EAT justifies pay difference for fire service employees

Employees can claim equal pay with those of the opposite sex if they can show that the other person (aka comparator) is doing the same or broadly similar work as they are, or work of equal value. If like work, or work of equal value is established, then the employer can only defend the claim on the basis that the difference in pay is justified by a material factor not gender-related.

In the recent case of Barnard v Hampshire & Isle of Wight Fire and Rescue Authority, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) had to decide whether a female administrative employee could claim equal pay with male operational personnel during periods when they were carrying-out similar administrative (non-operational) duties.

She was employed on collectively agreed terms for non-operational roles in the fire service (the green book) – and her male colleagues were employed on more lucrative collectively agreed terms for operational roles (the grey book). The men were paid under grey book terms even when they were doing administrative work.

When the EAT reviewed the equal pay claim, they accepted that the woman and her male colleagues were performing like work during periods when the men were performing administrative, non-operational roles. However, the EAT concluded that the difference in pay was justified by a material factor which was not sex because the men had to maintain operational readiness as a requirement under the grey book terms, even when they were carrying-out administrative tasks. This factor justified the difference in pay.

It’s worth noting that if the male operational employees had been permanently moved to non-operational roles with no expectation that they would be required to take-up operational duties, then the outcome would likely have been different.