GMB had not indirectly discriminated against certain female members when it reached a settlement in order to prioritise future pay protection, held the EAT. GMB's decision to prioritise pay protection had a disparate impact on the women. However its decision was justified as a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims (including integrating various workers into a single pay structure while avoiding privatisations, job losses and cuts in hours). The claimants criticised the union for delay in dealing with the equal pay claims, failing to give advice, refusing to support litigation and failing to provide sufficient information about the various option but they failed to persuade the EAT that the union's means were disproportionate. Further, the allegation that the union had victimised them by not supporting their equal pay claims was rejected partly because the individuals had instructed solicitors in relation to their claims and GMB could not, in those circumstances, continue to act for them. Unions are inevitably required to assess competing interests and, as the union had established legitimate objectives, the EAT seemed to suggest that it was a high hurdle to clear to establish that the means used to achieve that aim were disproportionate. (GMB v Allen).