- 21 August 2020
In Walker v Co-operative Group Limited, the Claimant was promoted in early February 2014 to the role of Group Chief HR Officer, with a salary of £215,000. This was her first executive role at this level.
At the time, The Co-op was on the verge of financial collapse and decided that it needed to restructure the executive team to deliver a critical transformation project. In March 2014, it placed the Claimant’s role in the same tier as the Chief External Affairs Officer and the Group General Counsel, both male. The Claimant’s salary was increased to £425,000 while her male peers were paid over £500,000 each. The Claimant subsequently brought claims including equal pay.
The tribunal accepted the employer’s reasons for initially setting the pay at this level. Unlike the claimant, the Chief External Affairs Officer and the Group General Counsel were vital to the survival of the Co-op, highly experienced executives and there was a realistic flight risk with them at a time when it was vital to maintain stability.
The employer carried out a job evaluation survey which scored the Claimant’s role higher than her male colleagues.
However, by 2015 the immediate crisis had passed. The employer carried out a job evaluation survey which scored the Claimant’s role higher than her male colleagues. The tribunal therefore found that the reason for the difference in pay had become ‘historical’ and the material factor defence no longer applied.
This was overturned by the EAT and Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found that dismissing the pay disparity as ‘historical’ missed the point as it remained the cause of the pay differential at the relevant time. it further stated that it was well established that a job evaluation study does not have retrospective effect and that the material factors relating to experience and market rate continued to explain the difference between pay even after the job evaluation study.
The Court of Appeal made clear that provided the employer explains the reason for the pay differential and it is not tainted by sex, it does not then need to go on to justify the pay differential.
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.
About this article
SubjectEqual Pay: material factors don’t just evaporate
Published21 August 2020
Read, listen and watch our latest insights
- 28 February 2024
- Commercial Real Estate
Hidden risks in serviced office agreements
This is usually a fully furnished and equipped office space that is managed by a facility management company and made available for short-term or long-term rentals to businesses, varying from one week to a year, or even longer.
- 27 February 2024
Changing Attitudes to Menopause
We have set out some answers to the frequently asked questions that employers ask when considering how to support a menopausal employee.
- 22 February 2024
Time to take the heat off menopausal women
On 22 February 2024, the EHRC released guidance and resources for employers designed to help employers understand their legal obligations in relation to supporting workers experiencing menopausal symptoms.
- 22 February 2024
Talking Employment Law: What to do if you’re at risk of redundancy
In this podcast, Harry Berryman and Rebecca Dowle, members of the employment team, will talk through the steps that need to be taken for a redundancy to be fair and the range of criteria that can be used when determining which employees will be made redundant.
- 21 February 2024
FAQs Partner Visa UK
Discover the UK Spouse Visa: eligibility, finances, relationship criteria, and the latest updates in 2024 for a successful application.