Outlook Supplies Ltd v Parry
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Year | 1978 |
| Date | 1978 |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
Discrimination - Sex - Equal pay - Variation due to material difference - Pay protected on transfer to different grade - Transfer to reduce duties of male employee suffering from ill health - Woman paid less for similar work - Whether duration of protection such that variation in pay no longer due to difference other than sex -
The applicant, a woman accounts department supervisor, claimed before an industrial tribunal that she should be paid the same as a male colleague, A, on the ground that her pay was less than his although they were both employed on similar work. The industrial tribunal heard the employers' case and without calling upon the applicant to give evidence, found that A had worked both as an assistant accountant and an accounts supervisor until he became ill in 1974 after which he did the same work as the applicant, and that on humane grounds the employers had protected his pay so that his salary, which was greater than the applicant's, was not reduced. The tribunal held that, although the employers were justified in not reducing his salary when he first fell ill, the situation had continued for too long; that the employers had failed to prove that the variation in pay was genuinely due to a material difference other than sex, within the meaning of section 1 (3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970F1, and accordingly the applicant was entitled to equal pay.
On the employers' appeal the applicant disputed the fact found by the industrial tribunal that prior to 1974 she was not employed on like work with A: —
Held, allowing the appeal, that the employers had acted reasonably in protecting A's salary on humane grounds when he became ill in 1974 and thus the variation between his pay and the applicant's was due to a material difference other than sex, within the meaning of section 1 (3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970; that the length of time which had elapsed since the protection was introduced was not, in the absence of other relevant circumstances, such as to prevent the employers from continuing to rely on section 1 (3); and that, accordingly, the case would be remitted to an industrial tribunal to hear the applicant's evidence and to consider the applicability of section 1 (3) in the light of the evidence tendered.
Per curiam. The decision of an industrial tribunal under section 1 (3) is one of fact, to be based on all the relevant circumstances. It may well be that in Snoxell v. Vauxhall Motor Ltd. [
The following case is referred to in the judgment:
Early (Charles) & Marriott (Witney) Ltd. v. Smith; Snoxell v. Vauxhall Motors Ltd. [
No additional cases were cited in argument.
Appeal from an industrial tribunal sitting at Manchester.
The employers, Outlook Supplies Ltd., appealed from a decision of the industrial tribunal On January 14, 1977, awarding the applicant, Mrs. Joyce Parry, equality of pay with a male colleague, on the ground that the industrial tribunal had erred in law in failing to hold that the employers had proved that the variation in pay was due to a material difference other than sex, within the meaning of section 1 (3) of the
On October 13, at the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal, the appeal tribunal allowed the appeal but reserved their reasons.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
Malcolm Cotterill for the employers.
R. Knipe, Solicitor, for the applicant.
November 22. Phillips J. read the following judgment of the appeal tribunal. This is an appeal by Outlook Supplies Ltd., the employers, from the decision of an industrial tribunal sitting in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benveniste v University of Southampton
...36 In support of this submission reference was made to what are called the red circle cases. We were referred in particular to Outlook Supplies Ltd. v. Parry (1978) ICE 388. In that case a Mr. A. had worked in the company as an assistant accountant and an accounts supervisor until he became......
-
Methven v Cow Industrial Polymers Ltd
...in support of this basic submission was placed on the cases of Snoxell v. Vauxhall Motors Ltd. 1977 ICR 700;Outlook SuppliesLtd. v. Parry 1978 IRLR 12;United Biscuits Ltd. v. Young 1978 IRLR 15;Shields v. Coomes (Holdings) Ltd. 1978 ICR 1151; and Clay Cross (Quarry Services) Ltd. v. Fletche......
-
Hamilton vs Department of Finance
...also brought equal pay claims, albeit they were subsequently withdrawn. As Phillips J stated in Outlook Supplies Ltd v Parry [1978] 2 All ER 707 at Page 711:- “ ... the protection of wages, even when done for a good reason, gives rise to much misunderstanding and upset, which increases as t......
- Sun Alliance and London Insurance Ltd v Dudman
-
Preferential pay protection: Does UK law provide poorer protection to those discriminated against on grounds of protected characteristics other than gender?
...[1978] I.R.L.R.225 CA.101. Bainbridge v. Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 885.102. Outlook Supplies Ltd v. Parry [1978] I.R.L.R. 12 EAT.103. Igen v. Wong [2005] ICR 931; Hewage v. Grampian Health Board [2013] S.L.T. 1191.104. Bahl v. Law Society [2004] EWCA Civ 1070.105.......