Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Drury v Larne Borough Council [2008] NIIT 1116_06IT (23 April 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2008/1116_06IT.html
Cite as: [2008] NIIT 1116_6IT, [2008] NIIT 1116_06IT

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

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 1116/06

CLAIMANT: George Drury

RESPONDENT: Larne Borough Council

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW

The decision of the tribunal is that:-

1(i) the proposed amendment submitted by the claimant to the tribunal on 4 February 2008 is not capable of constituting an amendment to the claim already presented, but in fact constitutes a new claim; and

(ii) that claim has not been presented within the time-limits specified in Article 76 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, and further, that it is not just and equitable, in all the circumstances of the case, for an industrial tribunal to consider this claim, notwithstanding that it is out-of-time.

2. The respondent's application to strike-out certain paragraphs of the claimant's witness statement is granted, as set out below and in the annex to this decision.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman (sitting alone): Mr D Buchanan

Appearances:

The claimant appeared in person.

The respondent was represented by Mr G Grainger, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Jones & Cassidy, Solicitors.

By an originating claim presented to an industrial tribunal on 28 August 2006 the claimant made a complaint of sex discrimination against the respondent council.

2.

(i)

There have been several Case Management Discussions to progress this matter to hearing. At a Case Management Discussion on 30 April 2007 (the Record of Proceedings issued on 2 May 2007) the precise legal and factual issues were set out with some particularity, and the case was listed for hearing from 7 – 25 January 2008.

In short, the claimant is alleging that he was treated less favourably than a named female comparator in the way in which a job evaluation scheme was applied by the respondent council.

At the hearing he conceded that he was not challenging the scheme itself, and there is no claim before the tribunal under the Equal Pay Act (Northern Ireland) 1970.

(ii)

At a further Case Management Discussion on 1 February 2008, following an application by the claimant to amend his claim form, he was directed by the tribunal to set out succinctly, and clarify, his proposed amendment by 4 February 2008. It was also directed that a pre-hearing review should be then held to determine the following issues:-

(a) whether the claimant is permitted to amend his claim form; and

(b) whether the tribunal should order redaction of the claimant's witness statement as requested by the respondent.

The claimant, by e-mail of 4 February 2008, set out his proposed amendment, as directed.

Issue (b) above arose for determination, because after the claimant had provided his witness statement to the respondent's solicitors, they objected that the claimant was essentially attempting to make new claims which he had not pleaded, and that the statement also contained much material which was not relevant to the agreed issues before the tribunal. It would, it was argued, be highly prejudicial to the respondent if this material were not redacted.

The claimant's proposed amendment of 4 February 2008

This was set out as follows:-

"CLAIM FORM DATED 29TH AUGUST 2006

AMENDMENT

The amendment which should be added to my IT1 claim form is as follows:-

'The sex discrimination by Larne Borough Council [a]ffected not only my job evaluation but also the provision of resources to me in comparison with those provided to my female comparators. The less favourable treatment afforded to me by not providing the appropriate level of resources for my use, in comparison to the higher level and continuity of resources provided to my female comparators, resulted in excessively long hours being worked by me. These additional hours of work were required by me to complete my numerous and varied tasks, and were not required by my female comparators because Larne Borough Council provided them with adequate resources on more favourable terms than I was provided which enabled them to complete their tasks within the contracted hours'."

In order to determine whether the claim presented to the tribunal is capable of amendment to include the claim set out at Paragraph 3. above, the tribunal heard evidence from Mr Drury and had regard to documentary evidence to which it was referred by the parties.

5.

(i)

In considering an application to amend, a tribunal must consider the principles set out in Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836. Industrial tribunals have a general discretion to grant leave to amend claims but this discretion must be exercised "in a manner which satisfies the requirements of relevance, reason, justice and fairness inherent in all judicial decisions" per Mummery LJ in Selkent Bus Co Ltd case, op-cit, 842.

(ii)

This case draws a distinction between three types of amendment:-

(a) those which are merely designed to alter the basis of an existing claim, but without purporting to raise a new distinct head of complaint;

(b) those which add or substitute a new cause of action but one which is linked to, or arises out of the same facts, as the original claim; and

(c) those which add or substitute a wholly new claim or cause of action which is not connected to the original claim at all.

In this case I am satisfied that the tribunal is dealing with a wholly new claim – category (c) above. Essentially it can be summarised as an allegation that the claimant was denied adequate resources to perform the duties of his post. No such facts were pleaded by the claimant, and it was only when he prepared his witness statement that he set out facts relating to an alleged lack of resources as an example of sex discrimination.

Having determined that this is an entirely new claim unconnected with the claim as pleaded, the issue of compliance with time-limits must now be considered. Mr Drury conceded that the claim was out-of-time so the question for the tribunal is whether or not it is just and equitable, in all the circumstances of the case, for the tribunal to consider the claim, notwithstanding that it is out-of-time.

In relation to the time issue, I find the following facts proved:-

(i) The claimant has not been able to give any convincing explanation as to why he did not make his allegations relating to a lack of resources at an earlier stage.

(ii) His grievance letter, which was sent following what he terms 'remote advice' from the Equality Commission, nowhere refers to the matters raised by the amendment.

(iii) The claim form was filled in by the claimant himself having received advice from the Equality Commission and the Labour Relations Agency. According to the claimant, the Equality Commission gave him quite a lot of time on the telephone. The claimant also consulted a solicitor, albeit not before his claim form had been submitted.

(v) In particular, his grievance letter and claim form demonstrated a general awareness of employment law, including the potential significance of time-limits.

(vi) A lengthy Case Management Discussion was held on 30 April 2007 before another Chairman to progress this matter to a full hearing. The Record of Proceedings of that Case Management Discussion indicates that factual and legal issues were discussed in great detail, and they are set out in equal detail. While the claimant states that he had difficulty keeping up with the legal issues, he concedes that he was aware that factual issues were also being discussed, and that he did not seek to raise any factual issue about lack of resources.

9.

(i)

The relevant law relating to time-limits is contained in Article 76(1) and (5) of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. It lays down the time-limit for making a complaint (it is here accepted that the new complaint is out-of-time) and goes on to provide that the tribunal may consider any complaint which is out-of-time, if in all the circumstances of the case, it is just and equitable to do so.

