Butt & Ors v Reading Borough Council

An Employment Tribunal claim form is construed objectively, as a whole and in the context known to the parties and tribunal. A standard limitation-period or boilerplate phrase does not necessarily extend a claim to an earlier period where the pleading’s case-specific thrust, procedural history and separate proceedings indicate a narrower scope. References to both old and new equal-pay legislation, or to a generic relevant period, may be drafting redundancies. The purpose for issuing proceedings cannot override the objective meaning of the pleading.

Employees brought equal-pay claims in the James multiple. After the council introduced a new single-status pay structure on 1 May 2011, further claims were brought in the Gordon multiple. Seven claimants later withdrew their James claims but contended that the Gordon claim forms preserved claims relating to the earlier period.

The Employment Tribunal held that the Gordon claims did not include complaints before 1 May 2011. Lavender J allowed the claimants’ appeal in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, relying particularly on wording referring to the previous six years. The council appealed. The central issue was the objective construction of the identical Gordon claim forms.

The appeal was allowed and the decision of the Employment Tribunal was restored.

1. The scope of the Gordon claims depended on the objective construction of the claim forms. They had to be read as a whole and in the context known to the parties and tribunal, including the procedural history and the existence of the separate James proceedings.
2. The pleading’s main thrust was directed to the period following the introduction of the new pay structure. Paragraphs 1 and 3 were case-specific and showed that the new proceedings addressed the altered terms and conditions and the new job evaluation and grading structure.
3. The reference in paragraph 2 to posts held or jobs done during the previous six years was standard boilerplate. Although it pointed in the opposite direction when read alone, the court was entitled to conclude that it was not intended to extend the claims to the earlier period. The references to the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Equality Act 2010, and the reference to the whole relevant period, did not alter that conclusion.
4. The reason for bringing the Gordon proceedings could not enlarge their objectively construed scope. A possible argument based on a break in the stable employment relationship did not assist the claimants. The introduction of the new pay structure could not arguably constitute such a break, at least since Slack v Cumbria County Council [2009] EWCA Civ 293.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2020] EWCA Civ 1642, allowed the council’s appeal and restored the Employment Tribunal’s decision.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: On 4 October 2019, Lavender J allowed the claimants’ appeal.
• Employment Tribunal: Following a preliminary hearing on 9 July 2018, the tribunal held that the Gordon claims did not include equal-pay complaints predating 1 May 2011.