Mrs C Schofield-Coldwell v Hoyer Gas and Petroleum Logistics Ltd — 2022

Mrs C Schofield-Coldwell brought an equal pay claim comparing her pay as a part-time receptionist with that of her male comparator, R Dyson. The respondent accepted that the work was like work and said the higher salary paid to Mr Dyson was explained by his redundancy risk, length of service, skills, experience, and the wish to retain him, rather than by sex.

The tribunal found there was almost no contemporaneous documentation explaining how Mr Dyson's salary of £13,300 was set. It found that the respondent did not call Mr Binns, the former Managing Director, or Mr Dyson, and inferred that Mr Binns personally decided the salary after a meeting with Mr Dyson. The tribunal also found that the explanation advanced in grievance correspondence was developed after the event and went beyond what had actually been recorded when the pay decision was made.

Applying section 69 Equality Act 2010, with reference to the statutory equal pay scheme and the authorities cited on the material factor defence, the tribunal rejected the respondent's case. It held that the respondent could not show the pay difference was untainted by sex, noting that reception work had historically been carried out by women within the business and that no proper consideration had been given to the claimant's lower pay when Mr Dyson's salary was fixed. The tribunal therefore upheld the equal pay claim, found the respondent in breach of the sex equality clause, and adjourned determination of remedy to a later date.