(ii)

The tribunal accepts that time-limits exist for a purpose and should be observed unless there is a good reason not to. However, it is clear that the 'just and equitable' rule (which applies principally in cases of alleged discrimination) is wider than the 'reasonably practicable' rule found elsewhere in employment law. (See : Mills and Another v Marshall [1988] IRLR 494 EAT.)

(iii)

More specifically the tribunal should take into account the following factors in deciding whether or not to extend time:-

(a) the prejudice which each party would suffer as a result of granting or refusing an extension;

(b) the length of, and reasons for, the delay;

(c) the extent to which the cogency of the evidence is likely to be affected by the delay;

(d) the extent to which the party in default had co-operated with any requests for information;

(e) the promptness with which the claimant acted once he knew of the facts giving rise to the cause of action; and

(f) the steps taken by the claimant to obtain appropriate professional advice once he knew of the possibility of taking action.

(See generally : Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law, Volume 5, T279.)

10.

(i)

In this case the claimant only raised the issue of lack of resources as a head of complaint when he prepared his witness statement.

There has been a lengthy delay in putting forward the proposed amendment. As stated, I consider the claimant is someone who has, in general terms, an awareness of his legal rights, and he did have access to advice. Even if this heading of complaint was not put forward initially, it is still difficult to see why the claimant did not raise it at an earlier stage, for example, at the Case Management Discussion of 30 April 2007, when the nature of his claim was very comprehensively explored.

I also cannot overlook the prejudice to the respondent which would arise were I to extend time. The respondent council would be faced with meeting a claim of which it had no prior notice. This would be taking place at a very advanced stage of the proceedings, and the respondent would be faced with the prospect of carrying out an investigation into matters going back many years.

(ii)

I therefore do not consider that it is just and equitable to extend the time-limit for presenting a claim of sex discrimination based on alleged lack of resources. The tribunal does not therefore have jurisdiction to determine that complaint.

The redaction or editing application

(i) The witness statement initially provided by the claimant and served upon the respondent council in advance of the scheduled hearing contained allegations relating to his claim of sex discrimination in respect of the allocation of resources. He accepted at the hearing on 21 February 2008, following the refusal to extend the time-limit for that claim, that that material was not relevant to the issues before the tribunal, and when the hearing resumed on 19 March 2008 he provided a further statement in which references to this aspect of the claim had been largely removed.

(ii) However, the statement still contained other material to which the respondent had objected, and they had been pursuing that objection before the case was adjourned on 21 February 2008. This material also attempted to introduce other claims. In particular, although the claimant's claim is one of sex discrimination, he appeared to be raising issues relating to equal pay, and to be making a challenge to the validity of a job evaluation survey. In fairness to Mr Drury, when this was pointed out to him he did state, and I now record, that he was not making any challenge to the job evaluation survey itself, as opposed to the allegedly discriminatory way it was applied to him as opposed to his chosen female comparator.

(iii) In these circumstances it falls to the tribunal to consider whether or not to accede to the respondent council's application to redact, or 'edit' further the statement provided by Mr Drury at the hearing on 19 March 2008.

My starting point is that it is generally preferable to leave matters relating to the admissibility of evidence to the tribunal which is hearing the case, so as not to inhibit that tribunal from making a proper enquiry into matters arising in that case. This point was made by Mr Bernard Livesey QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court in the case of Hassan Aktar v Khusi Muhammad and Khuda Bakhsh [2002] EWCH 673 (Ch). I have also had regard to, and am indebted to, the decision of my colleague, Mr Drennan QC, in the case of John O'Prey v National Australia Group Limited [Case Reference No: 77/04 FET] where he deals comprehensively with the issue of admissibility of evidence and editing of witness statements in advance of the substantive hearing. It is clear from the authorities to which reference is made in that decision that caution should be exercised in such circumstances.

13.

(i)

However, in this case, notwithstanding the caution which must be exercised in such circumstances, I am satisfied that the respondent has valid grounds for complaint in respect of some of the contents of Mr Drury's witness statement, which refer to matters which the claimant had never previously pleaded, and which are not relevant to the issues before the tribunal as determined at the Case Management Discussion on 30 April 2007. The irrelevant matters in the witness statement are not minimal or isolated matters, but are quite extensive.

(ii)

Consequently, I am satisfied that the claimant should not be allowed to include this evidence in his witness statement. Unfortunately, the inadmissible material is not all confined to discrete paragraphs, which can now be readily omitted. In these circumstances the parties helpfully agreed that the most convenient way to proceed was to attach a copy of Mr Drury's witness statement to this decision, with lines drawn through the inadmissible portions. Some agreed textual amendments have also been made to preserve grammatical sense.

(iii)

I record, by agreement, that in relation to Page 39, Paragraphs 2 – 5 of Mr Drury's statement, the reference to other employees contained at Paragraph 4 is to Mr Bob Cameron, Head of Section, Environmental Services, and employees below Mr Cameron. This was accepted by the claimant.

The dates originally fixed for the substantive hearing have now been lost – this was almost inevitable in the circumstances. It was agreed that a further Case Management Discussion will be arranged once this decision has issued. That Case Management Discussion will be principally concerned with agreeing a new timetable to progress the matter to a full hearing, and the parties should have checked witness availability by the date of that Case Management Discussion.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 21 February 2008; and 19 March 2008, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

APPENDIX TO DECISION

1. Witness statements of Mr Drury dated 19 March 2008, as edited at the

pre-hearing review held on 21 February 2008 and 19 March 2008.

APPENDIX

TRIBUNAL 19 March 2008

Page Witness statement - George Drury - 19 March 2008

1 Index
2-3 Personal Background
4-6 Council Background
6 Discrimination-a) Job Evaluations,
b) deleted
7-9 Single Status Job Evaluation Scheme- the GLPC Scheme.
Discrimination
10-11 Job Evaluations - Number of evaluations in CE's Departments
12 Number conclusion
13 Job Evaluations- Time Female
14 Time Male
15 Time conclusion
16 Job Evaluations - Preparation & Presentation- Female
17 Preparation & Presentation- Male
18 Preparation & Presentation- Conclusion
19 Job Evaluations-Quantity-Female and Male
20 Quantity- Conclusion
21-22 Job Evaluations - Score-Female
23 Score-Male
24 Score-Conclusion
25 Job Evaluations - Appeals
26 Job Evaluations — Fullness Female
27-32 Fullness Male
33 Fullness Conclusion
34-37 Discrimination Pages deleted
38-40 Discrimination - Conclusion
Payments I am owed.
41 • Job evaluation
42 • Page deleted

Foreword
the details of which are set out in the subsequent paragraphs,
This claim ^is made because of the effect that Larne Borough Council's preferential treatment of female heads of department has had on my work and salary. The more favourable treatment and preparation of job evaluations for females compared to the treatment and assistance given to me amounts to discrimination.

