Podcast Location:
Download it here [file size: 21.6 MB]
Categories:
Employment Law
CPD Points:
Up to 1 point. details »

Due to the difference in guidelines between the SRA and the Bar Standards Board, CPD points are awarded differently for Solicitors, Barristers and Legal Executives:

Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 accredited CPD point (60 minutes)

Regulated by ILEX:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Cost:
  • FREE
Length:
30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz)
Plays on Computer:
Yes Downloadable as MP3:    Yes
Contributor(s):
Course Aims:

This podcast aims to update and refresh the listener with current developments in equal pay claims. This podcast will focus on establishing equality and justifying inequality. It will touch firstly on the growing phenomenon of piggy-back claims, the role of expert valuers, the relevance of job evaluation studies in establishing past equality and supervening causes as a means to justify inequality.

Outcomes:
After completing the course you will:
  • Understand how the courts are dealing with the phenomenon of 'piggy-back' claims by male counterparts;
  • Know what the courts of said about the role of independent expert valuers and the courts case management powers in equal pay claims;
  • Have touched upon the question of appropriate comparators for assessing equality;
  • Be aware of the role of job evaluation studies as an indicator of past equality of equivalence as to pay;
  • Be aware of the recent authority on whether discrimination can be justified as a means to a legitimate end;
  • Know the recent authority on justification on grounds of supervening causes.
Level:
Intermediate Difficulty: 3 of 5
Classification:
Case Update
Sources and References:
  • Equal Pay Act 1970;
  • Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge [2009] ICR 133;
  • Hartlepool Borough Council v Llewellyn & Ors [2009] UKEAT 0006_08_2406;
  • South Tyneside v Anderson [2007] ICR 1581;
  • Dumfries and Galloway Council v North (UKEATS/0047/08);
  • Lawrence v Regent Office Care [2003] ICR 1092;
  • British Coal Corporation v Smith [1996] ICR 515;
  • Lawrence v Regent Office Care [2003] ICR 1092;
  • Robertson v DEFRA [2005] ICR 750;
  • North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust v Potter [2009] IRLR 176;
  • British Coal Corporation v Smith [1996] ICR 515;
  • Potter v North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust [2009] IRLR 22;
  • Hovell v Ashford and St Peter’s Hospital NHS Trust [2009] IRLR 734;
  • Fearnon v Smurfit Corrugated Cases (Lurgan) Ltd [2009] IRLR 132;
  • Hartlepool Borough Council v Dolphin [2009] IRLR 168;
  • King’s College London v Clark UKEAT/1049/02;
  • Armstrong v Newcastle upon Tune NHS Trust [2006] IRLR 124;
  • Blackburn v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2009] IRLR 135;
  • Coventry City Council v Nicholls [2009] IRLR 345;
  • Kutz-Bauer v Hamburg [2003] IRLR 368.

In this podcast, the first of a two part CPDcast mini series on equal pay litigation, barrister Richard Leiper covers three main areas: establishing equality between employees, how to employers have justified inequality and finally procedural time limits when bringing an equal pay claim.

NB: This podcast is currently under review following the enactment of the Equality Act 2010

Start this CPDcast Activity

© CPDcast.com