''Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College'' (2004
C-256/01
is a

European Union law European Union law is a system of rules operating within the member states of the European Union (EU). Since the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community following World War II, the EU has developed the aim to "promote peace, its valu ...

case concerning the right of men and women to

equal pay Equal pay for equal work is the concept of labour rights that individuals in the same workplace be given equal pay. It is most commonly used in the context of sexual discrimination, in relation to the gender pay gap. Equal pay relates to the full ...

for work of equal value under Article 141 of the

Treaty of the European Community The Treaty of Rome, or EEC Treaty (officially the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community), brought about the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC), the best known of the European Communities (EC). The treaty was signe ...

Background

Part-time lecturers at

Accrington and Rossendale College Accrington and Rossendale College is a further education college based in Accrington, Lancashire, England. The College Accrington & Rossendale College ('Accross') is a further education college that specialises in vocational education. The ...

did not have their contracts renewed. They were rehired through an agency, ELS, and said to be "self-employed independent contractors" under the new arrangement. They were denied access to the Teachers Superannuation Scheme. It was apparent that more of the part-time lecturers were women than the staff that remained under permanent contracts with the college. They brought a claim for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination. The Tribunal held that while there was no sex discrimination, there was an unfair dismissal. Lindsay J in the Employment Appeal Tribunal held there were sound business reasons for the change, given that the college was in financial trouble, and therefore objective justification of the disparate impact on women and no discrimination.

Judgment

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal referred to the European Court of Justice for advice on the application of Art. 141. It held that the EAT failed to consider whether there could ever be a justification if the primary aim of the dismissal was discriminatory. Sedley LJ commented as follows, without saying whether the outcome would be favourable when it was reconsidered at tribunal, which would have to decide again on proportionate impact.

European Court of Justice

The ECJ held that despite the contract saying they were self-employed, and despite national legislation under the

Equal Pay Act 1970 The Equal Pay Act 1970 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that prohibited any less favourable treatment between men and women in terms of pay and conditions of employment. The Act was proposed by the then Labour government, and was ...

applying only to employees, workers and those personally performing work (which may have brought the outside the Act's protectionc.f. '' Mingeley v Pennock and Ivory''

004 004, 0O4, O04, OO4 may refer to: * 004, fictional British 00 Agent * 0O4, Corning Municipal Airport (California) * O04, the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation * Abdul Haq Wasiq, Guantanamo detainee 004 * Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet engine * Lauda ...

EWCA Civ 328) the lecturers did fall within the Community definition of worker. However, while they fell within the category of "worker", their claim failed because she could not point to a comparator that came from the same "single source". Yet the ECJ stated that the rule that only "employees" could join the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme could well be incompatible with Article 141. The rule would be incompatible and should be disapplied if it shown to have an adverse impact on more women than men. If it is disapplied, it is not necessary for the claimant to point to a comparator of the opposite sex working for the same employer who has been adversely affected by the rule.

Notes

{{reflist

References

*E McGaughey, ''A Casebook on Labour Law'' (Hart 2019) ch 13, 607

External links

Judgment of the Court of 17 September 2002. ''A. G. Lawrence and Others v Regent Office Care Ltd'', Commercial Catering Group and Mitie Secure Services Ltd. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) – United Kingdom. Principle of equal pay for men and women – Direct effect – Comparison of the work performed for different employers. Case C-320/00.
Court of Justice of the European Union case law United Kingdom labour case law 2004 in case law 2004 in England Accrington Anti-discrimination law in the United Kingdom Sexism Gender equality case law 2004 in British law European Union labour case law Gender discrimination lawsuits