Case 2400936/2008 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs M McWilliams v Bury Metropolitan Borough Council — 2017

Case reference: 2400936/2008
Decision date: 22 November 2017
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Horne REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs M McWilliams

Respondent

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mrs McWilliams had worked for Bury Metropolitan Borough Council from 13 October 1987 until 8 September 2008, and from 1991 her role was Driver/Vending Supervisor at Manual Grade 3. Her 2008 claim alleged equal pay, originally framed by reference to work rated as equivalent under the NJC Manual Worker Job Evaluation Scheme, and later narrowed at a November 2017 case management hearing into Annex A and Annex D. At this preliminary hearing Employment Judge Horne refused an adjournment, and then considered amendment and strike-out issues.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Equal pay	The tribunal struck out the parts of the equal pay claim set out in Annex A as having no reasonable prospect of success, and also struck out the claim form except to the extent preserved in Annex D because those parts were not actively pursued. It held that Mrs McWilliams and Mr Shaw were on like work, but the 1.5p per hour difference was explained by the meals allowance; Mr Stoddard, Mr Hobin, Mr Tuohy, Mr Crumblehome and Mr Chadwick were not on like work with the claimant.	Struck out	—	—
Equal pay	The only surviving issue was Mrs McWilliams' allegation that her Driver/Vending Supervisor role was work rated as equivalent with male Drivers in the Schedule of Comparators. The tribunal did not examine the merits of that issue at this preliminary hearing and said it should be determined later if the relevant job evaluation study supported it.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

12 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.