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008

1 Personal Background

2 In 1992 I was engaged by Larne Borough Council as Technical Services Manager to work partly as Contractor in the Compulsory Competitive Tendering process with the Director of Amenity Services acting as Client Officer. I also worked partly in conjunction with the Director in the remaining functions. My work included the managerial responsibilities of 5 major specialist disciplines and 2 minor specialist disciplines:

3 Refuse Collection CCT Major 1
Street Cleansing CCT Major 2
Grounds Maintenance CCT Major 3
Building Maintenance Major 4
Vehicle Maintenance Major 5
Public Conveniences minor 1
Markets and Harbours minor 2
(see doc 37 job description 1992)

4 Following restructuring of the senior management posts in January 2001 and with the demise of Compulsory Competitive Tendering I was appointed Head of Technical Services to work in conjunction with the Directors of Environmental Services and Building Services under the new regime of Best Value, with additional responsibilities in 3 major specialist disciplines indicated in blue below:
(see doc 19 job description 2002)

5 Refuse Collection Director of Environment
Street Cleansing Director of Environment
Refuse disposal Director of Environment Major 6
Recycling issues Director of Environment Major 7
Project management Director of Environment Major 8
Grounds Maintenance Director of Building
Building Maintenance Director of Building
Vehicle Maintenance Director of Building
Public Conveniences Director of Building
Markets and Harbours Director of Building

Tribunal 080305 2

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (M) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement - George Drury. - S March 2008

Personal Background

1 In January 2001 the hard split between Contractor and Client in the three contracts of Refuse Collection, Street Cleansing and Grounds maintenance was removed and the two Directors and I have worked together as one client team since that date.

2 Up until December 2000 the two specialist major disciplines of refuse disposal and project management had previously been undertaken by the Director of Amenity services whilst the additional major discipline of Recycling became a new area of expertise introduced into Council for the first time in 2001.

3 The management of all three major disciplines has been undertaken by me from January 2001, in addition to my existing extensive workload. (See doc 19 Job Description 2002)

4 It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me
differently than other, senior female, members of staff since 1992 and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976 and/or relevant European Law, in particular the Equal Treatment Directive. (See doc 43, letter re discrimination)

5 Although this discrimination has been ongoing since 1992 when I joined Larne Borough Council; this claim is limited to the period between January 2001 and the date of the tribunal, 5^th March 2008, as detailed in my IT1 claim form dated 28 August 2006 and submitted to the Office of the Industrial Tribunals on 29 August 2006. (See doc 44, Claim Form IT1, doc 31 letter from LBC)

6 This different and preferential treatment has manifested itself in ^{the following}~~two~~ ways:
• Job Evaluations.
• ~~Deleted.~~

7 When compared to the more favourable treatment which females in their departments received from CE/DCE I believe this has resulted in discrimination.

Tribunal 080305 3

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Council Background

1 The employers of Larne Borough Council have been guilty of allowing its senior employees to act in a manner which has caused financial disadvantage to me by treating me differently from the senior female employees within their departments and which has ultimately resulted in this claim of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

2 As manager of half of all Larne Borough Council staff with responsibility for half of Council's revenue in addition to substantial capital expenditure each year I require various resources in order to fulfil my duties. These include physical resources and support staff . (See doc 19, job description 2002)

3 Larne Borough Council has failed to deal with my job evaluations
whilst promoting female job evaluations.
(See docs 25, Grievance, page 5 paragraph 1 and Doc 26,
Grievance, page 13 items 3 and 4)

4 Over the years I have defended myself against unwarranted and untrue accusations made by T Clarke ~~and against~~ _by his failure to progress my job evaluations.

5 At the same time he not only actively progressed but physically prepared new job descriptions for his senior female staff.
(See doe 87, Additional information, item 12)

6 No senior female employee received such treatment and none was driven to appeal to the LRA for their intervention. This preferential treatment of senior female staff by writing their job descriptions amounts to discrimination. (see doc 21 letter to L Hunter)

Tribunal 080305 4

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Council Background

1 T Clarke perceived technical duties, which I perform, as subservient to administrative duties which he, supported by his senior female staff, performs.

2 One example of T Clarkes attitude towards Technical Services work was to regularly quip that "your job is rubbish" — an obvious reference to the waste collection and disposal elements of my job description. This attitude has resulted in discrimination.

3 This discrimination has included:

• Deliberately ignoring my requests for job evaluation whilst promoting job evaluations for female staff within their own
departments.

See docs 1,2,3, 11, 12, 15 all GD's job evaluation, 22 Hays,
23 female Job evaluations,

4 ~~Deleted~~

5 ~~Deleted~~

6 In March 2006 I obtained proof that^^asenior females, ^^{Lorraine Hunter was}~~were~~ being given preferential treatment in their eva1uation.scores.
See doc 36, L Hunters job evaluation score sheet.

Tribunal 08030 5

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008

Larne Borough Council has been discriminating against me by:

1 • Granting senior female staff more frequent job evaluations than I was granted. L Hunter received 3 evaluations whilst I was denied any until 2005.
See doc 30 L Hunter,
See docs 23 female evaluations, 56 female evaluations, 83 evaluation results.

2 • Allowing senior female staff relatively higher scores in their job evaluations than in mine.
(See doc 88 page 3, additional information)
The final result of an evaluation is often made known by telephone prior to publication of the results. I was contacted with reference to
the ESO's evaluation and asked my opinion on the evaluation set at P01. This process can become personal when a relationship exists between post holders. I believe Larne Borough Council restricted my evaluation in such a manner.
(See doc 24 Environmental Services Officer Evaluation)

3 • Controlling the evaluation process ~~and having several elements left financially unrewarded. This applies to on call payments and supervision of 8 major functions.~~

4 • Allowing T Clarke to ignore grievances raised by me to have my post evaluated and by withdrawing Directors support from the appeals process.
(See docs 15, 16, 25 and 26 Grievances)

5 The more favourable treatment of the mainly female staff in the
Departments of the Chief Executive and the Deputy Chief Executive
between 2001 and the date of the tribunal has resulted in the
Organisation being guilty of discrimination against me under the
Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Tribunal 080305 6

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008

Northern Ireland Joint Council Agreements

1) Job evaluations

1 Larne Borough Council is an active participant of the Northern Ireland Joint Council and is committed to the application of agreements promulgated by the N I J C.

