Heather Brady & Ors v North Lanarkshire Council & Ors

Where an unchallenged local job-evaluation scheme is said to have produced unreliable individual evaluations, findings affecting some posts do not require an all-or-nothing conclusion that every evaluation under the scheme is unreliable. The tribunal must assess whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect the particular evaluation is unreliable under section 131(6) of the Equality Act 2010.

An appellate tribunal will not re-determine credibility, reliability or the weight of evidence. It may intervene only where an error of law is demonstrated. A tribunal’s acceptance of credible evidence about the evaluation process, and its decision not to draw adverse inferences from missing documentation, were findings open to it on the evidence.

Multiple claimants brought equal-value claims under the Equality Act 2010. They challenged job evaluations of comparator posts undertaken by North Lanarkshire Council in 2007, 2016 and 2019. The Employment Tribunal sitting at Glasgow, by judgment dated 26 June 2023, found some earlier evaluations unsuitable to be relied upon but rejected challenges to the evaluations material to this appeal.

The claimants appealed on four grounds. They contended that flaws in certain evaluations required the Tribunal to apply the Hartley “one bad apple” approach to all 2007 evaluations. They also challenged the Tribunal’s findings on the reliability of the later re-evaluations and the 2007 and 2019 Labourer/Storeman evaluations. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had erred in finding no reasonable grounds to suspect those evaluations were unreliable.

1. Appeal refused. The Employment Tribunal made findings which were open to it. The claimants had shown no error of law in its assessment of the evidence or in its application of section 131(6) of the Equality Act 2010.

2. The Tribunal was entitled to distinguish Hartley v Northumbria NHS Foundation Trust, ET Case No. 2507033/2007. Hartley concerned a national scheme and alleged manipulation at its centre, capable of affecting thousands of posts. This case concerned individual local evaluations under an unchallenged scheme. Findings suggesting defects in particular evaluations did not compel a conclusion that all local evaluations were unreliable. Such an all-or-nothing consequence could also affect many posts which had not been challenged.

3. The second to fourth grounds improperly sought to re-litigate factual findings. The Tribunal had considered the alleged lack of records and transparency, the evidence concerning consistency meetings and the claimants’ allegation that scores were manipulated. It permissibly accepted the respondent’s witnesses as credible and concluded that the evaluation processes had not been manipulated.

4. The absence of notes or original questionnaires did not itself establish reasonable grounds for suspicion. The Tribunal was entitled, on the evidence it accepted, not to draw adverse inferences from their absence. Its conclusions that the re-evaluations and the Labourer/Storeman evaluations were not shown to be unreliable could only realistically be displaced by a successful perversity challenge. None was made out.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal refused: [2025] EAT 69.
• Employment Tribunal, Glasgow: Judgment dated 26 June 2023. It found some earlier job evaluations unsuitable to be relied upon, but rejected the challenges relevant to this appeal.