Prospect takes landmark equal pay case to Europe
08/03/2006
A principal inspector of health and safety takes her landmark equal pay case before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg on 8 March – International Women’s Day.
The move marks a step forward in Bernadette
Cadman’s fight against her employer, the Health
and Safety Executive, after she discovered she was
paid less than the average salary of male colleagues
on the same grade.
Prospect, the union backing Cadman’s claim,
described the date for the start of the hearing as
auspicious, given the disproportionate impact that
seniority-based pay systems have on women.
Cadman worked for HSE for 13 years and was
promoted to a band 2 inspector in 1996. After
checking with personnel she discovered male
colleagues were being paid in the order of £5,000
to £7,000 more per year.
Prospect General Secretary Paul Noon said: "While
the case is particularly relevant to public services it
will also be significant in any employment where
long seniority-based pay scales exist, or where
additional contractual benefits are dependent on
long service such as enhanced holiday
entitlements.
"When service-related pay is analysed women are
often clustered at the lower parts of the pay band.
This is because statistically women on average have
shorter service, often due to children or other care
responsibilities. The increase of women entrants to
traditionally male dominated professions also raises
questions over seniority-based pay."
Mrs Cadman's solicitor, Emma Hawksworth, a
partner at Russell Jones & Walker, said: "This is the
most important equal pay claim to be brought in
the last 10 years.
"The equal pay act makes pay differences between
men and women doing the same job unlawful,
unless the pay differential can be shown to be a
result of a material difference between their cases.
That material difference cannot itself be
discriminatory, either directly or indirectly.
"The Equal Opportunities Commission has shown
that in this country, and throughout the EU, the
length of service of female workers, taken as a
whole, is less than that of male workers, due in
large part to female workers' domestic
circumstances and obligations.
"In Mrs Cadman's case, we argued that it was
unlawful to allow for men in a comparable role to
be paid more than her solely on the basis of length
of service and without any need to show why that
was justifiable. "
Prospect will support Cadman’s case to its final
conclusion. It is encouraged by indications in the
UK Court of Appeal's decision that length of service
pay schemes are not always self-evidently
justifiable, and by the European Commission's
written observations which support the position
that seniority based schemes do require
justification.
In May 2002, backed by the union, Cadman took
her case to an Employment Tribunal, which found
that women were disproportionally adversely
affected by pay systems based on length of service.
The tribunal found that HSE could not objectively
justify the differences in pay.
But an Employment Appeal Tribunal in July 2003,
citing an earlier European Court of Justice decision,
ruled that HSE was not required to produce specific
justification. Despite this setback the union, and
their solicitors Russell Jones & Walker, pursued the
case through the Court of Appeal, which expressed
sympathy with Prospect’s argument and referred
the case to the ECJ for today’s hearing.