词条 | British Coal Corp v Smith |
释义 |
| name = British Coal Corporation v Smith | court = House of Lords | image = | caption = | date decided = | full name = | citations = [1996] IRLR 404 | judges = | prior actions = | subsequent actions = | opinions = | transcripts = | keywords = Equal pay }} British Coal Corporation v Smith [1996] IRLR 404 is a UK labour law case, concerning equal pay. FactsThree collective agreements covered canteen, clerical and surface mineworkers who were British Coal employees. All, however, had pay and conditions set through a centralised industry level agreement. The mineworkers got production extra bonuses, varying locally. The female canteen and clerical workers claimed they were being unequally paid. They did not get a coal bonus, but got everything else. The Tribunal held that the bonuses were ‘locally varied fulfilment of the same universally accepted central terms’. JudgmentCourt of AppealBalcombe LJ [1994] ICR 810 overturned this, arguing under the Equal Pay Act 1970 section 1(6) that conditions needed to be the same if one chose a comparator at a different establishment - and not broadly or essentially similar terms. House of LordsLord Slynn restored the tribunal, saying, ‘the terms and conditions do not have to be identical’, just ‘substantially comparable’. Otherwise it would be ‘far too restrictive’. {{Cquote|The purpose of requiring common terms and conditions was to avoid it being said simply ‘a gardener does work of equal value to mine and my comparator at another establishment is a gardener’. It was necessary for the applicant to go further and show that gardeners at other establishments and at her establishment were or would be employed on broadly similar terms. It was necessary, but it was also sufficient.}}See also
NotesReferencesExternal links 4 : United Kingdom labour case law|House of Lords cases|1996 in case law|1996 in British law |
随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识,基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识,是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。