Mr Simon Goldberg of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2018

The claimant brought an equal pay claim on the basis of equal value under section 65(1)(c) of the Equality Act 2010, comparing her role as HR Director/Head of HR with eight comparators. This judgment was the Stage II equal value findings of fact hearing. The tribunal identified thirteen factual issues for resolution, and its task was limited to making findings of fact; it did not evaluate the relative value of the claimant’s work against the comparators’ work.

On the claimant’s internal role, the tribunal found that she reported directly to the CEO, first Paul McGowan and then Henry Foster, and did not report to more junior employees. It found she had self-responsibility in performing her duties and that she was responsible for a wide range of internal HR functions, including records, back-to-work interviews, disciplinary and grievance procedures, redundancies, maternity and paternity matters, payroll, pensions, and related personnel issues. The tribunal accepted that the CEO had ultimate responsibility across the business, but found the claimant held operational responsibility for these HR matters. It also found the respondent did not have a senior management team as such, and that the claimant did not attend the monthly or quarterly investment directors and senior investment managers meetings with the CEO and CFO.

For external project work, the tribunal found the claimant was part of project teams led by an investment director or senior investment manager, with overall responsibility resting with that lead. Once instructed what HR and payroll matters she was to deal with, she worked with a significant degree of self-responsibility, including on the Co-op CVA and other projects such as Poundland. The tribunal found she sometimes reported directly to the CEO or client representatives, but that this was not typical of all projects. It also found that the lead investment roles were required to produce monthly written reports for review by the CEO and CFO, and that the claimant did not have that reporting role.

The tribunal found there was no formal appraisal system before 2017; from 11 April 2017 the appraisal system applied only to investment directors and investment managers, and the claimant had no involvement in it. It also found that several comparators were involved in producing marketing material content, that the claimant occasionally participated with Gavin Caine on staffing cost discussions in external projects, and that she was involved in one CVA during the reference period, namely the Co-op matter, where she managed the HR aspects of collective consultation for 24 stores at risk. The judgment ended by anticipating that the parties would use these findings to complete agreed job descriptions and return for the resumed Stage II hearing by telephone.