In this action the Court of Appeal had to decide whether it was permissible for civil servants in an equal pay case to use as comparators civil servants of the opposite sex who worked in a different government department and with different pay and conditions.
The claimants in this case were six male civil servants who worked in the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs they hoped to prove inequality of pay through a comparison with two female civil servants who worked in the Department of Transport.
The claimants argued that all the employees were employed by the same employer, namely the Crown. They submitted that the Crown should not be able to avoid its responsibilities in relation to equal pay by departmentalising pay negotiations and settlements. They claimants contended that the Crown had retained ultimate control and should therefore retain the responsibility.
The Court of Appeal ruled that it was not enough that the claimants and the comparators worked for the same employer when applying the principle of equal pay. It was held that having a same employer did not guarantee that the employees were in the same employment or had the same pay and conditions which were attributable to a single source. In order to draw a comparison between employees it had to be shown that a single body was responsible for the decision making as regards pay levels in both departments. This body is the one which is responsible for the inequality and which could restore equal treatment. As it was the various government departments had been delegated the responsibility to fix the terms and conditions of employment including pay. Therefore these terms differed from department to department and the claimants failed to satisfy the ‘single source’ test.
The Appeal was dismissed.