Jordans has teamed up with Barrister Allan Roberts from Guildhall Chambers to create this helpful tool which enables users to simply and quickly estimate the likely pension loss for claimants in Employment Tribunal cases.
Try out this free service today!
ASDA Stores Ltd v Brierley and others  UKEAT/0011/17
Employment Appeal Tribunal
31 August 2017
The Equality Act 2010 allows claimants to claim equal pay with appropriate comparators (ie who are on ‘like work’, ‘work rated as equivalent’ or ‘work of equal value’) who work at the same establishment; or who work at a different establishment and common terms of employment apply to both establishments. Under EU law, claimants can also claim equal pay with appropriate comparators where there is a ‘single source’ of terms of employment for both the claimant group and the comparator group. The ‘single source’ route to an equal pay claim is an additional route to the route set out in the Equality Act. It does not add a further requirement to the Equality Act route.
Shop workers (mostly female) claimed equal pay with workers at distribution centres (mostly male). Since the claimants worked at different locations from the comparators, they could only pursue such claims if either common terms of employment applied at both locations (the Equality Act route) or if there was a single source of both terms. A tribunal and the EAT concluded both that common terms of employment applied and that there was a single source of both sets of terms.
The employer appealed to the Court of Appeal, challenging both these conclusions. Decisions about pay and other terms of employment were delegated by the main board to subsidiary boards. Therefore, the employer argued, there was no single source of the terms. The Court of Appeal disagreed. The main board still oversaw, and had power to influence, the terms of employment set by the subsidiary boards. Therefore there was a ‘single source’ of terms of employment. Furthermore, the two routes are alternative routes to an equal pay claim, so the claimants could have pursued their claims anyway under the ‘common terms of employment’ route.