Case round-upOn 18 Nov 2003 in Personnel Today Previous Article Next Article Case round-up by Eversheds 020 7919 4500Long service pays Cadman v Health & Safety Executive, EAT, 22 October 2003 Cadman, a Health & Safety Executive (HSE) inspector, was paid less thanfour male colleagues and brought an equal pay claim. The HSE defended the claimon the grounds that the men had longer service. It accepted that its pay schemewas indirectly discriminatory against its female employees; they generally hadless service and were more likely to take career breaks. A defence available to the HSE, however, was that paying staff in this waywas objectively justifiable. Relying on the decision in a European case (the Danfoss case) the HSE arguedthat such justification had already been established. The tribunal disagreed.It ruled that the Danfoss decision had been watered down by later cases andthat employers must, in every case, demonstrate specific justification for apay differential. Here, the HSE had failed to do so. The HSE appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) overruled the tribunal, dismissingCadman’s claim. It confirmed that the principles set out in the Danfoss casewere sound. There was no requirement for the HSE to produce specificjustification for using length of service as a factor in its pay scheme. Whatthe tribunal needed to do in such a case was to balance the discriminatoryeffect of using length of service as a criterion in determining pay, againstthe reasonable needs of the employer. Here it had not done so. Having a choice Dehaney v Brent Mind and Another, CA, 27 October 2003 Following the rejection of her tribunal claims Dehaney appealed to the EAT.She was asked if she would agree to her case being heard by a reduced panel ofone member, as opposed to two – something to which she verbally consented. After the proceedings had commenced, however, Dehaney discovered that thesingle appointed member of the panel was an employer’s representative, ratherthan an employee’s representative. She therefore objected, but the EAT refusedto discharge itself since the hearing had started. Dehaney appealed this refusal. In giving verbal consent to a reduced panel,she had not given her informed consent. She claimed that she should have beentold in advance that the single appointed member was an employer’srepresentative, a claim with which the Court of Appeal agreed. The Employment Tribunals Act 1996 dictates that the EAT panel should consistof equal numbers of lay members with experience of employers’ interests andthose representing the interests of employees. Deviation from this requiresexpress consent of the parties. Dehaney had not, in fact, given informedconsent, therefore the legislative requirements had not been met. The Court ofAppeal commented that it would be better practice for written consent to beobtained before the hearing commenced. Comments are closed. Related posts:No related photos.