Equal Pay–‐What's the Difference?
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1987.tb02583.x |
| Date | 01 May 1987 |
| Published date | 01 May 1987 |
| Author | Peter Schofield |
MAY
19871
NOTES
OF
CASES
379
opportunity for the Court, while identifying the public role
of
the
Panel, to confront the real issues which
lie
behind the abuse
of
public power. These issues are not bound up with arid notions of
illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, words which
have been repeated
so
often
of
late that they have begun to
acquire the character
of
meaningless ritual. The crucial concern is
how to inject attitudes
of
openness, accountability, impartiality,
responsiveness and participation into the decision-making process
as a whole. Such attitudes will not necessarily alter substantive
outcomes, but there is a strong argument for asserting that
if
these
elements are present the right decision is more likely to be reached
and more likely to be accepted. Ironically, the processes of the
Panel measure up quite well to the above criteria, although it was
perhaps less than responsive in its refusal to find that Norton Opax
and
K.I.O.
had acted in concert. One
of
the purposes
of
the Panel
is
to engender confidence in the market and the wider public that
take-overs are being conducted fairly and honestly.
To
that end the
Panel should be concerned just as much with the appearance of
prohibited conduct as with prohibited conduct itself. If not, why
attach such importance
to
compliance with both the letter and the
spirit
of
the Code? Yet, despite the exceedingly close relationship
between Norton Opax and
K.I.O.
the Panel concluded that there
had been no concerted action. Was this not over-emphasising the
letter at the expense
of
the spirit? And judicial review, with its
'exclusive focus on
uires,
merely served to reinforce this emphasis.
More generally, the above attitudes
of
openness, accountability
and
so
forth are vital for the regeneration of the constitutional
relationship between the state and the individual. The City
of
London and its institutions are inextricably linked to that
relationship, bound up as they are with the success
of
government
economic policy. Once the City's central role is accepted then it is
obvious that the aforementioned standards should be applied to
the Panel, engaged as
it
is in regulating an important financial
activity. The application of those standards will remind the Panel
that its role is not only to encourage confidence in the business
community but amongst the wider public as well. Arguably the
judiciary is not a suitable institution for addressing these issues, but
if not, why take the case at all? We now have the worst
of
all
possible worlds, a Panel subject to review the scope
of
which is
so
hedged about with qualification that any notion of substantive
supervision is illusory. LEXA HILLIARD*
EQUAL
PAY-WHAT'S
THE
DIFFERENCE?
THERE
are two separate defences to an equal pay claim under the
amended Equal Pay Act
1970:'
in cases
of
like
work or work rated
*
Lecturer in law, University
of
Durham.
'
As ainendcd by the Sex Discrimination Act
1975
and the Equal Pay (Amendment)
Regulations
1983.
To continue reading
Request your trial