[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Falconer v. Campbell Lee Computer Services Ltd [2004] UKEAT 0045_04_1412 (14 December 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2004/0045_04_1412.html Cite as: [2004] UKEAT 0045_04_1412, [2004] UKEAT 45_4_1412

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

 

For the Appellant	Ms Jane Falconer, In Person 92 Roffrey Park Road Ralston PAISLEY PA1 3LT
For the Respondent	Mr M Conaghan. Solicitor Of Messrs Maxwell McLaurin Solicitors 100 West Regent Street GLASGOW G2 2QB

SUMMARY
EQUAL PAY

Equal pay


 


LORD JOHNSTON:

1. This is an appeal taken by the Appellant in person against the Decision of the Employment Tribunal, sitting in Glasgow, declaring that she was not employed on like work with the comparator put forward by her in terms of section 1(2)(a) and section 1(4) of the Equal Pay Act 1970. The Tribunal produced a lengthy Decision in much detail.
2. Both the Appellant and her comparator were on a team which she maintained was performing like work. Unfortunately the Tribunal came to opposite Decision. Against that Decision, the Appellant lodge grounds of appeal which specified three bases of fact or conclusion of fact by the Tribunal which she said were flawed and in error. Quite properly, the Chairman of the Tribunal responded to an application for review and in that application dealt specifically with all three of the matters raised by the Appellant. Accordingly, for the purposes of this appeal, the important findings are to be found on pages 4 and 5 of the Review Decision:

"The first finding in fact of concern to the applicant is;

"General work referred to Kevin Kelly was frequently more complex and required a greater understanding of client applications than the work referred to the applicant".

When reaching this finding, the Tribunal had regard to the evidence of the respondents' witnesses. Their evidence was clear and consistent on the issue of the relative complexity of general work referred to the applicant and Kevin Kelly. In his evidence James Lee in particular spoke about the greater complexity of the general tasks undertaken by Kevin Kelly when compared with those of the applicant and that this was at least in part due to Kevin Kelly's greater understanding of client applications. As an example of general work, Mr Lee referred to the respective roles of the applicant and Kevin Kelly in relation to education and presentation materials. Mr Lee gave evidence that the technical set up was the responsibility of Kevin Kelly while the applicant concentrated on delivery and improving the presentation materials. The former role was more complex. The respondents' witnesses also gave evidence that Kevin Kelly undertook general planning and pre-sales work while the applicant was limited to providing technical support. The Tribunal had regard to the importance that the respondents' witnesses placed on Kevin Kelly's awareness of the relationship between client applications and operating systems in finding that when it came to the allocation of general work, the more complex aspects were referred to Kevin Kelly in preference to the applicant.

The second finding in fact is;

"The reports prepared by the applicant were of limited scope".

The reports relied upon by the Tribunal when making this finding were those prepared by the applicant for Daniel Europe Limited (A2/12) and Maxi Haulage Limited (A2/13). The Tribunal found that the report for Daniel Europe Limited (A2/12) did not contain a detailed evaluation of the client's existing system or requirements. The report from Maxi Haulage Limited (A2/13) was similarly of limited scope in relation to an analysis of the client's existing system and future requirements. The Tribunal based the above findings on the evidence of Ian Gibb. The Tribunal accepted Mr Gibb's evidence in relation to the limited nature of the capacity planning undertaken by the applicant. In cross examination Mr Gibb gave evidence that while he did not doubt that the applicant was the author of the reports, he did not consider them to be representative of a full capacity planning exercise. The reports (A2/12 & 13) did not contain much more than performance information extracted from the client's system. Unlike capacity planning reports prepared by Kevin Kelly, the applicant's reports did not contain an analysis of the client's requirements including an evaluation of anticipated work loads and detailed recommendations. While the Tribunal did not see any reports prepared by Kevin Kelly, the applicant did not challenge the assertion that his reports contained this information. From the evidence of Mr Gibb, the Tribunal found that the applicant's reports (A2/12 &13) were of limited scope when compared with those undertaken by Kevin Kelly. They were another example of the applicant's inability to recognise her own limitations, due in this case to the need for further training.

The third finding in fact of concern to the applicant is;

"On his return to Falkirk, Kevin Kelly undertook specialist tasks in security."

The Tribunal relied upon the evidence of the respondents' witnesses and the contents of Production R83 when reaching its finding that following his return to Falkirk, Kevin Kelly undertook specialist tasks in security. R83 was supported by details of invoices issued to clients by the applicant and Kevin Kelly during the period in question (R60 to R82). These showed that Kevin Kelly undertook discrete projects involving security work on his return from Shirley. The Tribunal heard evidence from the respondents' witness and in particular Ray Henderson, that the security work undertaken by Kevin Kelly carried with it more responsibility than similar work undertaken by the applicant. This was because in addition to technical support he was able to provide advice to clients about security systems. This work required knowledge of client applications. His tasks also included identifying and designing the appropriate levels of security for particular clients. This work was more complex and required a greater level of understanding of computer systems than tasks involving technical support. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of Ray Henderson that specialist work in security was undertaken by Kevin Kelly for which clients were directly invoiced as detailed in R83."

3. It is immediately apparent that the Tribunal has carefully reasoned each of these conclusions which base its Decision and the Appellant's attack upon them before us raises no question of law, despite her dissatisfaction with the result.
4. On this simple basis we, as an Employment Appeal Tribunal concerned only with issues of law, cannot interfere and will not do so.
5. We understand there are other outstanding matters with regard to the Appellant's original application to the Employment Tribunal and this case will therefore be remitted back to the Employment Tribunal to proceed as accords, with the Decision in relation to equal pay confirmed by this Tribunal.