2 The evaluation scheme which Larne Borough Council currently uses is the Greater London Provincial Council Scheme; one version of which is contained in the National Joint Council for Local Government Services "Green Book" - National Agreement on pay and Conditions of Service. (See docs 42, 78 GLPC scheme; doc 83 report from BCC).

3 The Green Book version of the job evaluation scheme contains the following 10 principles which must be applied to any variant of the scheme including the one used by Larne Borough Council:
Council has admitted they have no Job Evaluation Policy
(see doc 86 item 2.1-additional information)

4 1 - Single Status
The Local Government Single Status Job Evaluation
Scheme has been developed jointly by the National Joint
Council for Local Government Services.

5 2 - Joint Ownership
Job evaluation gains maximum acceptance in the workplace when it is owned by both employer and employee.

6 3 - Openness
Openness and transparency are crucial to the integrity of the scheme.

7 4-Equality
The scheme has been designed to incorporate the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. The factor plan and weightings aim to be free from gender bias and discrimination. (See doc 9, 11) Tribunal 080305 7

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Northern Ireland Joint Council Agreements

5 — Implementation

2 The NJC Users' Manual on the scheme should give guidance on the
implementation of the scheme at local level and covers:
• Equality issues (See doc 11-email to T Clarke)
• Getting started
• Selecting jobs to evaluate
• Gathering job evaluation (See doe 82 item 6)
• Using the job description questionnaire
• Joint panels
• Evaluating jobs (See doc 82 Item 9-add info)
• Grading appeals

3 6 - Re-evaluation & Appeals
An evaluation panel should re-evaluate a job where it is claimed that there has been a change to its content. This change may have resulted from the gradual addition of new features over a period or as a result of restructuring. (See doc 1, 2, 3, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 evaluation; doc 18, 28, 33, 34, 35, 74, 75, 76 appeals and doc 82 item 15)

4 7-NewJobs
The NJC version of the scheme states that a new job should be evaluated by a joint panel.

5 8 — Review
To maintain the relevance and integrity of the scheme it should be reviewed as necessary by the National Joint Council.

6 9-Further guidance
The NJC has issued a users' manual on the scheme and its implications. This is available from LGMB and from the Trades Unions and Provincial Council Offices.
See doc5l,52,

Tribunal 080305 8

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (Ni) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008.
Northern Ireland Joint Council Agreements

1 For further guidance on Job evaluation, equal pay for work of equal value and related issues see.
• EOC Good Equal Opportunities Practice in Analytical JE: A Checklist (See also doc 81 LBC policy)
• NJC Guidance on Equal Pay and Grading
• EOC Code of Practice on Equal Pay
• European Union Code of Practice on Equal Pay.

Larne Borough Council has admitted that there is no further guidance available on the use of the Scheme. No training was given to me. Whereas senior female employees had help in preparing their job descriptions. There is no policy to decide which job should be re-valued.
(See doc 51, 52 53, 54, 55 lack of training)
(See doc 82 item 11 and item 16)

2 10 Copyright
The copyright for the Local Government Single Status Job Evaluation Scheme is held by the National Joint Council for Local Government Services. It may not be reproduced in part or in whole, nor adapted without the consent of the NJC.

Council has stated that they have no input in the Job Evaluation
Scheme
(See 86 item 2.4)

Council obviously had input as can be seen in Doc 83.
(See doc 83 page 3 item 1.1)

Tribunal 080305 9

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Job evaluations- Number of evaluations in C E's Departments

1 The departments of the CE and DCE consist of mainly female employees. These females have received preferential treatment when the number of job evaluations is studied below.

2 Council stated in their document of disclosure that, in the years
2001 to 2004, an average of 92% of the staff working for CE and DCE in the two departments was female. This figure is open to question, because the departments have changed due to many different restructuring exercises. See doc 86 item 6.2
In the same period 2001 to 2004 Council confirmed that 92% of the employees in the Depot were male. See doc 86 item 6.4

3 Council has stated that 5 employees (out of average 26) working for CE and DCE'S Departments received job evaluations between 2001/2004 equalling 19% of the total. See doc 86 item 6.5

4 Document number 23 shows that, between 2001-2004, 9 employees in these mainly female departments received job evaluations including:-

1 Female-Tourism & Events Assistant see 23/1
2 Female-Community Relations Officer see 23/1
3 Female-Registrar see 23/1
4 Female-Caretaker see 23/2
5 Female-Finance and H R Clerk see 23/3
6 Female-P A to CE see 23/5 (Barbara Thompson)
7 Female-Clerical officer see 23/5
8 Male-H R Manager, see 23/5
9 Male-Tourism Manager. see 23/4
(see doc 23 job evaluations)

5 This means that 35% (9/26) of these mainly female employees in Head Office departments had job evaluations between 2001 and
2004.

However doc 23 which was not complete.

Tribunal 080305 10

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement -George Drury - 5 March 2008
Job evaluations- Number of evaluations in C E's Departments.

Council's replies indicate that in addition to the evaluations mentioned in document 23, other employees also received evaluations between 2001 and 2004 as follow;
10 Lorraine Hunter
11 Liz Wilkin
12 Trevor Clarke (excluded from the calculations)
13 Chief Executive (excluded)
See doc 82 items 27 and 28and doc 85 Questionnaire)

When these additional evaluations are included, the total number of job evaluations in the mainly female departments of CE & DCE rises toll out of 26.
A total of 42%. (see doc 56, list of additional valuations)

In the same period none of the mainly male employees in the Depot had received job evaluations. See respondents reply.
See doc 82.2
Compare 42% female to 0% male between 2001 and 2004

On 2^nd February 2004 Council decided that all staff who had not received a job evaluation in the past 5 years should have one with immediate effect, resulting in 36 additional evaluations. See doc 58

6 employees from the mainly male Depot were included by the
Deputy Chief Executive in the list which was developed from the
decision of 2^nd February 2004.
See doc 83 page 7

5 13 employees from the mainly female offices of CE and DCE were
included in the list which was developed by the Deputy Chief
Executive from the Council's decision of 2IId February 2004.
See doc 83 pages 5 and 6.

