Collin & Hobson Plc v Yates

In an equal value claim, separate findings for different parts of the claim period are required only where a party contends that the material facts changed during that period. An Employment Tribunal may assess the work as of equal value throughout where the case advanced does not require a temporal division.

An appeal cannot be used to retry the Tribunal’s factual evaluation of the demands of two jobs. The employer bears the burden of establishing a genuine material factor defence. A market-forces explanation must be advanced in relation to the relevant comparator; it cannot cure a failure to prove the defence.

The claimant, a former Quality Manager, succeeded before the Employment Tribunal in her equal pay claim against her former employer by comparison with its Transport Manager, Mr Hadley. The Tribunal found that their work was of equal value and that the employer had not established a genuine material factor defence. Claims based on three other male comparators failed and were not cross-appealed.

The employer appealed against the equal-value and genuine-material-factor findings in the Tribunal’s judgment of 7 May 2013. It contended that the Tribunal should have made distinct findings over the seven-year comparison period and had failed to consider a market-forces defence in relation to Mr Hadley.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to decide the equal-value question without an independent expert. Under the applicable procedural regime it had discretion over the appointment of an expert, the parties had agreed to the procedure adopted, and there was no appeal from the preliminary orders.

2. The Tribunal had carefully assessed the respective demands of the claimant’s and Mr Hadley’s jobs against the employer’s identified factors and applied the GEL method. It was not required to divide the 2005–2012 period into separate periods. Although distinct findings may be needed where material facts are alleged to differ during parts of a claim period, the employer had advanced its case on the basis that the jobs were never of equal value and had not sought such a division.

3. The remaining complaints sought impermissibly to reopen the Tribunal’s factual evaluation. Its findings were neither unsupported by evidence nor contrary to agreed evidence.

4. The Tribunal was also entitled to reject the genuine material factor defence. The employer had the burden of showing a material factor other than sex explaining the pay difference. Its submissions concerning Mr Hadley addressed his qualifications and licence, but did not advance market forces as the explanation for his pay. The Tribunal had considered the points put for the employer and could conclude that the defence was not made out.

5. Quantum had been agreed subject to this liability appeal. If necessary, the matter was to return to the Employment Tribunal for a remedy hearing.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal dismissed; the Tribunal’s equal-value and genuine-material-factor findings were upheld.
• Employment Tribunal: judgment dated 7 May 2013 allowed the claimant’s equal pay claim by comparison with Mr Hadley. The employer’s genuine material factor defence failed.