Claimant v Dumfries and Galloway Council
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's equal value claim under rule 37 (no reasonable prospects of success) or alternatively to impose a deposit order under rule 39. The tribunal refused both applications. The tribunal held that while a previous hearing had found the claimant did not do 'like work' with her male comparator, the equal value question involves different legal tests and factors (effort, skill, decision-making). Because the facts upon which an equal value assessment would be made have not yet been finalised, and taking the claimant's case at its highest (including that the job evaluation scheme may be shown to be unreliable), the tribunal could not conclude the claim had no or little reasonable prospects of success. The substantive equal value claim therefore remains to be determined.
Facts
The claimant worked for Dumfries and Galloway Council in roles variously described as Waste Prevention Officer, Environment Officer and Waste Management Strategy Manager, managing a waste PFI contract. She brought an equal pay claim comparing herself to a male comparator, Mr Blayney, Service Manager Environment. A previous tribunal hearing in August 2020 found the claimant did not do 'like work' with her comparator under s.65(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010, finding the comparator had wider responsibilities including managing ten direct reports, contaminated land functions, strategic commissioning of waste collection, and broader oversight. The claimant's remaining claim is for equal value under s.65(1)(c). The respondent applied to strike out this claim or alternatively for a deposit order, arguing that given the findings in the like work judgment, the equal value claim had no or little reasonable prospects of success.
Decision
The tribunal refused both the strike-out application and the deposit order application. The judge held that although the like work findings were influential, they addressed a different legal question and were not binding. The equal value claim requires assessment of factors such as effort, skill and decision-making which had not been fully explored. The facts upon which any equal value assessment would be made had not been finalised, and taking the claimant's case at its highest (including that the job evaluation scheme may be shown unreliable), the tribunal could not conclude the claim had no or little reasonable prospects of success. The claim will now proceed to a hearing on whether it should be struck out under rule 3(1)(a) of Schedule 3 (the job evaluation scheme strike-out stage).
Practical note
In equal value claims, findings from a previous hearing on 'like work' under s.65(1)(a) are not determinative of reasonable prospects of success on an equal value claim under s.65(1)(c), because equal value requires different considerations (effort, skill, decision-making) and the facts to be relied upon for the equal value assessment may not yet be finalised, especially where the claimant is self-represented and may not have focused on differences between the roles at the like work stage.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4103783/2018
- Decision date
- 17 January 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- Dumfries and Galloway Council
- Sector
- local government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Waste Prevention Officer / Waste Management Strategy Manager / Environment Officer
- Salary band
- £50,000–£60,000
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No