Tribunal 080305 11

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Job evaluations- Number of evaluations in C E's Department

1 After the conclusion of these job evaluations a total of 24 employees (11 previously evaluated plus 13 now) had their posts evaluated within the CF and DCE'S mainly female departments.
At 2 February 2004, when these later evaluations are included, the total number of job evaluations in the mainly female departments of CE & DCE rose to 24 out of 26.

A total of 92%. See doc 83 pages 5 and 6

After the decision of 2nd February 2004 the posts of 6 employees in the Depot were sent for evaluation.
After the conclusion of these job evaluations a total 6 employees (none previously evaluated plus 6 now) had their posts evaluated within the mainly male Depot offices.
At 2 February 2004, when these later evaluations were included, the total number of job evaluations in the mainly male departments in the Depot rises to 6 out of 80.

A total of 8%. See doc 83 page 7

Compare 92% female job evaluations in the CE/DCE's departments with 8% male job evaluations after the February 2004 decision.

Number of evaluations

Conclusion

As there is no logical explanation for the large number of job evaluations awarded to the mainly female Departments in Head Office (92%) in contrast to the very small number awarded to the mainly male departments in the Depot (8%) I believe that this different treatment amounts to discrimination and that Larne Borough Council has unlawfully discriminated against me.

Tribunal 080305 12

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the wounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Job Evaluation- Time, Female

1 L Hunter had a previous job evaluation when she was given the additional responsibility of supervising clerical staff.

2 L Hunter had another job evaluation when her post of
Committee/Media Officer was re-evaluated as P01 on 19
September 2005. 4 days after her Head of Department revaluation.
(See docs 64 and 65)

3 L Hunter had yet another job evaluation when her job description as Head of Department was signed off by T Clarke on 27 July 2005; the same day that her job description for Committee/Media Officer was submitted for re-evaluation. See doc 63 page 5 dated 25 July
2005

4 L Hunter's job description as Head of Department was submitted by T Clarke for re-evaluation on 9 September 2005. See doc 63

5 L Hunters job description as Head of Department was re-valued at P02, 4 days before her previous post was re-valued.
See letter of 29 September 2005 doe 64 and doc 66

6 L Hunter's job description as Head of Department was backdated to
1 February 2005 due to restructuring by Williamson Consulting in
November 2004.
See doc 67 dated l30ctober 2005

7 L Hunters job description as Head of Department was re-evaluated at P03 on 11 Jan2006
See letter 25 January 2006 doc 68 and doc 69.

8 L Hunters job description as Head of Department was again reevaluated remaining at P03, however her Resources score rose, from level 1 to level 2 which will be reused in any future evaluations.
See doc 70, letter from BCC.

Tribunal 080305 13

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Job Evaluation- Time, Male

As Head of Department at salary scale P01, in January 2001, I applied for a re-evaluation of my post because of major changes to my responsibilities brought about by restructuring of senior management posts.
See also report of existing salaries doc 83 and doc 1

2 My Head of Department post was re-valued 4 years later, on 7 January 2005 by desktop, at P05. See doc 41
(See mistake in using 41 staff only)

3 On 10 March 2005 the result of my desktop evaluation was relayed to me. (2 months later)

My Head of Department post was re-evaluated on 9th August 2005, under informal appeal, remaining at P05. See doc 17
See mistakes in supervision doc 17

On l November 2005 the result of my informal appeal was relayed to me. Almost 3 months later than the date of the revaluation. See doc 73, letter from HR

On 24th May 2006 the results of my Formal Appeal, received by Larne Borough Council on 8th May 2006, raised my salary as Head of Technical Services to P06.
See docs 77 and 29 equivalent post

My Head of Department post was re-evaluated under Formal appeal to P06 on 24 May 2006 and backdated to January 2004.
See doc 77 letter from HR.

My re-evaluation was backdated to January 2004, a date 3 years after additional responsibilities were added to my job description due to restructuring.
See doc 19, job description 2002.

Tribunal 080305 14

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Discrimination- Time Conclusion

1 It is obvious from an examination of the differences in the time scales involved in dealing with the job evaluation of females' posts in Head Office and Males' posts in the Depot that there is clearly a bias in favour of females.
See doc 1, my application for evaluation dated January 2001.

2 Female staff members such as L Hunter had their posts sent for re2 evaluation as early as two months after restructuring was
recommended by Williamson Consultants.
See doc 22, page from Williamson report.

3 L Hunters post was recommended in November 2004, ratified by 3 Council in December 2004 and submitted by T Clarke for reevaluation in January 2005.
See docs 1, 2, 3 referring to my job evaluation.

4 My post, on the other hand, was affected by restructuring in January 4 2001 and my application for re-evaluation also dated January 2001
was not submitted for re-evaluation until January 2005, four years later despite numerous verbal and written reminders.

See doc 58, copy of Council minutes

5 Time-Conclusion

As there is no logical explanation for the time differences in dealing with my evaluation (4 years) and L Hunters evaluation (2 months). I believe that the different treatment afforded to senior females amounts to unlawful discrimination and that Larne Borough Council has unlawfully discriminated against me.
See docs 21,22 and 23.
See doc 82 item 51 and doc 82 item 52

Tribunal 080305 15

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury- 5 March 2008
Job evaluation — Preparation & Presentation, Female

1 L Hunter had previously received a job evaluation when her responsibilities changed and she was given supervision duties for clerical officers.

2 L Hunters job description as Committee/Media Officer was requested by her on 30 April 2004.
(See doc 59 dated 30/4/2004)

3 L Hunters job description as Committee/Media Officer was reevaluated on 19 September 2005.
(See doc 64, 65)

4 Hunter's post as Head of Department was recommended by Williamson Consulting to be re-evaluated by Hays Consultants, who revalue only Directors or CE posts.
(See 22 dated November 2004)

5 L Hunters post of Head of Department was recommended to Council by Trevor Clarke on 17 January 2005.
(See doc 60 dated 23 Feb 2005)

6 L Hunters job description as Head of Department was written for her by T Clarke/M McFadden and included the new duties of her post.
See doc 2ldated 23 February 2005
See doc6ljob description and doc 62 from BCC
See doc 63 from LBC to BCC
See doc .86 section 2 item g
See doc 87 item 13

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008

Tribunal 080305 16

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Job evaluation — Preparation & Presentation, Male

1 My job description was prepared by myself without assistance from senior management or HR. There was no guidance given to me on the preparation of job descriptions. See doc 19 job description
2002.
Council have admitted that they did not train employees in the use of the job evaluation scheme as recommended by NTJC.
(See doc 82 item 11)

2 My job description submitted on 19 September 2002 was not signed off by Directors until 30 September 2004.
(See doc 19)

3 My job description was not submitted for re-evaluation until after Council decided, in February 2004 that all outstanding job evaluations should now be completed despite my earlier requests beginning January 2001.
(See doc 58)

4 My evaluation has been controlled by T Clarke with a view to restricting the value of my post ~~in relation to the senior females in their departments~~. _{in comparison to that of Lorraine Hunter.}

5 T Clarke made the job evaluation process adversarial eg when he issued a directive on 20 February 2006 which effectively removed my director's support from my re-evaluation.

