Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
- LORD BROWNE
- LORD WEIR
- LORD CLYDE
- LORD JUSTICE CLERK
- LORD COWIE
- LORD STEYN
- LORD HOPE
- LORD HOFFMANN
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Strathclyde Regional Council and Others v. Wallace and Others (Scotland)
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellants are unpromoted women teachers who perform the same duties as “principal teachers” employed by the Respondents (the local education authority). Although the Respondents now concede that the Appellants perform “like work” within the meaning of the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Appellants are paid on the lower, common scale for unpromoted teachers. Each Appellant selected a male principal-teacher comparator and claimed the higher rate of pay through the implied “equality clause” in section 1 of the Act.
An Industrial Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled in favour of the Appellants, finding that the Respondents had not established a defence under section 1(3) (“material factor” defence). The Second Division of the Court of Session reversed that decision. The present appeal to the House of Lords therefore focused exclusively on whether the Respondents had proved a valid section 1(3) defence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Respondents could rely on section 1(3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 by showing that the pay disparity was “genuinely due to a material factor which is not the difference of sex.”
- Whether, in the absence of any sex discrimination, the Respondents were nevertheless required to justify the pay disparity by demonstrating that no reasonable alternative existed.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The Appellants perform “like work” with male comparators and therefore benefit from the implied equality clause.
- The five factors cited by the Respondents do not justify the disparity; a section 1(3) defence requires proof that the disparity was unavoidable.
- Prior case law (e.g., Jenkins v. Kingsgate) supports the need for objective justification whenever an employer relies on section 1(3).
Respondents' Arguments
- The disparity stems from five genuine, significant and non-sex-related factors: (1) a statutory promotion structure; (2) competitive, merit-based appointment to promoted posts; (3) financial constraints; (4) an internal circular (Standard Circular 65) created to give limited flexibility; and (5) the interaction of those constraints with staffing standards, which prevented the creation of additional principal-teacher posts.
- There is no evidence of sex discrimination: of 134 unpromoted teachers performing principal-teacher work, 81 are men and 53 are women.
- Section 1(3) requires only that the factors be genuine, material and non-sex-related; it does not impose an additional burden of “justification” where no discrimination exists.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Rainey v. Greater Glasgow Health Board [1987] AC 224 |
A factor is “material” if it is “significant and relevant.” Bilka-style justification applies where a factor is discriminatory. |
Used to confirm that “material” focuses on causal relevance, not fairness, and to incorporate the Bilka justification test only when discrimination exists. |
| Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v. Weber von Hartz (Case 170/84) |
Indirectly discriminatory practices may be lawful if objectively justified (real need, appropriateness, necessity). |
Clarified that justification is required only where the impugned factor is discriminatory. |
| Shields v. E. Coomes (Holdings) Ltd. [1978] 1 WLR 1408 |
The Equal Pay Act must be read consistently with the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Article 119 EC. |
Cited for the interpretative approach aligning domestic and European anti-discrimination provisions. |
| Garland v. British Rail Engineering Ltd. [1983] 2 AC 751 |
Same interpretative principle as Shields. |
Supported the need to construe “not the difference of sex” in harmony with EU law. |
| North Yorkshire County Council v. Ratcliffe [1995] ICR 833 |
Observation (obiter) that section 1(3) does not rigidly import the direct/indirect distinction. |
Explained but confined; the House emphasised that EU case law (including Bilka) remains applicable. |
| Jenkins v. Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd. [1981] 1 WLR 1485 |
Objective justification required where the factor relied upon is indirectly discriminatory (part-time workers). |
Distinguished: that case involved discrimination; the present case does not. |
| Barber v. NCR (Manufacturing) Ltd. [1993] IRLR 95 |
Where the factor is gender discriminatory, justification is required. |
Distinguished on the same basis as Jenkins. |
| McPherson v. Rathgael Centre [1991] IRLR 206 |
Suggested justification needed even without discrimination. |
Declared wrongly decided; the House disapproved its reasoning. |
| Tyldesley v. T.M.L. Plastics Ltd. [1996] ICR 356 |
No justification needed where the factor is genuine and non-discriminatory. |
Approved as correctly stating the law. |
| Calder v. Rountree Mackintosh Confectionary Ltd. [1992] ICR 372 |
Same principle as Tyldesley. |
Approved. |
| Yorkshire Blood Transfusion Service v. Plaskitt [1994] ICR 74 |
Same principle as Tyldesley. |
Approved. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The House of Lords held that section 1(3) establishes a defence when an employer shows that the pay variation is genuinely due to a material factor unrelated to sex. The analysis proceeded as follows:
- Genuineness. The five factors identified by the Respondents were not a sham or pretext; the Industrial Tribunal accepted them as real.
- Materiality. Consistent with Rainey, a factor is material if it is causally significant. Each factor (statutory promotion structure, competitive appointments, financial constraints, internal circular, and staffing standards) directly caused the inability to promote the Appellants and therefore the pay difference.
- Non-sex-related. The disparity impacted men and women alike (81 male, 53 female unpromoted teachers). Therefore no direct or indirect sex discrimination arose.
- No requirement of justification absent discrimination. The Industrial Tribunal had erred by importing a “justification” test in circumstances where the factors were not discriminatory. Justification (using the Bilka test) becomes relevant only when the impugned factor is tainted by sex discrimination.
- Rectification of authorities. The Court reconciled domestic and EU authorities, approving decisions that limit the justification requirement to discriminatory factors and disapproving McPherson.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The Respondents successfully established a section 1(3) defence; the Appellants are not entitled to principal-teacher pay.
Implications: The judgment clarifies that, under the Equal Pay Act 1970, an employer who proves a genuine, significant and non-sex-related reason for a pay disparity is not required to offer further objective justification. The decision aligns domestic law with EU jurisprudence, confines the justification requirement to discriminatory factors, and disapproves contrary authority.
Click here to read the full judgment