Background:
The claimant was first employed as a Graduate Electronic Engineer in January 2003. This led to a series of promotions to Grade 23 Sigma Black Belt (known as SG23) which is essentially a Project Leader. The claimant worked with three others, all male. The male colleagues in her team were all on a separate scale, SG24. The claimant challenged the differences in pay and highlighted to the employer that she felt she was doing the same duties as the others in her team but being paid less. The claimant brought a claim for equal pay.

Outcome:
The respondent sought to argue that the work of the three males was different in that they took the lead on projects whereas the claimant did not. The Tribunal found through the evidence that there was a pyramid structure with projects at the bottom feeding into programs which then fed into portfolios. It was found through the evidence of the three males that they did not lead the projects and were not identified as such. The claimant in raising complaints within the workplace then later gave evidence that her colleagues were only assigned training and mentoring roles after she had requested an evaluation.  It was found that such steps could not be a basis for differentiating between the claimant and the comparators.

The Tribunal found that the claimant was able to put forward evidence that she was working on projects to a similar level to the comparators. As a result, the burden then shifted to the respondent. As noted above, the main basis of material factor defence was that the SG24 roles were Project Leads whereas SG23 was not.  However, this was not supported by evidence from those in those roles. Therefore, the defence was not successful and the Tribunal found that the claimant was engaged in like work to her comparators in that it was portfolio work.

At a later remedies hearing, the Tribunal awarded £305,719.00 for compensation as well as directing that an equality clause be inserted into her contract. The Tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to select which of the comparators was to be used for the purpose of compensation.  There was no lawful basis for the respondent’s argument that an average or median figure be used.  The respondent did argue to distinguish the comparators when it came to some factors but this was rejected as it would have led to reopening liability issues which had already been determined.

Practical Guidance for Employers:
This case has led to a huge compensation sum and rightly attracted some reports from the news.  The moves from the respondent to give some additional responsibilities to the possible comparators when the issue was raised was easily seen through by the Tribunal.  Employers should be mindful of the work that particular teams take on and be able to stand over any differences in pay objectively and where there is no objective position to stand-over differences in pay then a job evaluation should be taken into account to ensure that there is equal pay in line with the legislative requirements.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website:
http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/