Claimant v London Underground Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant's work was like work to that of her comparators under section 65 Equality Act 2010. However, the respondent successfully established a material factor defence under section 69 Equality Act 2010. The respondent showed that the pay differential relating to premium night shift payments was due to a material factor other than sex, meaning the claimant was not entitled to the same premium night shift payments as her comparators.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not treated less favourably on the ground that she is a part-time worker under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. The respondent was able to justify any differential treatment between the claimant as a part-time worker and her full-time comparators, particularly regarding premium night shift payments.
Facts
Mrs McCrae, a part-time worker employed by London Underground Limited, brought claims for equal pay and less favourable treatment as a part-time worker. She argued that she should receive the same premium night shift payments as her full-time comparators. The case concerned whether the differential in pay relating to night shift premiums was discriminatory on the basis of sex or part-time worker status.
Decision
The tribunal unanimously dismissed both claims. While the claimant's work was found to be like work to her comparators, the respondent successfully established a material factor defence under section 69 of the Equality Act 2010, showing the pay differential was not due to sex discrimination. The tribunal also found no less favourable treatment on the grounds of part-time worker status under the Part-Time Workers Regulations 2000.
Practical note
Premium night shift payments may be justified under a material factor defence in equal pay claims where the employer can demonstrate the differential is due to genuine operational requirements rather than sex discrimination.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3314800/2022
- Decision date
- 14 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister