Cadman has clarified some issues in equal pay claims, but still leaves tribunals to deal with many practical questions, warns Emma Hawksworth

The ECJ ruling in Cadman v Health & Safety Executive Case C-17/05 (3 October 2006) received wide and varied coverage in the media, notable in particular for two diametrically opposed front-page headlines in the broadsheets: ‘Mothers lose right to equal salaries’ for The Times,contrasting with ‘Higher pay for long service ruled illegal’ in The Guardian.

Little wonder that confusion remains as to who won. The reason for this confusion can be found at para 40 of the judgment, which is worded in somewhat cryptic style:

“Since, as a general rule, recourse to the criterion of length of service is appropriate to attain the legitimate objective of rewarding experience acquired which enables the worker to perform his duties b...

Jean Yves


This article is part of a subscription-based access, to continue reading, please contact your library