(See doc 16 email from T Clarke-adversarial)

6 T Clarke manipulated the evaluation process by dictating that my evaluation date should commence in 2004 and not 2001 when my duties were changed by restructuring.
(See docs 1 and 58)

Under instruction from T Clarke, HR informed me that my
evaluation would not be backdated further than January 2004.
(See doc 38 page 2 penultimate paragraph)

Tribunal 080305 17

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Job evaluation-Preparation & Presentation, Comparison

Lorraine Hunter ^ ~~Females in the CE and DCE's departments~~ had support and assistance from the senior managers in the preparation and
presentation of ^^her ~~their~~ revised job descriptions.? _{Whereas the job evaluation process was not properly explained to me. They She}also had ~~their~~^^her job descriptions presented to Council for action in a timely fashion, whenever ~~their~~^^her duties changed.
(See docs 21,22 ,23 and 60)

As a male Head of Technical Services I received no support and assistance from the two senior managers in the preparation and presentation of my revised job description.
Neither did they have my job description presented to Council for action
(See docs 1, 2, 3, 9,11,15 re my evaluation)
(See doc 23 re female evaluations)
(See docs grievances 25 and 26)

Preparation-and Presentation-Conclusion

As there is no logical explanation for the differences in the unassisted preparation and presentation of my job descriptions and the assisted preparation and presentation of senior female job descriptions I believe that these differences amount to unlawful discrimination and that Larne Borough Council has unlawfully discriminated against me.
(See doc 82 item 51 and doc 82 item 52)

Tribunal 080305 18

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NJ) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008

Job evaluation-Quantity, female

I L Hunter previously received a job evaluation when her responsibilities changed and she was given additional supervision duties for clerical officers.

2 L Hunters received a job evaluation as Committee/Media Officer on 19 September2005.
(See doc 32, 57 re L Hunters evaluations)

3 L Hunters received a job evaluation as Head of Department on 15 September 2005, 4 days before her previous post was reevaluated.
(See doc 66)
Job evaluation-Quantity, male

4 My post as Head of Department was re-valued under Formal
appeal to P06 in 24 May 2006 and backdated to January 2004.
(See doc 1 my application for evaluation and doc 24 when I was
asked for input to the evaluation of ESO)

5 This was my only evaluation since 1992 and I was clearly underpaid between 1992 and 2004 at POl when other Heads of Department were paid at P04.
(See doc 83 pages 5, 6 and 7)

Job evaluation-Quantity, comparison

6 Females in Head Office have received several automatic
evaluations, for example L Hunter has received three evaluations that I am aware of; at least one of which was made after limited changes to her responsibilities.
(See docs 21, 65 and 66)

7 On the other hand I, as a male working in the Council Depot, have received only one re-evaluation since 1992 (in 2006), after major changes were made to my job description in 2001.
(See doc 77)

Tribunal 080305 19

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008

Job evaluations- Quantity of evaluations

1 Quantity conclusion

As there is no logical explanation for the differences in the quantity of job evaluations awarded to senior females (3 or more in 14 years) in head office and me (1 in 15 years) as a male working in the Depot I believe that these differences amount to discrimination and that Larne Borough Council has unlawfully discriminated against me.

(See. docs 82 item 51 and doc 82 item 52)

Tribunal 080305 20

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Job evaluations-Score, Female

1 Senior female Head of Department supervised by T Clarke (Lorraine Hunter) was allocated the proper score for supervision in each of her job evaluations.

2 A mistake was made when the numbers of employees I supervise was considered by BCC. 41 instead of
(See doc 9 GD desktop evaluation, 41 employees in.BS).

3 A further mistake was made in my score for supervision which was altered from 88 to 94 to match the score allocated to J Coyle for the supervision of dispersed employees when this point was argued by me.
(See doc 28 page 2 informal appeal) (See doc 82 item 49)

4 Lorraine Hunter
^~~Senior female Heads of Department who~~ ^^isare supervised by T Clarke or another senior manager from Head Office ~~(L Hunter, H Gault, A Kyle, A McWilliams, A Thompson)~~ was ~~were~~
allocated the proper score for creativity in some cases or a higher score than
^she ~~they~~ shou1d have by comparison with my score despite having fewer major functions to be creative within.
(See docs 20, doc 82 item 46)

5 A mistake was made in my score for creativity which was then altered from 76 to match L Hunter ~~A Kyle, A McWilliams, H Gault, and A Thompson's score of 88.~~

6 Senior ^Lorraine Hunter female Heads of Department who ^is are supervised by T Clarke or another senior manager from Head Office (L Hunter)has have been allocated the same score for contacts as I received.

7 A mistake was made in my score for contacts until my score was raised from 92, equal to L Hunter's, to 110 points.

8 A Kyle's score remains higher than mine at 128 points. (See doc 82 item 47)

Tribunal 080305 21

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Job evaluations-Score

1 ^TheSenior female Heads of Department who ~~are~~ ^^issupervised by T Clarke or another senior manager from Head Office (L. Hunter, ~~H. Gault, A cWilliams~~) ^has ~~have~~ been allocated a higher score for resources than I have despite the fact that ~~they are~~ ^{she is} personally responsible for assets of much less valuable.
(See docs 70 and 88 page 3).

2 Lorraine Hunter
^~~Senior female Heads of Department have~~ has been allocated a score
of 20 for resources whereas I was allocated a score of 10.
(See doc 83 page 3

3 Lorraine Hunter
^ ~~Senior female Heads of Department~~ who ~~are~~ ^is supervised by T Clarke or another senior manager from Head Office (~~L. Hunter~~, ~~H. Gault, A Kyle~~)^^was ~~were~~ allocated a higher score for Knowledge & Skills than I received.

