Performance bonus

Case 5: The facts

The London Borough of Islington paid its caretakers a productivity bonus, introduced more than 20 years ago to address a decline in the caretakers’ performance and ensure that their performance improved.

Two female cleaners and a kitchen assistant, who were also employed by the council before being transferred under the TUPE regulations, claimed that they were employed on work rated as equivalent and were therefore entitled to the bonus under equal pay law, using a male assistant caretaker as their comparator.

They pointed to the fact that there had been no assessment of the caretakers’ productivity levels for a couple of years, arguing that this could therefore not be used as an objective justification for the difference in pay.

The ruling

The EAT rejected the claim. The council had established that the performance issue was a genuine reason for the difference in pay, and that this was unrelated to the difference in sex.

The bonus was the sole reason for the difference in pay, and there was nothing to suggest that it had been introduced for discriminatory reasons. This was the case throughout the whole period, even during the years when there was no supervision of the caretakers’ productivity levels.

Paterson v LB Islington EAT/0347/03