Tom Pacey (Counsel) For the v David Parry (Solicitor) — 2020

The tribunal heard Ms Toni Sullivan’s equal pay claim against Everest Roofing (Oxford) Limited, with an equal value claim stayed pending the like work decision. It accepted that the claimant was paid less than the comparator, Robert Lord, and considered whether the two roles were like work for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant’s work was found to be mainly payroll, sales and purchase ledger, VAT, CITB, P11Ds, company secretarial tasks and routine office administration.

By contrast, Mr Lord’s role was found to be materially different. The tribunal accepted that his work initially focused on debt collection and troubleshooting, and then expanded to include stock control, contract analysis, year-end profit and loss work, insurance, health and safety, utilities and website responsibilities. Those duties involved substantially more analysis, judgment, negotiation and autonomy than the claimant’s role, and there was only very limited overlap between the two jobs.

Applying the broad judgment required by the like work test, the tribunal held that the claimant and Mr Lord were not employed on work of the same or broadly similar nature. It also held that, if the work had been broadly similar, the differences were of practical importance in relation to the terms and conditions of employment. The equal pay claim on like work therefore failed. The tribunal did not determine remedy issues, and it noted that the material factor defence would need further consideration in the stayed equal value claim.