London Borough of Bexley

Case Summary

The employment judge found that the Respondent’s job evaluation study was unreliable and did not provide a defence to the Claimant’s equal pay claim. The case will proceed.

The employment judge determined that the respondent's job evaluation study was unreliable and could not constitute a valid defence to the equal pay claim, therefore the case will proceed to full hearing.

• •unreliability of the Respondent's 2021 job evaluation study (JES) used to defend against equal pay claim

Case No: 2304611/2021 1 THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL Sitting At: London South Before: Employment Judge K Andrews sitting alone Between: Mrs G Kemmenoe Claimant and London Borough of Bexley Respondent On: 14 & 15 February and 5 April 2023 9 May 2023 in chambers Appearances: For the Claimant: In person For the Respondent: Mr T Lester, Counsel JUDGMENT STAGE 1 EQUAL VALUE HEARING The Respondent’s job evaluation study was unreliable and does not provide a defence to the claim. Directions are given regarding next steps in the concluding paragraphs below. REASONS 1. In this matter the Claimant, at the relevant time employed by the Respondent as a Valuer at grade Bex12, compares herself to two male Building Surveyors employed by the Respondent at the higher grade Bex16. She says that her role and that of Building Surveyor were of equal value. 2. In its defence the Respondent relies on a 2021 job evaluation study (JES) which concluded that the Claimant’s and comparators’ jobs had been correctly graded using the HAY system, the well known analytical system of Case No: 2304611/2021 2 job evaluation based on three core factors of know-how, problem-solving and accountability. The Claimant says that that JES is unreliable and is not therefore a bar to her claim continuing. Evidence & Documents 3. I heard evidence from the Claimant and Ms K Dickson a national officer of Unison and a very experienced HAY evaluator. I also read a written statement from the Claimant’s former colleague Ms E House, formerly a Senior Valuer for the Respondent, but afforded it appropriate weight to reflect that Ms House was not present to attest to its truth or be questioned about its contents. 4. For the Respondent I heard from: a. Mr G Muirhead, Principal Valuer; b. Ms L Barlow, Head of Corporate HR; and c…