The claims arose out of a number of job evaluations carried out by the Respondent, in respect of a variety of posts within its organisation, and over a number of years. The ET had before it an agreed list of issues setting out seven issues for determination, but the overriding issue at the heart of the claims was summarised by the ET as being: did the ET have reasonable grounds to suspect that all or any of the comparator job evaluations were unreliable? The ET determined there were reasonable grounds to suspect that some job evaluations were not suitable to be relied upon in terms of the s131 (5) of the Equality Act 2010. However, there were other job evaluations where the opposite conclusion was reached. The Claimants had claimed that the job evaluations were manipulated and/or changed in order to ensure that the pay differential remained in place between women’s jobs and men’s jobs and/or to maintain male pay levels following the loss of bonus. The ET rejected their argument and the Claimants appealed on 4 grounds, the principle ground being that the ET had erred in holding that the ‘one bad apple’ principle as explained in Hartley v Northumbria NHS Foundation Trust (ET Case No. 2507033/2007) should not be applied to the 2007 job evaluation scheme (JES), so that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that all the comparator job evaluations under consideration were unreliable.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The ET concluded that an ‘all or nothing’ approach, as it was described in Hartley, was neither warranted nor required in the present case, particularly where no challenge was taken to the JES at the heart of the process. Those were conclusions permissibly open to the ET on the facts it found established, particularly where the ratio in Hartley was not binding upon it. Although that decision was no more binding on this Tribunal than it was on the one below, there has not in any event been identified an error of law whether emerging from Hartley or otherwise, that would justify interference with the conclusions of the ET on this matter. In similar vein, the remaining grounds of appeal sought to challenge or re-litigate findings in fact that were permissibly open to the ET in each case.