Ms A Donaldson v The GEO Group UK Limited — 2019

Ms Alison Donaldson brought an equal pay claim under section 69 of the Equality Act 2010, comparing her pay as a Detainee Custody Officer at Dungavel with the pay of named comparators who had worked in the south of England and had been paid higher rates. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had recruited those comparators initially on higher salaries because of market conditions in the south of England, and that the male and female staff in each role and location were on the same terms and conditions.

The tribunal also accepted that the comparators were not simply DCOs, but held additional badges and worked in different roles, including DEO and PEO, which involved more training and responsibility and were paid at higher rates. It found that these were genuine reasons for the pay differences and that they were not tainted by sex. The tribunal also accepted the respondent's evidence that the higher rates were maintained in order to retain experienced staff while it hoped to secure further work, including the Gatwick tender and possible future opportunities.

When the Gatwick tender did not proceed, the respondent considered whether the retained staff would move onto permanent Dungavel terms or leave. One comparator, Mr Coleman, accepted a reduced Dungavel salary and transferred; the others chose redundancy. The tribunal held that this later history was consistent with the respondent's explanation remaining based on the background circumstances of recruitment, role, experience and retention, rather than on sex. It distinguished Benveniste and held that the respondent had proved material differences other than sex for the pay difference, so the claim failed and was dismissed.