Donaldson, Hughes and Others v Department of FInance and Persoannel and Others
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | His Honour Judge Babington |
| Judgment Date | 07 March 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] NICty 1 |
| Year | 2013 |
| Court | County Court (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 07 March 2013 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2013] NICty 1
Ref:
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
7/3/13
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE RECORDER’S COURT FOR THE DIVISION OF BELFAST
________
BETWEEN:
CORRINNE DONALDSON, TARA HUGHES
AND LOUISE McFARLAND
Plaintiffs
and
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
Defendant
BETWEEN:
SHARON SHARVIN
Plaintiff
and
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
Defendant
BETWEEN:
MARTINA McKERNAN, JODIE HINDS
AND LISA HOY
Plaintiffs
and
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
Defendant
BETWEEN:
OONAGH REILLY AND CATHERINE O’NEILL
Plaintiffs
and
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PERSONNEL
AND NORTHERN IRELAND POLICING BOARD
Defendants
________
2
His Honour Judge Babington
Background
[1] I heard evidence in this case for 10 days. Opening legal statements took a
further day and closing submissions lasted for 2 days. These 4 groups of cases were
heard together as the principal factors at play are common to all. I will return to the
details surrounding each of the 4 plaintiff groups in due course but it is first
important to understand the context in which these claims arise. In or about the start
of 2009 a large number of equal pay claims were lodged with the Industrial Tribunal.
There were some 4,500 claims lodged and they concerned Northern Ireland Civil
Service (NICS) staff who worked at grades within the Civil Service having job titles
of Administrative Assistant (AA), Administrative Officer (AO) and Executive Officer
II (EOII). They were alleging that they were being treated differently than male
comparators working at the same grades within their relevant departments. It is
important to note that the relevant departments related to the 11 Northern Ireland
Civil Service departments.
[2] During 2009 and over the course of many meetings the Department of
Finance and Personnel (DFP) and the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance
(NIPSA) reached agreement on how these claims would be resolved. It was also
agreed between DFP and NIPSA that the agreement would cover other employees
who were in a similar position to those about whom agreement had been reached.
The agreement was at times described as a settlement agreement and at times as a
collective agreement. There were further descriptions that could be and were
attributed to it during the course of the evidence. The agreement was accepted by
NIPSA’s Executive Committee and subsequently agreed in a ballot by its relevant
members.
[3] In broad terms the agreement provided that those employees affected would
have their salaries revised upwards, and in addition a lump sum was to be paid to
those same employees which it said was to represent loss of salary during the six
year period prior to the agreement. In consideration of these matters the individual
employees would either sign compromise agreements or enter into conciliated
agreements. The overall cost of the agreement to the NICS was in the region of
£120m.
[4] Mr O’Donoghue QC and Mr Wolfe appeared on behalf of all the plaintiffs in
these cases. All of the plaintiffs were backed by NIPSA. The case had been opened
on the basis that there were 3 different groups of plaintiffs but during the evidence
this was refined and enlarged to 4 groups as can been seen from the title to the
proceedings.
3
[5] The first group which I will refer to as “Donaldson and others” had all been
appointed to the Northern Ireland Civil Service as Civil Servants. They were then
seconded to the Police Authority for Northern Ireland (PANI) for part of the period
from their appointment until 1 February 2009. 1 February 2009 was the date of the
agreement to which reference has already been made and was a date which
triggered various matters relating to the agreement. The plaintiffs in this group
were however all employed in the Northern Ireland Civil Service as at 1 February
2009 having transferred back from PANI to one of the 11 NICS departments. This
group’s claims related to not receiving what they considered to be their total
entitlement in some cases by way of salary adjustment or lump sum or more usually
in respect of both matters. This was because their full period of service was not
taken into account in the calculations as a period of service in PANI was disallowed.
[6] The second group of plaintiffs, represented by Sharon Sharvin, were in a
slightly different situation. Sharvin was appointed to the NICS as a Civil Servant in
2001 and she was seconded to the Northern Ireland Office for part of the period
1 February 2003 to 1 February 2009. At the time of the agreement on 1 February 2009
she was working in an NICS department having transferred back in 2005 to DOE
Planning Service. She alleged, similarly to the Donaldson Group, that she had not
had the full benefit of either limb of the agreement due to her period of secondment
with the NIO, as opposed to PANI for Donaldson. That period is the 6 year period
during which loss was calculated and represented in the lump sum due to people
under the agreement. Sharvin had transferred back into one of the NICS
departments at the date of the agreement on 1 February 2009.
[7] The third group of plaintiffs which I will refer to as “McKernan and Others”
were all appointed as Civil Servants with the NICS. They were all seconded to the
Northern Ireland Office and remained on secondment with the NIO at the date of
the settlement on 1 February 2009. On 12 April 2010, following the devolution of
policing and justice, they then transferred back into the Northern Ireland Civil
Service to work in the new Department of Justice. This group appeared to have
received what is in effect the first limb of the agreement, namely a new salary scale,
although it is uncertain as to when this was applied, but they have not received the
lump sum due to the fact that they were on secondment in NIO throughout the
entirety of the 6 year period ending 1 February 2009.
[8] The fourth group of plaintiffs which I will refer to as “Reilly and Another”
were appointed as Civil Servants and then seconded to PANI. They remained at
PANI until 1 October 2008 when their employment transferred to the Northern
Ireland Policing Board (NIPB). This transfer took place under the ambit of The
Police Support Staff (Transfer of Employment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008
which was, in effect, a statutory transfer of undertakings procedure. This Group
To continue reading
Request your trial