Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge & Ors ("Bainbridge 1") [2008] EWCA Civ 885 (29 July 2008)

Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge & Ors ("Bainbridge 1") [2008] EWCA Civ 885 (29 July 2008)

The Court held that the pay protection schemes, as operated, resulted in unlawful sex discrimination against the excluded female claimants. The exclusion was a direct consequence of prior discrimination, and the Councils failed to objectively justify the disparate adverse impact. Separate collective bargaining did not provide a valid defence. The Court clarified the application of res judicata, retroactive effect, and statutory grievance uplift in the context of equal pay claims.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 885
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council; Respondents/appellants: Bainbridge & Ors; Intervener: Equality and Human Rights Commission; Respondents/appellants: Surtees & Ors; Appellant/respondent: Middlesbrough Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal (consolidated) From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part and dismissed in part; findings of unlawful sex discrimination upheld in relation to pay protection; other issues determined as per detailed judgment.
Legal Topics
Equal Pay, Sex Discrimination, Indirect Discrimination, Objective Justification, Collective Bargaining, Res Judicata, Retroactive Effect, Statutory Grievance Uplift
Employment Law Equality Law European Union Law Equal Pay Sex Discrimination Indirect Discrimination Objective Justification Collective Bargaining +3 more

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council

Appellant/respondent

Bainbridge & Ors

Respondents/appellants

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Intervener

Surtees & Ors

Respondents/appellants

Middlesbrough Borough Council

Appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (consolidated) From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pay protection schemes implemented by local authorities following job evaluation exercises were discriminatory under the Equal Pay Act 1970 and EU law;
  2. 2 Whether exclusion of certain female employees from pay protection constituted unlawful sex discrimination;
  3. 3 Whether separate collective bargaining arrangements could justify pay disparities;

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the pay protection schemes, as operated, resulted in unlawful sex discrimination against the excluded female claimants. The exclusion was a direct consequence of prior discrimination, and the Councils failed to objectively justify the disparate adverse impact. Separate collective bargaining did not provide a valid defence. The Court clarified the application of res judicata, retroactive effect, and statutory grievance uplift in the context of equal pay claims.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part and dismissed in part; findings of unlawful sex discrimination upheld in relation to pay protection; other issues determined as per detailed judgment.

Orders

  • Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council's appeal on pay protection dismissed;
  • Middlesbrough Borough Council's appeal on separate collective bargaining dismissed;