UK: Cadman Confusion

Last Updated: 14 June 2007
Article by Emma Hawksworth

Originally Published in the Solicitors Journal 15 December 2006

Cadman has clarified some issues in equal pay claims, but still leaves tribunals to deal with many practical questions, warns Emma Hawksworth

The ECJ ruling in Cadman v Health & Safety Executive Case C-17/05 (3 October 2006) received wide and varied coverage in the media, notable in particular for two diametrically opposed front-page headlines in the broadsheets: ‘Mothers lose right to equal salaries’ for The Times, contrasting with ‘Higher pay for long service ruled illegal’ in The Guardian.

Little wonder that confusion remains as to who won. The reason for this confusion can be found at para 40 of the judgment, which is worded in somewhat cryptic style:

"Since, as a general rule, 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, the employer does not have to establish specifically that recourse to that criterion is appropriate to attain that objective as regards a particular job, unless the worker provides evidence capable of raising serious doubts in that regard."

A further cause for confusion in the press arose from widespread anticipation, following the Advocate-General’s opinion earlier this year, that the ECJ would go even further in its ruling. The Advocate-General had concluded that employers should be required to justify the use of the length of service criterion in every case. It is indeed disappointing that the ECJ did not follow the Advocate-General and that the ECJ’s ruling places the onus on the employee to show serious doubts about the appropriateness of the general rule in their case.

Challenging seniority

Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that the ruling is a significant step forward in equality law, since for the first time there is scope for employees to challenge some seniority-based pay systems. It therefore opens the door to claims by women who find they are paid less, not on merit, but simply because their male colleagues have worked for their employer for longer.

The ECJ’s ruling recognises what it calls "the general rule" that length of service is appropriate and legitimate as a criterion where the objective is to reward experience that enables the worker to perform his duties better. This is a reference to the special status allowed to length of service criteria since the Danfoss case (Handels og Kontorfunktionaeremes Forbundi Danmark v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening [1989] IRLR 532).

The ECJ held that, as a result, the employer does not have to establish specifically that use of length of service criteria is appropriate (to satisfy the legitimate objective of rewarding experience that leads to better performance) in each particular job.

However, the ECJ did not leave it there. The judgment establishes an important caveat to the general rule, with the result that justification will be required in cases where the worker can provide evidence capable of raising ‘serious doubts’ as to whether, in their particular case, use of length of service criteria is appropriate.


In June 2001, Mrs Cadman lodged her equal pay claim with the employment tribunal. At the date of her claim, she had been engaged by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) as a band 2 inspector for nearly five years. Her comparators were four male colleagues who were also band 2 inspectors. They were paid Ł4,000 to Ł9,000 pa more than Mrs Cadman. The four male comparators had longer service than Mrs Cadman, acquired in part in more junior posts. The claim succeeded.

The HSE then appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). The EAT upheld the appeal on the basis that the ECJ’s ruling in Danfoss provided that no justification was required where unequal pay arose because of the use of length of service. It also held that even if justification were required, the ET had erred in law in reaching its findings on justification.

Mrs Cadman subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal, which made an Art 234 reference to the ECJ on the question of whether an employer is required to justify the use of length of service as a criterion to determine pay, where use of that criterion can be shown to have a disparate impact on female workers. The court went on to uphold the EAT’s finding that the ET had erred in law when it reached its findings on justification, and held that the case should be remitted to a different ET for determination of the justification issue, should that be necessary after the ECJ’s ruling on the Danfoss point (as indeed it now will).

Length of service cases

The ECJ ruling now establishes the position in relation to justification in length of service cases as follows:

1. The ‘general rule’ is that use of the length of service criterion is appropriate to attain the objective of rewarding experience acquired that enables the worker to perform his/her duties better. This is a legitimate objective of pay policy.

2. Where the general rule applies, the employer is free to reward length of service without having to establish the importance it has in the performance of specific tasks performed by the employee.

3. There may be situations in which recourse to the criterion of length of service must be justified by the employer in detail.

4. One such situation is where the worker provides evidence capable of giving rise to serious doubts as to whether recourse to the criterion of length of service is, in the circumstances, appropriate to attain the objective (of rewarding experience acquired which enables the worker to perform his/her duties better).

5. In such situations, it is for the employer to prove that that which is true as a general rule, namely that length of service goes hand-in-hand with experience and that experience enables the worker to perform his duties better, is also true as regards the job in question.

6. Where a job evaluation study is used in determining pay, there is no need to show that an individual worker has in fact acquired experience during the relevant period which has enabled him/her to perform his/her duties better. Instead, the nature of the work must be considered objectively.

Situations requiring justification

There are some important issues to note arising from this.

The ‘general rule’ only applies where the objective of the particular pay scheme is "rewarding experience which enables the worker to perform their duties better". The general rule does not apply to any other objective, for example, rewarding loyalty, so justification will be required in those cases.

The ‘caveat’ that there may be situations in which use of the length of service criterion must be ‘justified in detail’ by the employer is not limited to the situation where the worker can show ‘serious doubts’ about the appropriateness of the general rule. The ruling implicitly recognises that there may be other situations where justification in detail is required, although no other examples are given by the ECJ.

The way in which job evaluation studies are dealt with suggests that, in other cases where justification is required, the employer will be required to show not only that the nature of the job is such that experience generally leads to better performance, but also that the individual comparator has in fact acquired experience that has enabled better performance of duties.

‘Serious doubts’

One key question which arises from the ruling is what an employee will be required to show to establish ‘serious doubts’ about the appropriateness of the general rule to their case. If they are able to establish serious doubts, the employer is then required to justify the use of the length of service criterion in their case.

There may be little clarity on these issues until some cases are heard by the tribunals. In the meantime, some issues which may be considered are:

  • Whether the particular job is one in which experience in the job necessarily leads to better performance. This is particularly relevant to low skilled roles where the job can be very quickly learned. In that case, it might be argued that it is not appropriate to "reward experience which enables the worker to perform their duties better" and the general rule does not apply.
  • For how long does experience continue to enable the worker to perform their duties better? Although there may be a ‘learning curve’ for the initial years in a job, this may not continue indefinitely. The extent to which performance will go on improving with experience will depend on the nature of the particular role. There may well be a levelling-off point in many jobs. The age discrimination legislation provides that employers must justify rewarding experience over and above five years.
  • The issue of proportionality will also be key. The general rule is that use of length of service criteria will be appropriate to attain the objective of rewarding experience which enables better performance. However, where the rewards are disproportionate to the objective, there should be serious doubts about whether the general rule is appropriate.
  • The requirement that the employee should show serious doubts to require the employer to justify seems inconsistent with the burden of proof directive. The allocation of the burden of proof in indirect discrimination cases was the starting point for the legal analysis in the Advocate-General’s opinion, but was not dealt with in any detail in the ECJ’s ruling. Another element of equal pay claims where it is suggested that the burden falls on the employee is where an employee has to demonstrate that the genuine material factor being put forward by the employer to explain the difference in pay is tainted with discrimination or has a discriminatory impact (and therefore requires objective justification). Equal pay reviews, audits and questionnaires are key methods for employees to obtain information from the employer to assist in doing so. And in Nelson v Carillion Services [2003] IRLR 428, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the claimant may seek the tribunal’s assistance to do so, through requests for further particulars or requests for written answers. A similar approach could be taken in relation to this issue.

Emma Hawksworth is a partner in the award winning employment law team at Russell Jones & Walker. She is acting for Mrs Cadman.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.