Cannop & Ors v Brown & Ors [2008] ScotCS CSIH_38 (11 June 2008)

Cannop & Ors v Brown & Ors [2008] ScotCS CSIH_38 (11 June 2008)

The employment tribunal erred in law by failing to properly assess whether the grievance and the tribunal claim were essentially the same complaint; the Employment Appeal Tribunal was correct to remit the matter for a factual determination of whether, for each claimant, the grievance underlying the ET1 was essentially the same as that earlier communicated, but the remit should be clarified to reflect the concession that Step 1 was complied with for the Stefan Cross claimants and to avoid requiring strict identity of comparators.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSIH_38
Parties
First Appellants: Caroline Cannop and Others; Second Appellants: Thomas Brown and Others; Third Appellants: Donna Alexander and Others; Respondents: Highland Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Session (inner House) on Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; remit varied
Legal Topics
Equal Pay, Statutory Grievance Procedures, Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunals, Comparator Specification, Directive Compliance
Employment Law Equality Law European Union Law Equal Pay Statutory Grievance Procedures Jurisdiction of Employment Tribunals Comparator Specification Directive Compliance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caroline Cannop and Others

First Appellants

Thomas Brown and Others

Second Appellants

Donna Alexander and Others

Third Appellants

Highland Council

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Session (inner House) on Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a grievance under the Employment Act 2002 must specify comparators identical to those in the subsequent tribunal claim for equal pay
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in law by requiring strict correspondence between grievance and claim comparators
  3. 3 Whether the statutory grievance procedure as applied is consistent with EU law and the Equal Pay Directive

Ratio Decidendi

The employment tribunal erred in law by failing to properly assess whether the grievance and the tribunal claim were essentially the same complaint; the Employment Appeal Tribunal was correct to remit the matter for a factual determination of whether, for each claimant, the grievance underlying the ET1 was essentially the same as that earlier communicated, but the remit should be clarified to reflect the concession that Step 1 was complied with for the Stefan Cross claimants and to avoid requiring strict identity of comparators.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; remit varied

Orders

  • Remit to the employment tribunal varied to require determination, for the Stefan Cross claimants (other than category 3), whether the grievance underlying the ET1 was essentially the same as the grievance earlier communicated, it being conceded that Step 1 was complied with.
  • Employment tribunal to proceed as accords.