Claimant v Scottish Water
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent successfully established a material factor defence under s.69(1) EqA. The comparator (Matt Bingham) possessed superior skills (writing, digital content creation), more relevant experience (as a communications officer and broadcast journalist), and greater potential (assessed suitable for a Band B role). These were significant and relevant differences related to pay, not to sex. The comparator was offered £36,500 to recruit him based on his previous salary and skill set, which the tribunal found was the genuine reason for the pay disparity.
Facts
The claimant, employed since 2003, worked as a Corporate Affairs Officer (Band C, £30,605 pa) from 2016. In 2021, both she and external candidate Matt Bingham (MB) applied for a Band B Corporate Affairs Specialist role. MB scored significantly higher at interview (23 vs claimant's 13). Though not appointed to Band B, MB was offered the Band C CAO role at £36,500 based on his previous salary at Inverclyde Council and assessed superior skills in writing, digital content creation, and broadcast journalism experience. The claimant's work required regular correction for spelling and grammar errors. This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's material factor defence to an equal pay claim for the period August 2021 to July 2022.
Decision
The tribunal found the respondent successfully proved a material factor defence under s.69(1) Equality Act 2010. MB's superior skills (particularly writing and digital content), more relevant communications experience (5 years at Inverclyde Council plus broadcast journalism), and greater potential (assessed suitable for Band B role) were genuine, significant and relevant differences that caused the pay disparity and were unrelated to sex. The claim was dismissed.
Practical note
Equal pay material factor defences can succeed where an employer proves, with detailed evidence, that a comparator's objectively superior skills, relevant experience and assessed potential genuinely caused a pay difference, even where the claimant has longer service with the organisation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4103706/2022
- Decision date
- 25 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 7
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Scottish Water
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Corporate Affairs Officer
- Salary band
- £30,000–£40,000
- Service
- 19 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor