Barnard v Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority (No 2)

Promotions within the same employer do not automatically break a "stable working relationship" for limitation under sections 129–130 Equality Act 2010.

Apply a broad, non-technical test and assess the relationship in practical terms, focusing on overall stability rather than formal contractual labels.

An internal promotion that is a natural progression is ordinarily consistent with a continuing stable working relationship.

The claimant worked for the respondent from 2009 to June 2017 and progressed by promotion through a series of roles.

The central issue was whether an internal promotion from Fire Safety Officer to Office Manager ended a "stable working relationship" for the purposes of sections 129–130 Equality Act 2010, thereby affecting the six month qualifying period for equal pay claims.

The matter went from an Employment Tribunal (Kolanko ET) to the EAT (HHJ Barklem), was remitted to a differently constituted ET (Hargrove ET), and was then the subject of this full EAT hearing on appeal.

The single common question was whether the promotion broke the stable working relationship.

1. Disposition: The appeal is allowed. The Hargrove ET's finding that the stable working relationship ended on the claimant's promotion to Office Manager is set aside and replaced with a finding that it did not end. The claim returns to the ET for merits.
2. Statutory test: Sections 129 and 130 Equality Act 2010 require a determination whether a "stable working relationship" ended. That concept must be approached broadly and non-technically. The analysis must focus on the nature of the relationship in practical terms and not be confined to a narrow contract-based inquiry (see paras [66]–[71]; cf. [2010] IRLR 804).
3. Precedent synthesis: Earlier EAT formulations that over-emphasised sameness of work or technical contractual differences were corrected by the Court of Appeal and must be followed. The correct approach is the broad characterisation adopted in [2009] ICR 1217 and [2010] IRLR 804 (paras [52]–[56]).
4. Application to facts: The Hargrove ET erred in approach by elevating pay-grade increase and job-description differences into determinative factors without regard to the employment relationship's stability. The promotion was a natural, incremental progression within the same department and consistent with continuity. The ET also failed to give appropriate weight to the claimant's continuing contract and the temporary nature of the promotion (paras [72]–[78]).
5. Perversity alternative: If characterised as an approach error, the tribunal's conclusion was also perverse. No reasonable tribunal properly applying the law could have found the stable working relationship ended on these facts (paras [78]).
6. Relief and order: The Hargrove ET's decision is set aside. A substituted finding records that there was no end to the stable working relationship on the move to Office Manager in June 2014. The matter is remitted to the Employment Tribunal for determination of the substantive claims (paras [81]).

• Employment Appeal Tribunal Full Hearing: appeal allowed; substituted finding that there was no end to the stable working relationship (19 December 2019).
• Employment Tribunal (Southampton) Hargrove ET: found stable working relationship ended on promotion to Office Manager (19 December 2018) (set aside by this court).
• Employment Appeal Tribunal HHJ Barklem: allowed earlier appeal and remitted to a differently constituted ET for fresh determination (12 October 2018) (UKEAT/0179/18).
• Employment Tribunal Kolanko ET: preliminary hearing concluded some promotions ended the stable working relationship (1 June 2018) (subject to appeal and remittal).