Ms Kathy Wright v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Heard by Teams: Remote Video Link — 2023

This was an equal pay claim based on like work. Ms Kathy Wright and the comparator, Mr Kevin Lindley, worked in the respondent's Internet and Messaging team. By the end of the evidence the respondent accepted that the work was broadly similar and did not advance a material factor defence, so the tribunal's task was to decide whether the differences between their work were not of practical importance within ss.64 to 66 of the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal found that the claimant and Mr Lindley had worked together as a team of two for many years and that about 70% of their time was spent on business-as-usual work. It accepted a schedule of common duties that included service desk fixes, collaboration with other teams, project work, back-up work, staff training, and security updates. It rejected the suggestion that the claimant had been misleading about when she became aware of the pay differential and found that she had not seen the 2016 matching schedule relied on by the respondent.

On the differences relied on by the respondent, the tribunal found that Mr Lindley did most of the monthly Microsoft security patch preparation, but that the task was process-based, the claimant could and did undertake it when he was absent, and it was not of practical importance. It found no established practical difference in relation to service-desk contacts or claimed greater technical capability. It also rejected the PowerShell distinction because both were learning the work and the claimant had not been given the same training opportunities. On projects, the tribunal found the respondent's evidence lacked detail and accepted the claimant's evidence that she had initiated and drawn up the GCSX mailbox migration implementation plan and had other project examples.

The tribunal held that the claimant's work was equal to Mr Lindley's, that her contract included a sex equality clause, and that the respondent breached that clause by paying her less. It awarded arrears of pay of £22,148 and interest of £7,932, making a total of £30,080. The tribunal also recorded that the respondent would contact the pension trustees to ensure the pension reflected the correct rate of pay, and that the parties had liberty to apply if pension loss could not be resolved satisfactorily.