4 Lorraine Hunter
^~~These female Heads of Department have~~ ^^has been allocated a score of 208 despite the fact that _her expert knowledge spans only one or two major functions.

5 I have knowledge and skills across 8 major functions and was
also only allocated a score of 208.
(See docs 20, doc 82 item 45)

6 Whenever L Hunter was given the additional duties her title
changed to Head of Democratic and Administrative Services and
her score for knowledge and skill increased from 176 to 208.
(See doc 20)

7 Lorraine Hunter
^~~Females in Head Office (L H) have~~ ^hasbeen allocated a relatively
higher score for work context than I received.

8 A mistake was made in my score for work context until my score
was raised from 8 to 16 to match J Coyle's score.

(See doc 82 item 48, Additional information).

Tribunal 080305 22

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NT) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Job evaluations-Score, male
Job evaluation — Score , Male

^{In comparison with Lorraine Hunter}^ The Claimant has been allocated ~~the lowest~~ ^{a lower} score for resources despite being personally responsible not only for the security of
the Depot office block and yard, containing millions of pounds
worth of assets, but also for confidential financial records and
procurement documents often amounting to hundreds of
thousands of pounds.
(See doc 17, 39, 40, 72 evaluation, and docs 25 and 26 —
grievances).

Belfast City Council informed me they would not allow any
points for the security element of this work as Security should be
employed by Larne Borough Council to carry out this function.
(No security is employed by Council at the Depot).

Larne Borough Council has made no financial additional
allowance for this service and has never employed security for
this function (whereas Head Office is secured by a tradesman
employed on overtime rates to secure those premises).
I have been deprived of 50-10 =40 points in Resources
(See doc 17- evaluation)

The claimant has been allocated a lower score for creativity then
he should have despite being responsible for eight major
functions. (See docs 17 evaluation)

Belfast City Council informed me than they would not allocate
any points for creativity as the number of major functions was
immaterial and that I should expand all my responsibilities under
one banner of Technical Services.

A In relation to paragraphs 4 and 5 above, I am making no*

In effect I could, according to their logic, be given endless
additional areas of responsibility (as I was in January 2001)
including recycling, project management and refuse disposal but
that no extra financial reward would be given as the additional
duties could also be included under the banner of Technical
Services.
I have been deprived of 100-88 = 12 points in Creativity
Total 40=12 52 *challenge to the scheme, but is my contention that in acting as they did, Belfast City Council were acting at the behest of Larne Borough Council.
Tribunal 080305 23

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Job evaluations-Score, male

The claimant has been al1ocated ~~a lower~~ ^^{the same} score for Knowledge & Skills ^ ^{as Lorraine Hunter} despite the fact that his expert knowledge spans eight major functions including those listed below, _{whereas hers covers two major functions only}. (See docs 17 evaluation and docs 25 and 26 grievances)

Refuse Collection; Refuse Disposal; Street Cleansing; Recycling; Project Management; Grounds Maintenance; Vehicle Maintenance; Building Maintenance plus the management of minor functions of Public Conveniences and Markets/Harbours.

By using Belfast City Council's logic, if my job title had become
Head of Waste Management and Street Cleansing and Waste
Disposal and Recycling and Project Management and Grounds
Maintenance and Vehicle Maintenance and Building
Maintenance and Technical Services, then I would have had. an
increase in salary as Lorraine Hunter had when her
responsibilities doubled..
See doc 17 evaluation
I have been deprived of 272-208 =64 points in
Knowledge/Skill Total 52+ 64=116

The total number of points which I have been deprived of is 116 which when added to the score awarded during my final appeal, 710, equals 826 points, with an associated grade of P08 according to the GLPC scheme.
Therefore my corrected grade should be P08

The valuation of a similar post to mine in a substantially smaller Council (Moyle) is P07 (See doc 29- job description).

Job evaluations-Score Comparison
As there is no logical explanation for the differences and mistakes, made and corrected in part, during the allocation of scores to ^^{Larraine Hunter and myself} ~~females and ma~~les I believe that these differences and mistakes amount to discrimination and that Larne Borough Council has unlawfully discriminated against me. (See para 4 above and docs 17, 82 item 5I and 82 item 52)

Tribunal 080305 24

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Job Evaluations-Appeals Female

~~Females in Head Office~~ (Joanne Coyle) ~~were~~ ^wasgiven an additional
opportunity to appeal against ~~their~~ _her Formal Appeal score.
(See doc 45 dated 8 June 2006

Job Evaluations-Appeals Male

During my formal appeal I was instructed by the panel members that the Formal Appeal would be the final stage in the job evaluation process and that there would be no further opportunity to have the final score changed.

There was no mention of anything like a management exercise which was introduced at a later stage for the benefit of a female based in Head Office.
(See doc 45 —Letter re management exercise).

Job Evaluations-Appeals Comparison.

4 As there is no logical explanation for the different ways in which the appeals process ^^was is applied to ~~females and males~~. ^^{Joanne Coyle and myself} .I believe that the senior management of Larne Borough Council has discriminated against me by treating females more favourably than me.

Tribunal 080305 25

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement George Drury —5 March 2008
Job Evaluations-Fullness Female

^^{Lorraine Hunter}~~Senior Female Heads of Department based in Head Office, or supervised by senior managers there~~, had ~~their~~ ^her complete job descriptions evaluated by the Belfast City Council panel _{whereas this was not the case with me.} (See doc 88 page 3- female scores)

2 The senior female heads of Department who received complete
evaluations included:-

Lorraine Hunter
Ainsley McWilliams
Helen Gault
Ann Thomson
/Audrey Kyle

^^{Lorraine Hunter}~~No female Head of Department~~ has ^^never raised an issue concerning incomplete evaluation of their job description.
-

^^{Lorraine Hunter has not raised}~~No female Head of Department has been forced to raise~~ a grievance or lodge a claim with the Office of the Industrial
Tribunals against Larne Borough Council for unfair treatment in
connection with the fullness of their job evaluations.

Tribunal 080305 26

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury -7 January 2008
Job evaluation-Fullness Male

1 The Head of Technical Services had several elements of his work financially unrewarded by both Belfast City Council and Larne Borough Council. These elements include

• on-call allowances

• additional major functions

• Additional knowledge and skill.
(See doc 17 job evaluation)

2 The normal procedure in job evaluations is for the Consultant to score each element of the post according to the GLPC scheme and then for the Council to add any allowances for other duties not covered by the Consultants or the Scheme.

