apply. So clay is no longer good law8courts very causcious in these circumstances. !nderby v 9renchay case - the difference in pay was because of the collective bargining process. $he speech theropy is mostly women and pharmacist is mostly men so relying on the collective bargining process is not reasonable it perpetuate prior inequality. *en%ins case - said that using part-time can only be used as a material difference if employer can show that it as nothing to do with sex. Mandatory reporting about gender pay which will require private and voluntary sector employees with ,27 or more employees to provide information about their gender pay gap : ;<$ =!$ 4; 9<3C! (adham +,717- >(e believe the !quality "ct is good law? helping to ensure that our society is one which is comfortable with its diversity8 and confident about its future@ A6 !qual 5ay "ct 1/B7 !quality "ct ,717 Code of practice adds meat to the bones : not binding #ow to claim comparator actual 1/B7 broad approach and ,717 broader definition limitation different department but someposition Macarthys ltd v smith can compare yourself to employee before and after you. Minimal difference in wor%-'i%e wor% s.62 1 a s.62 , s.62 coombes v sheild cooper restrictive must be someone of opposite sex doing same 0ob wor% rated as equivalent s.62 s.62 2 s.C7 springboard v sunderland eaton

0ob evaluation study studies can be challenge D avoided disadvantage study E voluntary wor% of equal value totally different 0ob that is noted the same s.62 6 !F told them to clean it up haywood now fixed time limits pic%stone Gefences material factors different qualification or experiences s.6/ clay cross only personal factors apply to the defence 3ainey extended to mar%et factors cautious application broader defence E better for employers changes made by equality act can be someone who wor% before and after you +comparitorchanges language no pay secrecy consolidated all previous legislation "nswer H need to %now the current law D %now development overtime criticiIe past difficulties and how they have been change etc by the !quality "ct ,717. !" ,717 controversial too% 2 years to come in difficulty with having to %eep up with !F. $al% about comparater potentially improved by !" ,717 equal pay initially only