The Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1984.tb01648.x |
| Author | Richard Townshend‐Smith |
| Published date | 01 March 1984 |
| Date | 01 March 1984 |
LEGISLATION
THE EQUAL
PAY (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1983
WOMEN’S pay remains significantly lower than that of men. The
Equal Pay Act 1970 initially narrowed the gap, which was closest in
1977. Since then it has expanded again, though only very slightly. In
1977 women’s pay was 75.5 per cent. of men’s, while in 1980, 1981,
and 1982 the figures were 73.5 per cent., 74-8 per cent. and 73.9 per
cent. respectively.’ It seems probable that most women are now
receiving equal pay as defined by the unamended Act.* That the gap
remains
so
large is seen as a serious problem by women’s organisa-
tions and others, as a continuing manifestation of male social
superiority despite legislation.’ The
causes
of the gap are, however,
numerous and complex, raising issues of the interrelationship of
economic and social factors in the fixing of wage levels, and of
whether law can affect them in either the short or the long term.4
It was into this minefield that the European Court advertently or
inadvertently stepped in the case
of
Commission
of
the European
Communities
v.
United Kingd~m.~
The Court held that the British
Equal Pay Act failed to comply with the EEC Equal Pay Directive6
in that it omitted to provide a remedy for a woman receiving unequal
pay for work to which, compared with a man’s work in the same
employment, “equal value had been attributed.” In consequence the
1983 Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations’ were passed, which
came into force on January
1,
1984. Amendments to the Industrial
Tribunals (Rules of Procedure) Regulations’ were also necessitated.
Briefly, the procedure is as follows. A woman must claim to an
Industrial Tribunal that her work is of equal value with that of a
man
in the same empl~yment.~
For these purposes “value” means
“demands made on her” and the specific headings are instanced of
“effort, skill and decision.”” On the assumption that conciliation
Equal Opportunities Commission,
Annual Report
1982.
*
It is easy to assume that the Act had significant effect in its early years as employers
adjusted to its requirements, which then tapered off. It has however been suggested that
the operation of incomes policy may have been largely or partly responsible for the
narrowing of the differential rather than the Act: Sloane,
The Earnings
Gap
befween Men
and Women in Britain-The Currenf
Sfate
of
Research Knowledge,
pp.14-16.
’
See,
for
example, Gill and Whitty,
Women’s Righfs in the Workplace,
esp. Chaps. 3
and 4; Coussins, “Equality for Women-Have the Laws Worked,” (1980) 24
Marxism
Today’6.
‘
The literature
is
vast. See, for example, Sloane,
supar,
note 2; Phelps Brown,
The
Inequality
of
Pay,
Chap.
5;
Siebart and Sloane, “Shortcomings and Problems in Analyses
of Women and Low Pay,” in Sloane (ed.),
Women and
Low
Pay.
Case 61/81, [1982] I.C.R. 578; [1982) I.R.L.R. 333.
Directive 75/117 of 1975.
’
S.I.
1794/1983.
*
Industrial Tribunals (Rules of Procedure) (Equal Value Amendment) Regulations 1983
Equal Pay Act 1970, s.1(6). Creighton,
Working Women and fhe
Law,
pp.103-107.
Equal Pay Act 1970, s.2(l)(c), inserted by reg. 2(1).
(S.I.
1807/1983).
201
To continue reading
Request your trial