Miss J MacDonald and Others v Glasgow City Council
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lady Stacey,Ms Judith Gaskell,Mrs Anne Hibberd |
| Neutral Citation | UKEATS/0008/14/BI |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Equal Pay Act,Not landmark |
| Date | 12 May 2015 |
| Published date | 16 June 2017 |
© Copyright 2013
Appeal No. UKEATS/0008/14/BI
UKEATS/0009/14/BI
UKEATS/0011/14/BI
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
52 MELVILLE STREET, EDINBURGH, EH3 7HF
At the Tribunal
On 9th December 2014 and 12th May 2015
Before
THE HONOURABLE LADY STACEY
MS JUDITH GASKELL
MRS ANNE HIBBERD
MISS J MACDONALD AND OTHERS CLAIMANTS
GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Appeal Nos. UKEATS/0008;0009;0011/14/BI
APPEARANCES
For the Claimants Fox Cross claimants : Mr Robin
Allen, QC with Mr Jonathan
Mitchell QC, Fox and Co
Unison /Unite claimants Mr
Graeme Dalgleish, Advocate,
UNISON Legal Services
(formerlyThompsons Solicitors)
GMB claimants : Mr Calum
MacNeill, QC, Digby Brown LLP
For the Respondent Mr John Bowers QC with Mr
Stephen Miller,Solicitor, Glasgow
City Council Legal Services ( with
Simpson & Marwick Solicitors)
Appeal Nos. UKEATS/0008;0009;0011/14/BI
SUMMARY
Equal Pay: the claimants challenged the respondent’s Job Evaluation Study. They
argued it was invalid because it produced two separate scores for each job; further, it was
not shown to be objective. They argued that the ET had inverted the onus of proof and
erred in its treatment of expert evidence. Held: the ET had made findings it was entitled
to make. There was no error of law in the ET’s decision.
Pay Protection: the claimants argued that the respondent had shown no justification for
its pay protection policy, which protected pay of those in detriment prior to
implementation. Held: the ET did not set out a legitimate aim and then consider whether
the pay protection policy was a proportionate way of achieving that aim.
Appeal allowed in part.
To continue reading
Request your trial