Claimant v City, University of London
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent made an ongoing unauthorised deduction from the claimant's salary in June 2022. The tribunal concluded that the respondent did not have the right to unilaterally vary the claimant's contract to reduce her salary without consent, either through express variation clauses in the contract or through any collective agreement with trade unions. The clauses relied upon did not cover changes to individually negotiated Grade 9 salaries, and no collective agreement authorising salary reductions for Grade 9 staff was reached.
The respondent's material factor defence succeeded in respect of both comparators (Kevin Dunseath, Director of Dubai Centre, and Mark Carberry, Director of Executive Education). For Dunseath, the tribunal accepted his higher salary was due to location (Dubai) and market forces unrelated to sex. For Carberry, while the tribunal found the initial salary differential was not sex-based (the salary range was set before it was known a man would be appointed), the tribunal expressly stated this decision does not prevent a fresh claim for the period from 11 May 2023 onwards, given the respondent is now aware of the pay disparity and new market information suggests the claimant's salary needs adjustment.
Facts
The claimant, a Director of Postgraduate Careers in the respondent university's Business School, was employed in Grade 9 (a senior professional services grade with individually negotiated spot salaries). Between 2018-2020, the respondent conducted a job evaluation and salary benchmarking exercise for Grade 9 staff. The claimant's role was evaluated and her salary was reduced from £104,658 to approximately £97,000 without her consent. She brought claims for unlawful deduction of wages and equal pay, citing two male comparators who earned more.
Decision
The tribunal found in favour of the claimant on the unlawful deduction of wages claim, holding that the respondent had no contractual right to reduce her salary unilaterally. The contract variation clauses did not extend to individually negotiated Grade 9 salaries, and there was no collective agreement with trade unions authorising the change. The equal pay claim failed because the respondent established material factor defences (location and market forces for one comparator; market-driven salary benchmarking conducted before it was known a man would be appointed for the other). However, the tribunal signalled that a fresh equal pay claim could succeed for the period from May 2023 onwards.
Practical note
Employers cannot rely on general variation clauses or consultation with unions to unilaterally reduce individually negotiated senior salaries without express consent, and while initial pay disparities may be justified by non-discriminatory factors, ongoing failure to address known pay gaps between men and women doing work of equal value may support future equal pay claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2206726/2022
- Decision date
- 1 July 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 7
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Director of Postgraduate Careers
- Salary band
- £100,000+
- Service
- 15 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister