Sarah Juillet v City, University of London — 2024

Sarah Juillet was employed by City, University of London in the Business School as a Grade 9 member of Professional Services Staff. The dispute arose from the respondent’s Grade 9 pay review, which led to a decision to reduce her salary from £104,658 to £90,393. Although the reduction was notified in March 2020, retention payment and pay protection meant the practical deduction from pay did not take effect until her June 2022 salary.

On the unlawful deduction claim, the tribunal found that Grade 9 pay provisions were not within collective bargaining under the Voluntary Recognition Agreement. It held that there was no collective agreement authorising a reduction in Grade 9 pay, and that clause 12 of the claimant’s offer letter and clause 1.3 of the Standard Terms and Conditions did not give the respondent a right to reduce her salary without her consent. The tribunal also accepted that the long-standing application of nationally negotiated cost-of-living increases to Grade 9 staff had become an implied term by custom and practice, but it did not create a broader practice of collective bargaining or a wider unilateral variation power.

The tribunal further held that, even if the respondent could rely on the contractual variation clauses, it had not exercised them in a way a reasonable employer would. Its concern was that the salary benchmarking exercise and the way the final decision was reached were opaque in relation to the claimant’s role, and that she was not given a meaningful opportunity to understand and challenge the exercise before her salary was reduced.

On equal pay, the tribunal addressed the respondent’s material factor defence in relation to two comparators: Kevin Dunseath, Director of the Dubai Centre, and Mark Carberry, Director of Executive Education. It accepted that Mr Dunseath’s higher pay was explained by the unique Dubai location and market forces. It also accepted that Mr Carberry’s pay was set by a separate benchmarking exercise and market forces, and noted that the claimant’s current comparison would not prevent a fresh claim for the later period from 11 May 2023 onwards. The pleaded equal pay claim was nevertheless dismissed.

The supplied judgment records liability only and does not set out any quantified monetary award.