Reading Borough Council v James and Others

In the recent case of Reading Borough Council v James and others, the EAT held that a group of female employees’ contractual right to equal pay was not affected by the promotion of their comparator. The argument that the right to higher pay is curtailed where the comparator is promoted but alternative male comparators remain employed was rejected.

The Council’s appeal related to the employment tribunal’s decision that the claimants were entitled to equal pay, with arrears dating back to 2002, having found that the claimants were employed on work of equal value to that done by two male highway operatives. The Council had challenged the period over which the claimants’ right to equal pay was effective, highlighting firstly that one of the male comparators had been promoted in April 2006, and secondly that the other male comparator’s role had been assimilated onto a single status scheme at a lower rate of pay. The Council had put forward the argument that neither male was a valid comparator for the whole period of arrears. However, this approach was rejected by the tribunal, who instead found that the claimants were entitled to arrears of pay based on the first comparator’s pay in April 2006 and the second comparator’s unreduced salary.

The EAT dismissed the Council’s appeal, emphasising that the fact that there were other comparators available did not and could not undermine the claimants’ entitlement to equal pay. Furthermore, it was held that, once a comparator had been chosen, it was not open to the Council to contend for a “better” or “more appropriate” comparator.

Upon satisfaction of the conditions for the operation of the sex equality clause (implied into every employment contract) in 2002, it took effect and amended the claimants’ contracts, equalising them with the chosen comparator. The EAT held that no temporal limitation or other provision in the Equal Pay Act 1970 then restricted the continued implication of the equalised term in any way. As a result, the claimants’ right to higher pay crystallised in 2002 and would continue until their contracts are validly varied or terminated. The Council’s argument that an operative variation occurred because different valid comparators continued their role, whilst the one chosen by the claimants did not, was rejected. Similarly, in respect of the second comparator, despite his contract having been varied as at the time he was placed on the single status scheme, the claimants did not agree to a variation of their pay and were not assimilated. Therefore, their crystallised rights continued.

For the purposes of best practice, employers ought to take timely steps to ensure pay structures are free from unlawful sex discrimination. However, in the event that an equal pay claim is brought against an employer, they should take into account the EAT’s findings in this case in relation to comparators and crystallisation of the right to equal pay.

CONTACT CHRIS

If you would like more information or advice relating to this article or an Employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Chris Cook on 01727 798089.

© SA LAW 2018

Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them alone. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.
The team at SA Law LLP has ‘excellent knowledge of employment law’. Practice head Chris Cook is recommended.
The Legal 500
Banner Work Life red mug and glasses
Stained glass window
Views & Insight
Worker versus Self-Employed

The Gig economy makes more headlines as The Supreme Court agree Mr Smith was a worker and Pimlico plumbers had fallen foul of employment rights.

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insight
Reality TV and the protection of stars' welfare

Head of Employment at SA Law, Chris Cook comments in The Daily Star on the increasing pressure for production companies to ensure the welfare of contestants.

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insight
The Government's guidance on The Trade Union Act 2016

How should employers' implement the Trade Union Act 2016? Head of Employment at SA Law, Chris Cook explains.

Read More
Chris Cook handles the full range of employment law for both individuals and organisations. He receives particular recognition for his strong TUPE expertise.…
Chambers & Partners
Phone Box with Man in a Bowler Hat
Stained glass window
Views & Insight
Dress codes and sex discrimination - The Government's response

Read Head of Employment, Chris Cook's analysis of the Government's response to the 2015 Nicola Thorp "wear heels or go home" controversy.

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insight
To ban, or not to ban social media? That is the question

Employment Partner, Keely Rushmore writes for City A.M.

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insight
Managing your team during the 2018 FIFA World Cup

With the World Cup underway, we've produced some tips to help you manage your team during this years' Tournament.

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insight
Discrimination arising from disability

Chris Cook examines a recent case of discrimination due to a disability

Read More
Stained glass window
Views & Insight
Insolvency, Employees and what HR needs to know

Partner, Keely Rushmore and Senior Associate, Nat Young have written for the HR Director (HRD) in relation to the increase of high profile insolvencies.

Read More