 |
Find out the latest news on equal pay, what's new on this site and how NHS Employers is supporting you. Equal pay employment tribunal postponed until February10 December 2008 The tribunal hearing on national issues involving the modernised pay system Agenda for Change, raised in equal pay claims lodged at many trusts across the country, took place on 2 October to 21 November 2008. All witnesses gave evidence and were cross examined but there was not time for final written submission to be completed and presented to the tribunal before 21 November 2008. Dates to complete the hearing have been arranged for 9, 10 and 11 February 2009. It is expected that a judgment will be made soon after. Bainbridge / Surtees Court of Appeal decision28 August 2008 The Court of Appeal decision in the Bainbridge/Surtees equal pay claims has been given extensive press coverage but, in fact, introduced very little that is new. It confirmed the current understanding that pay protection is capable of being an objectively justified genuine material factor defence in equal pay challenges. Decisions are determined on the facts of each case. After seeking legal advice, the Department of Health reports it has no particular concerns in relation to the challenges in the Hartley v Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust claims and is satisfied that the case will not affect the chances of successfully resisting those claims. Hartley v Northumbria is being used as a test case for the NHS, with a pre-hearing review scheduled for 6 October to 21 November 2008. Appeal ruling in Ashford & St. Peters case22 August 2008 The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on 13 August 2008 made a ruling in an equal pay claim that has important implications for the rest of the equal pay litigation currently taking place in the NHS. The EAT upheld the decision of the Employment Tribunal to refuse to withdraw the requirement for an independent expert to report to the tribunal on the question of equal value. The EAT also confirmed that just because jobs are on the same band of Agenda for Change, the tribunal is not bound to accept that the jobs are of equal value for the period prior to Agenda for Change. The EAT also confirmed that the onus is on the claimant to prove equal value. The decision is helpful as it confirms that Agenda for Change does not have retrospective effect and establishing equal value will be more problematic which will make it more difficult for claimants to bring successful equal value claims. This is because claimants will not be able to simply rely on the banding of their roles and their comparators' roles under Agenda for Change to show that the roles were of equal value prior to assimilation. Although banding will be taken into account, it will not determine the question of equal value and claimants will have a bigger hurdle to overcome to prove their claim. It is likely that leave to appeal against this decision will be sought. Last reviewed 11 Dec 2008 |
|
