If it is held that differences in pay between employees are not related to sex discrimination, the employer is not obliged to explain the difference.
The case concerned teachers and instructors working in a school for children with learning difficulties. Teachers were more qualified than instructors and were paid more. This arose from the law before 1975 under which some children were regarded as uneducable and were therefore entrusted to instructors rather than teachers. Since 1975, all children were regarded as educable, so teachers were engaged. The work now done by instructors and teachers was similar.
Seven women instructors claimed equality with a male teacher, and one male instructor claimed equality with a female teacher.
The employer said the pay differences arose for reasons of history and collective bargaining, and not because of sex discrimination. The employees argued that this was not a satisfactory argument. The House of Lords ruled that whether the argument was satisfactory was irrelevant. The employers had shown that the pay difference did not arise because of sex discrimination. That was therefore the end of the matter. Equal pay law provided no opportunity for a general claim that one job was worth the same as another and should be paid at the same rate.
Glasgow City Council v Marshall. HL. The Times 8 February 2000
[2000.2/6]