Mr S Coster, For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant brought an equal pay claim under the sex equality clause against London Underground Limited. The judgment records that an indirect discrimination claim had been struck out on 28 September 2019, leaving the equal pay claim alone for determination. The tribunal accepted that the claimant and the two named comparators, comparator A and comparator B, were doing like work in the ADCO administrative role.

The tribunal found that the pay difference was explained by a combination of factors: the point at which each employee entered the pay scale, length of service, and performance-related pay, together with salary protection for internal transferees and redeployed staff. The claimant entered the grade at the bottom of the scale in 2008 and later moved to revenue control in 2013 without any pay protection. His pay rose mainly through negotiated cost-of-living increases, with only one performance-related increase.

By contrast, comparator A had previously worked in operational roles, transferred into administration with protected earnings, and later moved again during restructuring while retaining her salary. Comparator B also began in operational work, moved through higher-paid or protected roles, and her later salary progression was explained by those transfers and protection arrangements. The tribunal accepted that these features meant their higher salaries were materially explained by the respondent's evidence, not by sex.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's PCP and statistics-based case. It held that the transfer, redeployment, starting salary and performance-related pay arrangements applied equally to men and women, and that the sample sizes and figures relied on did not show that men were put at a particular disadvantage. The tribunal therefore found no taint of direct or indirect discrimination, held that the respondent had established a material factor defence in any event, and dismissed the equal pay claim. No remedy was awarded.