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
SA Law Work Life red mug and glasses
SA Law commuters on London Bridge
Views & Insights
UK's post-Brexit immigration policy is highly damaging for hospitality

Immigration solicitor, Gemma Jones comments in Big Hospitality about the impact of Brexit on the UK hospitality sector.

Read More
SA Law Red arrow neon light image
Views & Insights
ICO publishes passwords and encryption guidance

Partner, Chris Cook, identifies the new ICO guidance on passwords in online services and encryption under GDPR.

Read More
SA Law View and Insights books
Views & Insights
SA Law is delighted to announce success in this year's Directories rankings

We are pleased to share that we have held our position in all our main practice areas in both Chambers & Partners and Legal 500.

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 Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Ethnicity pay gap will 'lead to flood of tribunal claims'

SA Law Employment solicitor Nikita Sonecha comments in The Times about the proposed plans announced for an ethnicity pay gap report for employers with…

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Businesses may be required to report ethnicity pay gap

Nikita Sonecha comments in People Management on the plans announced that ethnicity pay gap reports may become mandatory under new plans by the Prime Minister.…

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
GDPR and SARs; staying compliant and protected

Partner and Head of Employment & Data Protection, Chris Cook writes in Education Executive about the GDPR and SARs.

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Changes to National Minimum Wage Enforcement under TUPE – Where does liability now lie?

Employment Law Update

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
The Gender Agenda

Partner Keely Rushmore addresses transphobia in the workplace and the steps necessary to prevent it in The Global Recruiter.

Read More