Automated Summary
Key Facts
The claimant, Dr. I Kaneva, worked in the Mass Spectrometry Facility at LMS from November 2018 to September 2020. She was employed at Band 5B but performed work equivalent to Band 4 roles, particularly in proteomics research, instrument maintenance, and data analysis. Pay differences existed between her and her colleagues Mr. Montoya (Band 4B) and Dr. Mokochinski (Band 4B), with gaps narrowing after a responsibility allowance was applied. The tribunal found her work 'like work' to Mr. Montoya but not to Dr. Mokochinski due to significant differences in metabolomics specialization and new facility setup responsibilities. The pay disparities were attributed to recruitment banding decisions and market forces, not sex discrimination.
Issues
- The tribunal assessed whether the Respondent's reliance on material factors—such as the Claimant being recruited to a Band 5 role despite working at Band 4 responsibilities, and Dr. Mokochinski's higher pay due to market forces—validly explained pay disparities under section 69(2) of the Equality Act 2010.
- The tribunal determined whether the Claimant was engaged in 'like work' to Mr. Montoya and Dr. Mokochinski under section 65(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010. It also assessed if differences in pay were due to material factors (e.g., recruitment to a Band 5 role, skills/experience) that did not involve sex discrimination, as per section 69(2) of the Act.
- The Claimant alleged three verbal disclosures constituted protected disclosures under section 43B(1)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (health and safety concerns). The tribunal evaluated if these disclosures met the 'public interest' threshold and whether they tended to show systemic exploitation or fraud by the employer.
- The Claimant alleged she was victimized for requesting job evaluation and raising pay concerns. The tribunal determined whether Dr. Kramer's decision not to nominate her for a Special Award (unlike Dr. Mokochinski) was influenced by her protected acts under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010.
Holdings
- The Claimant's claims that she was subjected to detriments on the ground that she made protected disclosures pursuant to section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 fail, because she did not make any protected disclosures. The claims are therefore dismissed.
- The Claimant's claim under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 also fails and is dismissed.
- However, the difference between the Claimant's pay and that of her comparators (Mr Montoya and Mr Mokochinski) was not because of the Claimant's sex. Her claims for equal pay based on like work and equal value therefore fail and are dismissed.
- The Claimant was engaged in 'like work,' within the meaning of section 65(1)(a) of Equality Act 2010, to Alex Montoya, but not Joao Mokochinski.
- There will not be a further hearing in the case.
Remedies
The Claimant was awarded a one-time responsibility allowance of £4,701, calculated based on Band 4A pay point 4, to address the pay disparity caused by her working at a Band 4 level despite being employed in a Band 5 role. This allowance was effective from 1 January 2020 and acknowledged her additional responsibilities during the 9-month period prior to her resignation.
Legal Principles
- The tribunal considered the 'material factor' defence under section 69 of the Equality Act 2010, determining that differences in pay were justified by non-discriminatory reasons such as role grading and market forces, not sex discrimination.
- The tribunal applied the shifting burden of proof under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010, requiring the claimant to first establish facts from which discrimination could be inferred, then shifting the burden to the respondent to demonstrate non-discriminatory reasons. This was central to evaluating the equal pay and victimisation claims.
Precedent Name
- Dorothy Perkins Ltd v Dance
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Macarthys Limited v Smith
- Chesterton Global Ltd & Anor v Nurmohamed & Anor
- Kells v Pilkington plc
- Capper Pass Ltd v Allan
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Beneviste v Kingston University
- Glasgow City Council v Marshall
Cited Statute
- Equality Act 2010
- Employment Rights Act 1996
Judge Name
E Burns
Passage Text
- the difference between the Claimant's pay and that of her comparators (Mr Montoya and Mr Mokochinski) was not because of the Claimant's sex.
- The Claimant's claims that she was subjected to detriments on the ground that she made protected disclosures... fail, because she did not make any protected disclosures.
- The Claimant was engaged in 'like work,' within the meaning of section 65(1)(a) of Equality Act 2010, to Alex Montoya, but not Joao Mokochinski.