Members H Boyd and J Burnett Ms M Weatherup v Dumfries & Galloway Council — 2020

Ms Weatherup brought an equal pay claim comparing her work with that of Greig Blayney. The tribunal applied the section 65 Equality Act 2010 like-work test, asking first whether their work from September 2016 was the same or broadly similar and, if so, whether any differences were of practical importance. It also noted that Ms Weatherup had later been treated as working at Environmental Officer level with back pay, and that she had declined a promoted Waste Management Strategy Manager post.

The tribunal accepted that from September 2016 both Ms Weatherup and Mr Blayney were appointed as Council Representatives on the PFI Project and shared responsibility for strategies and plans for that project. It found Ms Weatherup to be a credible witness and accepted that she had substantial involvement in PFI-related work, including contract management, landfill tax reconciliation, insurance review, dispute work, and the TUPE transition. The tribunal's approach was to look at the work actually done, not personal merit, and to consider the whole job rather than isolating one part of it.

On that whole-job comparison, the tribunal held that Mr Blayney's role was materially wider than the claimant's. In addition to PFI responsibilities, he remained accountable for the environment service as a whole, including contaminated land, strategic commissioning, external locations, and management of around ten direct reports. By contrast, the claimant had no permanent direct reports and, at most, a supervisory role. The tribunal treated those differences as additional and practically important features of Mr Blayney's job which could not be excluded from the comparison.

The tribunal therefore found that the claimant's work was not broadly similar to Mr Blayney's work for the purposes of section 65(1)(a) Equality Act 2010. Because the claimant failed at the first stage of the like-work analysis, the tribunal did not need to decide whether any differences were of practical importance. That part of the equal pay claim was dismissed and no monetary remedy was awarded.