Councils face massive bill as women win fair-pay battle

The Appeal Court has backed a claim that 13 women working for Sheffield City Council faced discrimination because they were not paid bonuses when male colleagues performing manual jobs at a similar level were given the cash.

It ruled yesterday that the inequality between the pay of carers, mainly female, and male colleagues doing equivalent jobs, such as gardening and rubbish collection, was "tainted by sex".

Sheffield City Council has argued that the scheme has nothing to do with gender – instead insisting it was not practical to pay bonuses to carers as their productivity was not measurable.

It was cleared of discrimination by an employment tribunal last year. Female carers have been paid up to 38 per cent less than their male "comparitors" since the 1960s.

But the test case, led by carer Lynn Gibson, went to the Appeal Court yesterday which ruled the matter must be referred back to an employment tribunal for a fresh decision, labelling the original judgement as "perverse".

Public-sector union Unison said the decision would open the door for around 2,000 female workers from Sheffield to file similar claims, creating a potential bill estimated at 20m.

If the next tribunal were to find in their favour, tens of thousands of women in similar circumstances nationally could be able to claim compensation for the past six years, creating a mammoth bill on top of normal wage costs.

Lord Justice Pill said the bonus scheme introduced in the 1960s gave the council's overwhelmingly male manual workers extra pay to boost their productivity, while no bonuses were paid to carers and others doing traditionally female jobs.

After decades had passed, and the law and attitudes to sex discrimination changed, a group of carers accused the council of violating equal pay rules.

When the situation was challenged at an employment tribunal, the authority successfully argued the bonus system was not influenced by gender.

It argued bonuses were needed in some jobs to generate greater productivity, not because those jobs were done by men. Performance of carers was not measurable, so could not attract a bonus.

Yesterday's ruling means the case will have to go back to another tribunal but crucially the council will need to justify its actions, rather than the usual position of employees having to prove their case.

Lord Justice Pill said it was accepted the disparity created by the bonus arrangements had not been intended.

"There has been no suggestion at any time other than that women are doing work of equal value and are achieving an equivalent level of efficiency, " he said. "They have achieved efficiency without bonuses; the bonuses for men were necessary to make the men efficient.

"The effect of the productivity bonus... is discriminatory. A sexual taint is present.

"The impossibility of applying the productivity bonus to women's work is genuine enough but that does not remove the sexual taint from the operation of the scheme.

"The scheme has a disparately adverse effect on women's work as compared with men's work and the sexual taint is present."

Last night Sheffield City Council said it was considering a fresh appeal in a bid to overturn the ruling.

Unison described it as a "groundbreaking". In addition to carers, school meal staff are also involved in the action.

Sheffield City Council's human resources director, Julie Toner, said the authority would "carefully consider how we take this matter forward bearing in mind we are dealing with public money.

"One of the options is that we seek leave to appeal against this ruling as the original hearing supported the council's position."

Unison spokeswoman Bronwyn McKenna said: "Sheffield City Council accepted long ago that the women and men cited in this case had been doing jobs of equal value.

"The council tried to claim that bonuses paid to men were to boost productivity. The Court of Appeal has recognised that these women were discriminated against not on the basis of their work, but because of their gender."