Ian Smith highlights the complexities of three unusual employment claims
In Allen v GMB [2008] EWCA Civ 810, [2008] All ER (D) 207 (Jul) the Court of Appeal turned over the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). In this high profile case, equal pay claimants insisted on taking their claims to the full (with conditional fee agreement legal backing) instead of going with union-negotiated compromises and are suing their union for sex discrimination in not pursuing their claims sufficiently.
No justification?
They won before the tribunal (potentially at great financial cost to the union), but then the EAT allowed the union's appeal by a whisker, holding that there was indeed indirect discrimination in the union sacrificing certain (female) members' full legal rights for the greater good of job protection and pay protection for other members but that it was justified—the union's “greater good” argument was a legitimate aim and (more controversially) its means were proportionate, even though it had been distinctly “hard” in its treatment of the refusenik members.
It is this last point that the Court of Appeal would not
