Ian Smith updates us on contingent males, some nimble judicial footwork & a dog’s breakfast
At first sight, a “contingent male” may appear to be a feminist dream but in the looking glass world of local authority equal pay claims it has a more prosaic meaning.
If a woman (F1) makes an equal pay claim citing as a comparator a man doing a different job (M2) and succeeds, can a man doing the same work as F1 (M1) claim equal pay with her? If so, can M1 in effect pre-empt the issue by bringing a “contingent” claim on the basis that if she wins he should win too?
In his judgment in Hartlepool BC v Llewllyn [2009] UKEAT/006/08 (in fact four consolidated appeals) Underhill P posed two questions: (i) do contingent males have a claim at all; and (ii) if so, what is its scope (in particular in relation to a claim for arrears).
Same work no pay
Normally M1 can claim equal pay if F1 is doing the same work but paid
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
