Claimant v Greater Glasgow Health Board
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimants' contractual entitlement to wages was determined by the TCS 2007, the 2021 Guidance and the 2008 Banding Appeals Guidance. The Banding Appeal panel decided after hearing both sides that the monitoring period was unrepresentative and that the rota should remain at Band 2B rather than be uplifted to Band 3. The tribunal was satisfied the appeal panel's decision was not irrational or perverse. The claimants received all wages properly payable at Band 2B.
Withdrawn by claimant at the case management preliminary hearing on 16 December 2024 and again at the final hearing. The tribunal clarified it only had jurisdiction over breach of contract claims arising on termination and there was no evidence about whether the claimants remained employed.
Facts
Six junior doctors worked on a rota (NG51) at Glasgow Royal Infirmary from April to August 2023, which was banded at 2B. A monitoring exercise in May 2023 showed they achieved 30-minute breaks on 72% of occasions, below the 75% threshold for Band 2B. The respondent considered the monitoring unrepresentative. The claimants appealed through a Banding Appeal panel which upheld the respondent's view that the monitoring was unrepresentative and the rota should remain Band 2B.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unlawful deduction from wages claim. It found that the contractual arrangements between the parties included not just the 2007 Terms and Conditions but also the 2021 Regional Monitoring Guidance and the 2008 Banding Appeals Guidance, both negotiated and agreed between the BMA and health boards. The Banding Appeal panel's decision that the monitoring was unrepresentative was not irrational or perverse, and therefore the claimants received all wages properly payable at Band 2B.
Practical note
Agreed local guidance and appeals procedures negotiated between unions and employers can form part of the contractual framework for determining wages properly payable, and tribunal challenges to internal appeal outcomes require showing irrationality or perversity, not mere disagreement.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4100092/2024
- Decision date
- 28 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Foundation Year 1 or Foundation Year 2 Junior Doctor
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister