(1) Miss Sandra Harding (2) Mr Pramjeet Basil (3) Ms Sandra Cunningham v Birmingham City Council FINAL HEARING — 2026

The tribunal dismissed the like-work equal pay claims brought by Miss Sandra Harding, Mr Pramjeet Basil and Ms Sandra Cunningham against Birmingham City Council. They compared their work as Business Advisers in the Growth Hub with that of Account Managers of the opposite sex. The tribunal found that the work, viewed as a whole, was not the same or broadly similar. Alternatively, the differences were of practical importance in relation to the terms of their work.

Applying Beal v Avery Homes Ltd, the tribunal examined what the jobholders were required or expected to do, including work approved or encouraged by the employer. Actual practice was the starting point but did not alone define the relevant work. The claimants accepted, or did not dispute, that the job descriptions accurately reflected both roles. Their case at the hearing did not identify any significant change in the relevant duties over time.

The tribunal excluded additional work that the claimants undertook where it was neither required nor expected and was discouraged by the employer. All three accepted that they had retained clients whom they knew they should refer to Account Managers, without telling the employer and knowing that it would have directed referral. Miss Harding and Ms Cunningham also routinely arranged further contact with clients, although Business Advisers were ordinarily expected to complete a diagnostic and action plan without maintaining an ongoing relationship.

Business Advisers mainly prepared general diagnostics, action plans and grant diagnostics for smaller businesses, and handled telephone enquiries. A general diagnostic, action plan and associated recording should take no more than three hours. Account Managers maintained portfolios of at least 50 clients and undertook longer interventions with larger businesses, including work to implement action plans. Under the current funding arrangements, they spent at least 12 hours with each key client. They also designed and delivered workshops, programmes and projects, had specialist areas, and contributed to diagnostic templates. These duties accounted for substantial differences in the work as a whole.

The tribunal accepted overlap in general and grant diagnostics, but found that grant diagnostics formed only a small part of Account Managers' work. The claimants' charts counted diagnostics without showing the time each took or the other work Account Managers performed. The tribunal also rejected the suggestion that the comparators had stopped doing individual account management work between 2020 and 2024. The claimants acknowledged limited knowledge of Account Managers' daily work, and the Account Manager witnesses' evidence about their duties was not challenged in cross-examination.

Separate limits applied to the periods claimed. Before joining GBSLEP, Mr Basil and Ms Cunningham were secondees employed by Aston University and Birmingham Chamber of Commerce respectively. Their claims therefore failed for periods before 5 October 2022 and 1 September 2022. Mr Basil also lacked a comparator before Ms Bowden became an Account Manager on 2 November 2020. Ms Cunningham lacked a comparator before Mr O'Donnell began that role on 7 September 2020. Her claim before 15 February 2018 also fell outside the six-year arrears limit in section 132 of the Equality Act 2010.