Hayward v Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd
Under equal pay law, each term of a woman's contract must be compared with the corresponding term of the man's contract, and she is entitled to equality in each term, not merely in the overall package.
Facts
Miss Hayward was employed as a cook in a shipyard canteen. An independent expert found that her work was of equal value to that of male painters, joiners and thermal insulation engineers employed in the shipyard, but she was paid a lower basic wage. The employer argued that her overall terms, including her sickness benefits, meal breaks and holidays, were as favourable as those of the men, so she was not entitled to a higher basic wage.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that she was entitled to the same basic pay as the men. Lord Mackay said that the word term in section 1(2) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 meant a distinct provision or part of the contract, which had sufficient content to make it possible to compare it with a similar provision in the man's contract. The woman was entitled to equality in respect of each term, and the employer could not rely on the overall package being equally favourable. The equality clause now appears in the Equality Act 2010.
Related cases on equal pay
- Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College Case C-256/01, [2004] ECR I-873
- Asda Stores Ltd v Brierley [2021] UKSC 10
- Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group Case C-262/88, [1990] ECR I-1889
- Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz Case 170/84, [1986] ECR 1607
- Birmingham City Council v Abdulla [2012] UKSC 47, [2013] 1 AC 504
- Defrenne v Sabena (No 2) Case 43/75, [1976] ECR 455
- Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority Case C-127/92, [1993] ECR I-5535
- Glasgow City Council v Marshall [2000] 1 WLR 333
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
