There were three elements to this claim; the first for equal pay, the second claim for uplift of damages due to the respondent’s alleged failure to comply with the grievance process, and thirdly, a claim of unlawful discrimination on the basis of the claimant’s part-time status. 

The claimant was employed as a part-time caretaker and cleaner. Both the claimant and her male comparator, Mr McGlinchey, had job descriptions with the same wording for the main purpose of their jobs and it was agreed by a number of respondents that the duties of both were broadly similar. 

A job evaluation scheme was carried out in relation to all posts within the respondent organisation by an independent consultant. Certain aspects of both jobs were graded differently; however the crux of the claimant’s grievance was that the work done was “like work” or broadly similar to that carried out by Mr McGlinchey and that there was therefore a presumption of inequality in pay on that basis.

The Tribunal relied on the case of McKimm v Down District Council (1229/05 IT) in finding that in a "like work" scenario a job evaluation is indeed instructive but not the ‘acid test’ to be employed. Having decided that there is broadly similar work, the tribunal must then consider whether there are differences of practical importance. In finding that the two individuals were not engaged in “like work” or broadly similar work the Tribunal stressed that Mr McGlinchy’s extra responsibility of being on ‘standby duty’ to answer calls from an associated alarm company differentiated him. 


Practical lessons

Whilst a job evaluation is instructive in determining whether ‘like work’ was carried out, the Tribunal will look beyond documentation to the ‘de facto’ position of the parties. Indeed, in this case the contractual documentation did not indicate a clear disparity of the type of work carried out. The Tribunal was required to look at historical records of the ‘standby duty’ which revealed that in actual fact Mr McGlinchy was under a duty to be available on a ‘24/7’ callout availability. The Tribunal clearly attached more importance to the realities of the respective roles as opposed to the responsibilities contained in the written documentation.

As ever, full case decisions for NI cases are available on the OITFET website:
http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/