Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1982]

  • Created by: channyx
  • Created on: 21-03-20 00:13

The provision by an employer (not under contractual obligation) of special travel facilities for male employees after retirement some of which female employees did not share was discriminatory within the Treaty of Rome 1957 Article 119 the provisions of which applied directly, and was unlawful within the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 s.6(4). The employer operated a scheme under which employees were given concessionary travel permits for themselves and their families.

After retirement, former employees enjoyed, not by contractual right, a continuation of these facilities for themselves, but only male employees continued to enjoy them for their families. G, a female clerical worker, complained that this was sex discrimination contrary to the Act of 1975 s.6(2). The industrial tribunal found that the scheme was a "provision in relation to . . . retirement" within s.6(4) and that G was prevented from claiming that the discrimination…


No comments have yet been made