Focus on
Victimised Dinner Ladies
The House of Lords had given its judgment in the case of St Helens Borough Council -v- Derbyshire & ors. It upheld the Tribunal’s decision that letters sent to the school dinner ladies, who were pursing equal pay claims against the Council, which stated that continuing these claims could lead to redundancies and deprive children of school dinners, amounted to victimisation under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
The dinner ladies in question argued that, under equal pay legislation, they were entitled to the same rates of pay as road sweepers. Many of the dinner ladies reached settlement with the Council, but a group, including Mrs Derbyshire, brought equal pay claims to the employment tribunal. On receipt of the claims, the Council wrote letters to the claimants stating that, if their claims were successful, the costs associated with the claims might mean that school dinner provisions had to be scaled back, leading to both a reduction of the workforce and a lowering of standards, meaning school children would suffer.
Those dinner ladies proceeded with their equal pay claims and made a second claim alleging victimisation contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act.
The employment tribunal found that the letters were "effectively a threat" and upheld the victimisation claim. The Council first appealed to the EAT, which upheld the tribunal's decision, and then to the Court of Appeal which held, by majority, that the letters were "an honest and reasonable attempt by the Council to compromise proceedings".
The House of Lords overturned, unanimously, the Court of Appeal's decision, stating that the latter had focused too narrowly on certain aspects of the tribunal’s reasoning. Referring back to the tribunal’s decision, it was clear that the tribunal had recognised that an employer could make an honest and reasonable attempt to settle a claim. However, in the instant case, the tribunal did not feel that the letter amounted to such an attempt. Instead, the tribunal held that the Council’s objective in sending the letter was to put pressure on the dinner ladies to settle. Accordingly, the Council treated the dinner ladies less favourably than staff that were not pursing equal pay claims and the letters amounted to a 'detriment' contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act. The House of Lords concluded there was no reason to interfere with the tribunal’s decision.
This is an important case, illustrating the fine line between making threats and making a genuine attempt to settle a claim – which, after all, is, the thinking behind the overriding objective of the statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedures, promoted as a matter of public policy. Employers would be wise to remember that when employees become claimants they tend to hold a protected position whereby they cannot be treated less favourably than non-claimant employees. But where the line between threat and genuine attempt lies cannot be prescribed, and will turn on the facts of each case.
top