Claimant v Galloway European Coachlines Ltd

The tribunal found the claimant's work driving coaches, being on-call, and undertaking supervision was broadly similar to male comparators Tim Robson, Trevor Bow, and Aaron Slater. She was paid a lower hourly rate (£12.98) than her comparators (£15.50-£19.30). The respondent failed to identify a material factor justifying the pay difference that did not involve treating the claimant less favourably because of her sex.

The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant an unsociable hours rate paid to Tim Robson and Trevor Bow for the same work. The respondent's explanation that extra hours were covered by her contract or TOIL was not genuine, as no TOIL policy was evidenced and the claimant clearly worked outside contracted hours (e.g., driving at 3am). The tribunal concluded the difference in pay was because of the claimant's sex.

The claimant alleged she was not offered roles given to Trevor Bow and Aaron Slater because of her sex and childcare responsibilities. However, the tribunal found the claimant provided only her subjective feeling of discrimination with no objective evidence of 'something more' beyond her sex. She did not discharge the initial burden of proof, so this aspect of the claim failed.

The tribunal accepted the Operations Manager role required occasionally staying beyond scheduled finish time and that women are more likely to have caring responsibilities. However, the claimant failed to demonstrate objectively that this practice put women as a group at a particular disadvantage. Without establishing group disadvantage, the claim could not succeed.

The tribunal dismissed this claim because the claimant did not have two years' continuous employment as required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. She had only 22 months' service.

The claimant claimed £492 was deducted from her final pay. The tribunal found a £500 payment she received was equivalent to her outstanding wages. She could not prove from payslips the basis of the alleged £492 deduction. The claim for enhanced sick pay also failed as her contract entitled her only to statutory sick pay, which she received.

The claimant resigned with immediate effect on her own admission. As there was no dismissal and she chose not to work notice, she was not entitled to notice pay. The breach of contract claim for notice pay therefore failed.

The claimant withdrew her claim for holiday pay and 8 hours TOIL during the hearing after the respondent provided further explanations and late disclosure of documents satisfying her that these amounts were not owed.