McKimm v Down District Council [2008] NIIT 1229_05IT (03 October 2008)

McKimm v Down District Council [2008] NIIT 1229_05IT (03 October 2008)

The claimant's and comparator's posts had significant differences in key tasks and required qualifications, particularly the Curator's role as a continuously available in-house expert with specific academic requirements, which were of practical importance in relation to terms and conditions of employment. Therefore, the claimant was not engaged in 'like work' with the comparator under Section 1(2)(a) of the Act.

Citation
[2008] NIIT 1229
Parties
Claimant: Cathie McKimm; Respondent: Down District Council
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
03 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal Equal Pay Claim / Final Merits Decision on 'like Work' Equal Pay Claim
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Equal Pay, Like Work, Sex Discrimination, Job Evaluation
Employment Law Equality Law Equal Pay Like Work Sex Discrimination Job Evaluation

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cathie McKimm

Claimant

Down District Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal Equal Pay Claim / Final Merits Decision on 'like Work' Equal Pay Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant and her comparator were engaged in 'like work' under Section 1(2)(a) of the Equal Pay Act (Northern Ireland) 1970
  2. 2 Whether differences between the claimant's and comparator's roles were of practical importance in relation to terms and conditions of employment

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's and comparator's posts had significant differences in key tasks and required qualifications, particularly the Curator's role as a continuously available in-house expert with specific academic requirements, which were of practical importance in relation to terms and conditions of employment. Therefore, the claimant was not engaged in 'like work' with the comparator under Section 1(2)(a) of the Act.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant's 'like work' equal pay claim is not well founded and is dismissed.