Mrs D Jalalli v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Secretary of State for the Home Department: 2203518/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 2022 |
| Date | 23 June 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 06 July 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Equal Pay Act |
Case No: 2203518/2021(V)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mrs D Jalalli
Respondents: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (1)
Secretary of State for the Home Department (2)
Heard via CVP (London Central) On: 13, 14, 15 June 2022
16 June 2022 (in chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Davidson
Ms C Ihnatowicz
Mr F Benson
Representation
Claimant: Mr D Leach, Counsel
First Respondent: Mr A Hodge, Counsel
Second Respondent: Ms C Darwin, Counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is as follows:
1. The claimant’s claim of indirect sex discrimination in relation to the
first respondent’s failure to pay her for actual time worked up to 40
hours succeeds against the first respondent.
2. The claimant’s claim of indirect sex discrimination in relation to the
first respondent’s failure to implement a process for claiming pay
for additional hours worked succeeds against the first respondent.
3. The claimant’s claim of part-time workers discrimination for not
being able to claim for additional time worked of less than 30
minutes succeeds against the first respondent.
4. The claimant’s remaining claims fail and are hereby dismissed.
5. A remedy hearing will be listed to deal with remedy issues.
Case No: 2203518/2021(V)
REASONS
Issues
The agreed issues for the hearing are as follows:
Claim 1: Alleged failure to pay the claimant for actual time worked
(up to 40 hours)
Indirect sex discrimination (s.19) [vs the first respondent only]
1. The Claimant contends that the Police Regulations 2003 (and
attendant Home Office Determinations) (together, “the PR 2003”) provide
for the claimant to be paid an hourly rate for all time actually worked:
Reg.24/Annex F (part 11). If that is correct, has the first respondent
indirectly discriminated against the Claimant by not paying her
accordingly? the first respondent disputes C’s construction; the second
respondent does not.
1.1 The PCP relied upon is paying by reference to “contracted hours” or
“normal periods of duty” only (ie 40 hours for Full-Time Inspectors and
“determined hours” for Part- Time Inspectors).
1.2 Was that PCP applied by the first respondent? the first respondent
does not dispute the PCP or its application.
1.3 If so, did that PCP put female Inspectors at a particular disadvantage
in comparison with male Inspectors?
1.4 If so, can the PCP be objectively justified? The Claimant contends
that in circumstances where the PCP was contrary to the terms of the PR
2003, no legitimate aim will be available. the first respondent has not
alleged a legitimate aim.
PTW Regulations 2000 [vs the first respondent only]
2. Alternatively, if the PR 2003 provided for the claimant to be paid an
hourly rate for all time actually worked, has the first respondent treated
the claimant less favourably than a comparable full time worker by not
paying her accordingly (thereby subjecting her to a detriment (reg.5(1)(b))
on the ground that she is a part time worker)?
2.1 If so, can that less favourable treatment be objectively justified
(reg.5(2))? The Claimant contends that in circumstances where the
treatment is contrary to the terms of the PR 2003, justification on
objective grounds will not be available. the first respondent has not
alleged any objective grounds.
Equality of terms (s.66) [vs the first respondent and the second
respondent]
To continue reading
Request your trial