Cases3323899/2021

Claimant v Comfort Care Services UK Ltd (CCS)

6 November 2024Before Employment Judge AnnandReadingin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissaldismissed on withdrawal

The claimant withdrew his ordinary unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act. The tribunal dismissed the claim on withdrawal.

Wrongful Dismissaldismissed on withdrawal

The claimant withdrew his wrongful dismissal claim. The tribunal dismissed the claim on withdrawal.

Breach of Contractdismissed on withdrawal

The claimant withdrew his notice pay claim. The tribunal dismissed the claim on withdrawal.

Holiday Paydismissed on withdrawal

The claimant withdrew his holiday pay claim. The tribunal dismissed the claim on withdrawal.

Equal Pay(sex)failed

The tribunal found that the claimant was employed as a Band C Support Worker and his comparators were Band B Support Workers. Band B workers had more responsibilities, including periodic assessments, documentation duties, and more frequent liaison with stakeholders. The tribunal concluded the differences were of practical importance and the claimant was not employed on 'like work' with his comparators. The equal pay claim therefore failed.

Facts

The claimant was employed as a Support Worker at a care home from June 2020 to May 2022 on weekend and Friday evening shifts. In December 2021 he received a pay rise to £9.50/hour while two female colleagues received £10/hour. He brought an equal pay claim arguing he did like work to his comparators. The respondent argued the claimant was a Band C Support Worker (weekends/nights) while the comparators were Band B Support Workers (weekday evenings) with different and greater responsibilities.

Decision

The tribunal found that Band B Support Workers had significantly more responsibilities than Band C workers, including periodic assessments, more extensive documentation duties, and more frequent liaison with external stakeholders during normal business hours. These differences were of practical importance in relation to terms of work. The claimant was not employed on like work with his comparators and the equal pay claim failed.

Practical note

An equal pay claim will fail at the first hurdle if the tribunal finds differences in responsibilities between roles are of practical importance, even where the basic nature of the work is broadly similar.

Legal authorities cited

Glasgow City Council and ors v Marshall and ors [2000] ICR 196Adamson and Hatchett Ltd v Cartlidge EAT 126/77Rainey v Greater Glasgow Health Board [1987] ICR 129Waddington v Leicester Council for Voluntary Service [1977] ICR 266Capper Pass Ltd v Lawton [1977] ICR 83Shields v E Coomes (Holdings) Ltd [1978] ICR 1159Dugdale and ors v Kraft Foods Ltd [1977] ICR 48

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.69Equality Act 2010 s.66Equality Act 2010 s.65

Case details

Case number
3323899/2021
Decision date
6 November 2024
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Support Worker
Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No