Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Equality, diversity and inclusionLatest NewsEqual payFamily-friendly workingSex discrimination

Family women destined to earn less than male counterparts as European Court of Justice kicks out equal pay claim

by Mike Berry 4 Oct 2006
by Mike Berry 4 Oct 2006

Companies can pay women less than their male colleagues if their length of service is shorter because of taking time off for childcare, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled in a landmark case.


The ECJ said employers did not have to justify, on a case-by-case basis, their pay structures based on the length of service, unless a worker could provide evidence to raise serious doubts about the process.


The court rejected a claim by Bernadette Cadman, who had said her employer, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), unjustifiably paid her male colleagues on the same grade more only because they had worked more years.


Cadman argued that length of service and seniority often depended on domestic circumstances such as pregnancy and maternal leave and that employers must provide special justification for paying men more than women when they hold the same post.


But the ECJ said in its ruling: “Recourse to the criterion of the length of service is appropriate to attain the legitimate objective of rewarding experience acquired which enables the worker to perform his duties better.


“There is no need to show that an individual worker has acquired experience during the relevant period which has enabled him to perform his duties better.”


Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Cadman sued the HSE in 2001 when she discovered she was earning up to £9,000 a year less than male workers in the same post.


A UK employment tribunal initially ruled in her favour, but, on appeal, the case was referred to the ECJ which interprets pan-EU legislation.

Mike Berry

previous post
Modernisation deal at Edinburgh City Council means pay cuts for thouands of staff
next post
Asda scraps separate rate of pay for under 18s

You may also like

Co-op equal pay claims move onto next stage

30 Jun 2025

‘Be direct’ to avoid escalating conflict, advises Acas

30 Jun 2025

Reforming paternity leave could benefit UK by £13bn...

30 Jun 2025

Fall in entry-level jobs linked to rise of...

30 Jun 2025

Employers’ duty of care: keeping workers safe in...

27 Jun 2025

Welfare cuts would ‘undermine workforce inclusion and business...

27 Jun 2025

MPs urge ministers to boost T-level awareness to...

27 Jun 2025

Progressive DEI policy is a red line for...

27 Jun 2025

Bank of England says NIC rise is dampening...

27 Jun 2025

Bioethanol plant closure could lead to 4,000 job...

26 Jun 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+