EAT on 31st July 2007, reported at [2007] IRLR 752
Upheld by the Court of Appeal on 16th July 2008, reported at [2008] ICR 1407 and at [2008] IRLR 690.
NOTES
GMB v Mrs Allen & Ors EAT on 31st July 2007, reported at [2007] IRLR 752
the full text of this judgment is available free of charge on the BAILII website
Representation in both the EAT and in the Court of Appeal:-
Mr Andrew Stafford QC and Mr Chris Quinn instructed by Stefan Cross for Mrs Allen
Mr John Cavanagh QC and Mr Jason Galbraith-Marten instructed by Thompsons for the GMB Union
Authority for the proposition that:-
the correct test for deciding whether the defence of justification can be relied on in an indirect sex discrimination case is whether the alleged discriminatory actions were a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" and for purposes of this test the fact that the means used were unlawful, even dishonest, does not necessarily mean that they are disproportionate.
editor's notes:
The Court of Appeal heard an appeal in this case in May 2008. On 16th July 2008 the Court of Appeal judgment was handed down. Although the Court of Appeal reversed the EAT's decision (the EAT had found in favour of the GMB) it found no fault with the basic proposition that the correct test for deciding whether the defence of justification can be relied on in an indirect discrimination case is whether the alleged discriminatory actions were a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" (see Allen & ors v GMB [2008] EWCA Civ 810, Court of Appeal on 16th July 2008 reported at [2008] ICR 1407 and at [2008] IRLR 690).
The Court of Appeal thus restored the original tribunal's decision in favour of Mrs Allen and her colleagues . The GMB applied to the House of Lords for permission to appeal (see The Guardian 30th July 2008 - Unions face compensation claims of up to £100m and see also Law suit 'threatens future of unions' - The Northern Echo 9th May 2008 and notes at Michael Rubenstein - key cases 2008/Sex and Race Discrimination/GMB v Allen ).
26th November 2008. The House of Lords refused leave to appeal (see [2009] ICR 280: House of Lords refuse leave to appeal and Littleton Chamber's note, 28th November 2008: "Final obstacle to discrimination claims against trade unions removed ...." which points out that "Mass discrimination claims by female workers against their trade unions complaining of the way in which their rights were treated in negotiations with their local authority employers are now expected ....").
For relevant general notes see Sex discrimination/defence of justification and/or Sex discrimination/trade unions and employers' organisations
FINISH>
updated July2008