Mayfield -V- Legion Cabs (Trading) Co-Operative Society Ltd (No.1) [1997] NSWEOT

Mayfield -V- Legion Cabs (Trading) Co-Operative Society Ltd (No.1) [1997] NSWEOT

The complaint was not substantiated because there was no evidence that Ms Mayfield was paid less because she was a woman. The evidence showed she was paid less because she had not been permanently appointed as a Shift Controller and, when filling in, was entitled only to the relevant loadings under the respondent's...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 1997
Procedural Posture
Sex Discrimination Complaint in Employment Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Complaint Referred to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal by the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Pursuant to Section 91 (2); Final Judgment
Outcome
Complaint dismissed; judgment in favour of the respondent.
['anti Discrimination Law' 'employment Law']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Sex Discrimination Complaint in Employment Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Complaint Referred to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal by the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Pursuant to Section 91 (2); Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent discriminated against the complainant on the ground of sex by paying her less than a male Shift Controller when she temporarily filled in for that role.' "Whether the difference in pay was explained by the respondent's employment structure and award loadings rather than the complainant's sex."]

Ratio Decidendi

The complaint was not substantiated because there was no evidence that Ms Mayfield was paid less because she was a woman. The evidence showed she was paid less because she had not been permanently appointed as a Shift Controller and, when filling in, was entitled only to the relevant loadings under the respondent's settled employment structure. The evidence also showed that men working as Supervisors received the same rate as Ms Mayfield and that several women had been appointed as Shift Controllers.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed; judgment in favour of the respondent.

Orders

  • ["Ms Mayfield's complaint is dismissed." 'There are no circumstances to justify departure from the general provision in section 114 (1) of the Act that each party pay its or her own costs.']