Equal Pay – Jurisdictional Points
The Claimant had been continuously employed by the Respondent from 2009 until June 2017, progressing by promotion from an administrative grade into technical roles and then into a managerial position. Upon each promotion, the Claimant was issued with a new contract save that when she first moved into a managerial role as Office Manager, in June 2014, she remained working under her existing contract. Following the termination of her employment, the Claimant submitted a claim to the Employment Tribunal (ET), which included a claim for equal pay going back to her first promotion. The Respondent objected that the claim was out of time for all but the last position held by the Claimant, the stable working relationship between the parties having been broken by each of the Claimant’s promotions. This question was initially considered by an ET, which agreed with the Respondent, save in respect of the Claimant’s final promotion. The Claimant successfully appealed against that decision and the issue was remitted to a different ET for determination. Although the ET found that there had been a continuing stable working relationship for the earlier promotions, it concluded that this had been broken when the Claimant moved into a managerial role; consequently, the Claimant’s equal pay claim was limited to her employment in managerial positions. The Claimant appealed.
Held: allowing the appeal:
The ET had failed to adopt a broad, non-technical test, looking at the character of the work and the employment relationship in practical terms (North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust v Fox and Ors [2010] IRLR 804 CA applied); it had elevated the change in job content on the Claimant’s promotion into a managerial position into a determining factor when that had to be seen in context – the Claimant’s promotion was a ‘natural progression’ and was part of an incremental progression into higher grades (initially on a temporary basis, under her existing contract) that was entirely indicative of the continued stable working relationship between the parties. In the alternative, the ET’s conclusion was perverse: none of the factors it had taken into account suggested other than that the stable working relationship had continued. There being only one answer to this question, the ET’s decision would be set aside and a finding substituted that there was no end in the stable working relationship on the Claimant’s move to the position of Office Manager in June 2014.
Citations:
[2019] UKEAT 0145 – 19 – 1912
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.646866
