Chambers has a rich history of winning awards in our specialist areas as well as individuals being recognised for excellence. Most recently, John Hendy QC was awarded the prestigious Lifetime Achievement Award at the UK Chambers Bar Awards 2018. Stuart Brittenden was named The Legal 500 UK Employment Junior of the Year 2018.
When determining an issue of the right to remuneration, an employment tribunal was entitled to conclude that the terms and conditions applicable to the alternative work offered to and accepted by two grounded employees were substantially less favourable than the terms and conditions for their normal cabin crew work.
Appeal by two employees ('M' and 'B', together 'the applicants') and cross-appeal by an employer ('EOG') from a decision of an employment tribunal. The applicants were both employed by EOG as pursers. When on flying duty cabin crew were contractually entitled to certain allowances ('flying allowances'). These were not payable when they were grounded, but grounded staff were paid an allowance to replace the benefit of the flight allowance. The applicants were grounded after the sixteenth week of their pregnancies. Neither applicant complained at that time. The applicants complained before the tribunal that there had been: (i) unlawful deductions from their wages contrary to s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996 ('the deductions claims'); (ii) breach of their right to remuneration on suspension on maternity grounds, as provided for in ss.66-70 of the 1996 Act ('the remuneration claims'); (iii) breach of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and/or Art.119 EC Treaty ('the equal pay claims'); and (iv) unlawful sex discrimination, contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 ('the sex discrimination claims'). The tribunal determined that: (a) the deductions claims were not made out; (b) liability for the remuneration claims was made out, the issue of remedy was adjourned pending the outcome of an appeal; (c) M's equal pay claim succeeded, B's failed and was dismissed; (d) the sex discrimination claims were dismissed. Both parties appealed the decision but there was no cross-appeal by EOG against the finding on the sex discrimination claims.
Cross-appeal allowed to the extent indicated. M's equal pay claim dismissed. Both cases remitted for a remedies hearing on the remuneration claims. Leave to appeal refused.