E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107708/19 Held on 17, 18, 19, & June and August 2021 Employment Judge J M Hendry Members: J McCaig E Coyle Ms E Borkowska v Represented by Mr A Hardman, Advocate The University of Aberdeen — 2021

The claimant brought an equal pay claim comparing her role as HR Partner (Reward & Policy) with Dr A’s role as HR Partner (Specialist Services). Remedy had been decoupled from liability, but the tribunal’s decision on liability was that the claim was not well founded and was dismissed. The tribunal heard evidence about the University’s HERA-based grading structure, the recruitment process, and the respective duties, qualifications and experience of the claimant and the comparator.

On the issue of equal work, the tribunal held that the claimant was not engaged in like work with Dr A. It found that Dr A had substantially greater relevant qualifications and experience, including a PhD, an MSc and Chartered CIPD membership, and that he was expected to carry out a wider range of activities with greater autonomy and responsibility at grade 7. By contrast, the claimant was appointed at grade 6 on the lowest spinal point, with the role envisaged as one into which she would grow, and her work was found to be more routine, more closely supervised, and closer to clerking or administrative support than the comparator’s work.

The tribunal also held that, even if the claimant had established like work, the respondent had shown a material factor defence under s.69 Equality Act 2010. The disparity in pay was found to arise from the difference in qualifications, experience, responsibility and independent decision-making between the claimant and Dr A, within a recruitment and grading process the tribunal regarded as genuine and not tainted by sex discrimination. The tribunal referred to the burden of proof under s.136 Equality Act 2010 and the Equal Pay Statutory Code of Practice in reaching its decision.