Morning:
12°c
New Moon is nothing if not an international advertisement for the hungry virtues of virginity and young people can’t get enough of it
Secret loans totalling £61.6 billion to struggling banks Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS revealed for the first time
More...
Equal pay defeat for women who go on maternity leave
Last updated at 10:07am on 04.10.06
Bernadette Cadman's case has resulted in a ruling that leaves potential mothers at a disadvantage
Women who take maternity leave do not have the right to claim as much pay as male colleagues doing the same job who have not had time off, European judges ruled yesterday.
A claim that female employees who have had to take leave for reasons such as pregnancy should be paid the same as men who have not was thrown out by Europe's top court.
See also...
• One year's maternity leave for all mothers regardless of length of time with company
• Breastfeeding doesn't make babies more intelligent
• More: Super parents spending longer with children than 30 years ago
The ruling was hailed by British business as a 'victory for common sense'.
As men would have served for longer and therefore have more experience, they can legally be paid higher salaries, the court said.
The landmark ruling means that the earning power of a woman based on length of service will be curtailed by her decision to have children. A man doing the same job is judged to have an improved work performance because of the extra service.
The decision was made in a test case brought by Manchester health and safety manager Bernadette Cadman against the Health and Safety Executive.
Mrs Cadman, 44, was being paid £35,129 a year in 2000 when she discovered that male colleagues at the same grade in the HSE were being paid up to £9,000 more than her.
She said the fact they had greater experience - one higher paid male colleague had 25 years longer service than Mrs Cadman - did not mean they should be paid more if they were performing the same duties.
Her claim said that women cannot achieve the same length of service as men because of domestic circumstances such as pregnancy and maternity leave and therefore it unfairly denied them the chance to earn as much as their male counterparts.
She claimed employers should have to show good reason if they paid long-serving men more than women.
Although she won her case at an employment tribunal in Britain, an appeals court referred it to the European court of Justice to rule on the principle because of doubts over the implications.
A victory for Mrs Cadman and her union Prospect would have meant employers would have been forced to pay the same rates to every worker of the same grade, no matter how long their experience.
Employers 'don't have to justify salary rates'
The Luxembourg-based court said employers did not have to justify salary rates attached to length of service case-by-case.
The judges said: '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 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.'
Independent analysts had predicted that success for the equal pay claim brought by the health inspector would have pushed up the wage costs of companies by between three and seven per cent.
Stephen Alambritis of the Federation of Small Businesses said: 'This is a welcome decision from Luxembourg. We hope it is not a one-off but starts a pattern in which we see some common sense. It would have been very harsh on employers to stop them paying more to people with long service.'
But Mrs Cadman's union Prospect hailed the case as a victory claiming employees will still be able to get compensation if they can prove they are just as qualified as longer-serving members of staff.
This could have an impact on public sector employers, including the civil service, where wide differences in salary based on length of service are more common than in the private sector.
The worker challenging their employer will have to provide evidence which raises serious doubts about how appropriate the pay difference is.
Mrs Cadman welcomed the ruling and said she would continue to fight for equal pay. Her case will now go back to the Court of Appeal, and then to a tribunal, where she could win a salary rise and six years' back-dated pay.
She said: 'This is not about winning compensation, but about recognition that women should not be paid less than their male counterparts.'
Reader views (9)
Falling fertility rates mean that tax revenue probably will not be sufficient in future to support pension and health care costs. Rulings such as these serve as disincentives to women to have children. Yet the economy needs women to have children to provide needed tax revenue. This ruling serves only to entrench the problem further. Having children is not a cakewalk or a holiday; if it were, we wouldn't have a lopsided population. Society needs to consider that and incentivise women to take the time to have children, not penalise them for doing so.
- Kerrin, London
I would love to take a year off to look after my baby and come back into a job and a pay rise but I am not selfish or unrealistic. It is women like Bernadette Cadman who brings resentment against the equal pay arguement. Every job position and related pay should take into account length of service, ability in the said job, and personal negotiation skills.
- Michael, London
I am a single male and my partner cannot have children, both of us have continually complained that because we are cheaper to employ due to lower costs for our employers - no maternity or paternity - no increased time off due to children being ill, being picked up from school etc. then we should get a higher salary. We are discriminated against - maybe now is the time to challenge this in the European court and ensure that everybody has the salary packaging flexibility to ensure that everybody gets an equal salary package. Both of us are fed up with receiving a lower salary package than women who want a family and a career. Not PC but we want equality in salary packages.
- Jim, London
As a woman it would be (selfishly) nice to think that we could expect an equal salary after taking maternity leave, but it really wouldn't be fair. I guess if you don't want the cut in pay, then don't have kids.
Maybe women should prioritise and put their children ahead of their careers...
- Sarah, London
Perhaps logic as well as common sense should be applied. If you subscribe to the 'fairness' approach, where do you draw the line? Your way of thinking would have some youngster in their late teens/early 20s with next to no experience wanting/expecting to be paid the same salary as someone much older with 20 plus years experience, just because they have the same job title.
- Gerry Thompson, London
I think the two boys who have commented clearly arent married or have had a woman close to them in this situation. You make massive assumptions firstly that women are all over the moon about taking time out to have children and fail to recognise that maternity leave is fundamentally in place to encourage a healthy population. And believe me it is not the same as having a career break. All both men and women in the workplace can hope for is that employers make fair assessments on case by case basis in light of this ruling.
- Emma, Bristol, Bristol, UK
Would a man who took a year off for paternity or sebatical also get lees pay? I suspect he would - so the European court seems to have got it right.
- Julian, Ipswich
It's not so much common sense as FAIRNESS, and I'm sure that both sexes would subscribe to that. Mind you, I'm equally sure that there are some among the Feminist lobby who'll grind their teeth and complain.
Sorry, sisters, you've lost this argument to fairness.
- Ted Knight, Shetland
So this is basic common sense, if you take a few years off for your kids, you can't just expect to get the same cash as someone who has been working there without any breaks. Why should you? You choose to have kids. Why can't I take a holiday/career break for a couple of years and demand the same pay increments then?
- Huw Morgan, London
