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 2020

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.

Read the latest Employment Views & Insights
They seek to understand their clients and advise accordingly to achieve the outcomes that they require for their business needs. This firm also does not…
Chambers and Partners
SA Law Work Life red mug and glasses
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Diversity & equal opportunities in the media: New disclosure proposals for broadcasters explained

Keely Rushmore writes for leading HR publication People Management about the implications of broadcast employers revealing figures on gay and transsexual…

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
A legal look ahead to 2020 policies

Following our recent HR Forum, our employment team look at the policies we expect to see in 2020.

Read More
SA Law View and Insights books
Views & Insights
Chambers & Partners adds to our good directory news for 2020

Glowing feedback from clients and peers across the board for SA Law's Family, Litigation, Real Estate & Employment teams in Chambers & Partners.

Read More
Phone Box with Man in a Bowler Hat
As there is so much expertise on offer from SA Law they can provide a legal expert on all areas so that it can be handled under one roof.
Legal 500
SA Law View and Insights books
Views & Insights
Success for SA Law in Legal 500 2020

We are delighted to share that we have held our position in all of our main practice areas in Legal 500.

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Are teen influencers being exploited?

Keely Rushmore comments on BBC News about teen influencer Danielle Cohn: What are the employment laws for children under 18?

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Can you force someone to retire?

Gita Patel talks to Personnel Today about retirement policies following a number of recent challenges against Oxford University.

Read More
Stained glass window Employment SA Law
Views & Insights
Welcoming Gita Patel to our employment team

We are delighted to welcome a new member of our Employment Team, Gita Patel.

Read More
They are knowledgeable, with a commercial mindset, but also down to earth and friendly so it is easy to be very honest with them.
Chambers and Partners