Английская Википедия:Clay Cross (Quarry Services) Ltd v Fletcher

Материал из Онлайн справочника
Версия от 14:22, 19 февраля 2024; EducationBot (обсуждение | вклад) (Новая страница: «{{Английская Википедия/Панель перехода}} {{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}} {{Infobox court case | name = Clay Cross (Quarry Services) Ltd v Fletcher | court = Court of Appeal | image = | caption = | date decided = | full name = | citations = [1978] 1 WLR 1429, [1978] IRLR 361 | judges = | prior actions = | subsequent actions = | opinions = | transcripts = | keywords = Discrimination }} '''''Clay Cross (Quarry Servi...»)
(разн.) ← Предыдущая версия | Текущая версия (разн.) | Следующая версия → (разн.)
Перейти к навигацииПерейти к поиску

Шаблон:Use dmy dates Шаблон:Infobox court case

Clay Cross (Quarry Services) Ltd v Fletcher [1978] 1 WLR 1429 is a UK labour law case concerning sex discrimination, unequal pay, and the limits of justifications for it. It would now fall under the Equality Act 2010 sections 64 to 80.

Facts

Mrs Fletcher was paid £35 per week, with three other clerks. A colleague left and was replaced by Mr Tunnicliffe, aged 24. He was the only suitable candidate and was paid £43 per week, which matched his previous salary. Pay was increased by £6 a week, but the disparity stayed. An expert said that clerks’ wages should be set at £43.46, but Mr Tunnicliffe’s wage still remained higher, at £49. Mrs Fletcher spent a while training him, and then when the EPA 1970 came into force in 1975, she complained.

Tribunal held that Ms Fletcher did have an equal pay claim. The EAT reversed this, holding that the man’s previous salary was a genuine material factor. Mrs Fletcher successfully appealed.

Judgment

Lord Denning MR held that the factor relied on in section 1(3)(a) had to be ‘personal’ to the worker concerned.

Шаблон:Cquote

Lawton LJ and Browne LJ concurred.

See also

Шаблон:Clist directdiscrim

Macarthys Ltd v Smith in which the court referred the matter to the ECJ; and decided then similarly.

References