Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge: [2007] EWCA Civ 929

CA: Mummery, Maurice Kay and Wilson LJJ: 21 September 2007

The claimants, who were employed by the appellant council in positions such as caterers and care workers, claimed equal pay with male comparators employed as road sweepers. The basis of their claims was that their jobs were "rated as equivalent" with the comparators, pursuant to section 1(2)(b) of the Equal Pay Act 1970, notwithstanding that a nationally agreed job evaluation study between local authorities and trade unions placed the comparators on a lower grade, though in fact the comparators received more pay than the claimants as a result of supplementary payments. The employment tribunal held that the claimants could rely on the comparators, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed an appeal by the council, holding that it was appropriate to read words into subsection (2)(b) to give effect to the Community law principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value.

The council appealed.

The Court of Appeal held:
Adopting a purposive construction of section 1(2)(b) and (5) of the Equal Pay Act 1970, which had to be read together, it was appropriate to interpret subsection (5), and so conform with Community law, by inserting after "A woman is to be regarded as employed on work rated as equivalent with that of any man if, but only if, her job and their job have been given an equal value" the words "or her job has been given a higher value" and after "or would have been given an equal value" the words "or her job would have been given a higher value". So construed, it was unnecessary to disapply the statutory provision, and the claimants were entitled to rely on their chosen comparators.

The appeal was dismissed.

Appearances: John Cavanagh QC (Sharon Langridge, Newcastle upon Tyne) for the council; Robin Allen QC and Dee Masters (Stefan Cross, Newcastle upon Tyne) for the claimants.