2 If the job which the woman does has been given
the same value as a man’s job under a job evaluation
scheme, then the woman is entitled to the same rate of
pay and other terms of employment as a man. On the
other hand, an employer will have a complete answer
to a claim for equal pay if the jobs of the woman and
the male comparator have been given different ratings
under a job evaluation scheme, provided that the scheme
has been carried out objectively and analytically, prefer-
ably by specialist consultants, and that the scheme itself
is not directly or indirectly discriminatory, as where, for
example, it overvalues traditional male skills and
attributes, such as greater physical strength.
3 Equal value. If the job which a woman does is in
terms of the demands made upon her, for instance under
such headings as effort, skill and decision-making, of
equal value to that of a man in the same employment,
then the woman is entitled to the same pay and other
contractual terms as the man, as she is if her work has
been graded as of higher value (Murphyv Bord Telecom
Eireann(1988)). It might be thought that in such a case
she should be paid more but at least the law can ensure
equal pay for her.
The point about the ‘equal value’ ground is that it is
available even if the jobs are totally dissimilar, so that a
woman secretary may name a male accounts clerk as a
comparator.
A complaint may be made to a tribunal on the grounds
of equal value even if the two jobs have been regarded as
unequal in a job evaluation study. However, there must
be reasonable grounds to show that the study was itself
discriminatory on the grounds of sex.
When a complaint about equal value is made, the
tribunal can (but is not obliged to) commission a report
from an expert on the matter of value. The report of the
expert goes to the tribunal and copies go to the parties.
Although the report will obviously be extremely import-
ant in the decision which the tribunal makes, it is not in
any way bound by it and can disregard it.
It was once thought that in claims for equal pay the
tribunal must look not merely at pay, but also at fringe
benefits.
In Haywardv Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd(1986)
a qualified canteen cook, Miss Julie Hayward, who had
convinced a tribunal that she was of equal value with male
painters, joiners and thermal heating engineers and there-
fore entitled to equal pay, was told by the Employment
Appeal Tribunal that she could not isolate the term
about pay. The EAT asked the tribunal to look at the
case again. Although Miss Hayward’s pay was not equal,
her employers claimed that she had better sickness
benefit than the men and also paid meal breaks and
extra holidays which they did not have. So it might be
possible to say that she was, looked at overall, treated
as well. However, Julie Hayward won her appeal in
the House of Lords. It was held that her claim to equal
pay for work of equal value was justified even though
she had better fringe benefits. Her employers were not
entitled to compare her total package but should instead
consider her basic pay. The decision should ensure that
miscellaneous benefits are not seen as ‘pay’ and will not
be used to keep wages down in future.
It is also interesting to note that in Pickstonev
Freemans plc(1986) the Employment Appeal Tribunal
decided that a woman could not bring a claim that her
work was of equal value to that done by a man employed
by the same firm in a different job because men were
employed in the same job as her own on the same rates
of pay and terms.
On the facts of the case this meant that the woman
could not claim that her work as a warehouse packer was
of equal value to that of a checker warehouse operative
merely because she worked on the same terms with other
male warehouse packers. The decision was eventually
overruled by the House of Lords, which decided that a
woman is not debarred from making a claim for parity
of pay with a male comparator in a different job merely
because a man is doing the same job as herself for the
same pay. The decision effectively kills off the device of
employing a ‘token man’ with the women employees as
a way of defeating equal pay claims, as by employing one or
two low-paid men in a predominantly female area of work.Associated employers
Comparison of contracts of service for equality purposes
is usually made with people who work at the same place.
However, comparison can be made with people who
work at different places so long as the employer is the
same or is an associated employer. As regards an associ-
ated employer, this would be the case with a group of
companies. Thus, if H plc has two subsidiaries, A Ltd
and B Ltd, workers in A Ltd could compare themselves
with workers in B Ltd, and workers in B Ltd with those
in A Ltd, and workers in A Ltd and B Ltd could compare
themselves with workers in H plc. Workers in H plc
could, of course, compare themselves with workers in A
Ltd and B Ltd.Part 4Business resources