3 For example Recycling Centre Senior Attendants recently had their new posts valued at just over £14,000 by Belfast City Council under the GLPC scheme. Larne Borough Council then added allowances for some other items of work not scored by BCC and added approximately £3,500 for this work ( a further 25% of the value set by BCC).

4 The true valuation of their posts is therefore approximately
£17,500.

5 Additional duties not scored by BCC on my evaluation were ignored by Council, leaving the job valuation incomplete and
undervalued.

6 A post similar to mine in the smallest Council in Northern Ireland is valued at P07 compared to me last evaluation of P06.
(See doc 29 - recent advert for Moyle).

My post should be valued at P08.
(See page 24 of this statement, paragraph 4)

Tribunal 080305 27

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Job evaluation-Fullness Male

On-call allowance
(See 40 item 14 my job description)

1 For years my mobile telephone number was advertised in the
telephone directories as the only outside hours contact number
for Technical Services. However as it was the only number
which was advertised outside hours for the whole Council I
received calls for all departments.
(See doc 47 -extract from Yellow Pages)
(See docs 46 email re on call, doc 82 item 41, doc 82 item 42 and
doc 82 item 43).

2 I also received calls from ratepayers who were unsure about the
services provided by Council including queries regarding street
lighting, sewerage, drainage and other functions provided by the
Department of the Environment. (see doc 47 yellow pages)

3 I have had no financial allowance made for being on-call 24
hours per day; 7 days per week and 52 weeks per year for 11
years between 1993 and 2004 (when the payments stopped in
Head Office). No female would have been expected to be on-call
for this continuous length of time. (See docs 46 and 47)

4 Other females in Head Office had been paid an allowance for
being on-call. It is my belief that a female would never have
been requested to on call for this length of time continuously.
(See 46 email detailing amount for being on call).

5 As a result of having been paid no allowance for this service I
have been deprived of a minimum payment of £36,608
See payments I am owed page 40 and 41

(See also page 26 paragraph 3- fullness of evaluations)

Tribunal 080305 28

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the wounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Additional Duties- Fullness Male

1 Major functions
(See doc 19 item 1job description)

2 In January 2001 I was given the additional duties to manage the major functions of Refuse Disposal and all Recycling issues and Project Management. (See doc 1 request for evaluation)

3 The 3 major functions allocated to me were not given any financial allowance in the job evaluation process whilst one additional major function given to Lorraine Hunter in Head Office resulted in an increase from P02 to P03.

4 The knowledge element of my post had been expanded by three major functions in 2001.

5 The panel however, under direction of Belfast City Council, argued that my title of Head of Technical Services was limitless and could include any number of additional areas of expertise without additional financial reward.

6 When benchmarked with other Councils this argument fails. For example in Belfast the Waste Managers are expert in one area of expertise only, either organisational, operational or monitoring, whereas in Larne I must be expert in all three areas.

7 In Newtownabbey the waste manager is not responsible for recycling issues other than the collection element.

8 In Ballymena the Waste Manager has responsibility for the procurement and organisational elements but not the collection of waste.

9 In Larne I am expert in both the Client side and the Contractor side of all waste matters including Refuse collection plus Refuse Disposal plus Recycling plus street Cleansing.

Tribunal 080305 29

If is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Job Evaluations-Fullness Male

1 Major functions

2 Up until 2000 I had responsibility for five major functions plus some minor functions all of which involved a heavy workload and additional hours to complete. Since 2001 three additional major functions, which in themselves could be described as the functions of a Technical Services Manager, were added to my already heavy workload.
(See doc 19 job description)

3 There was no training given to me in the production of a revised job description for my re-evaluation. My post had changed considerably since 1992 and I was instructed simply to add any additional duties to my existing job description.
(See doc 82 item 11-additional information)

4 Belfast City Council, Larne Borough Council and the Human Relations officers gave no instruction on the use of the evaluation scheme. This resulted in the production of an inferior, incomplete job description by me which did not reflect the additional duties and person specification required for the evolving posts.

5 I depended on my employer to act with openness and transparency in their guidance on the preparations for job evaluation. I received no honesty, openness or fairness.
(See page 7 paragraphs 5, 6 and 7; page 8 paragraphs 1, 2 and 3)

6 My Director who could have supported my argument at final appeal stage was excluded by T Clarke when he made the process adversarial
(See page 7 paragraph 6)

Tribunal 080305 30

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury 5 March 2008

Job Evaluations-Fullness Male
Knowledge and Skill

1 During evaluation it became obvious that the panel were dealing only with the words on the pages in front of them and as a consequence I was restricted in my arguments because of the way in which I had been instructed to prepare by job description for presentation.
(See page 8 paragraph 6 —users' manual)

2 Had proper instruction been given in the preparation of job descriptions as recommended by the Joint Council I would have prepared my revised job description entirely differently. _{In this regard see paragraph 3 below.}

Qualification-COTC

3 Larne Borough Council is obliged by law to have suitably qualified and responsible people in place to manage the recycling centres. This involved the acquisition of a Certificate of Technical Competence which 1 acquired after one year's instruction. This study time was recommendation by the Director of Environmental Services and at a cost to Council of approximately £2,500. At the request of the Director of Environment Services I undertook this training.

Belfast City Council made no allowance for this newly
acquired qualification and neither did Larne Borough Council.

Qualification-MCLOB
Belfast City Council also argued that my Professional
Qualification, (Member of Chartered Institute of Building,
MCIOB), acquired after joining Larne Borough Council, had
not been required to obtain my post of Technical Services
Manager in 1992 and they would therefore not make any
additional financial allowance for it when used in my current
post of Head of Department.

Tribunal 080305 31

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Job Evaluations-Fullness Male

1 Qualification-Teacher-IT Skills
~~As a direct result of the lack of clerical assistance in the Depot,~~ In addition to the ever increasing usage of computer systems in
the workplace, I undertook several part time courses in computers and computing to learn these skills over a period of 6 years.

2 The first basic course in Computers and Computing taken in
1998 eventually led to the achievement of a Teacher Trainer
Diploma in Information Technology in 2003.

3 Belfast City Council argued that my Teacher Trainer Diploma had not been required to obtain my job as Technical Services Manager in 1992 and would therefore not make any additional financial allowance for it. Larne Borough Council also made no financial allowance for this additional qualification which is

4 The qualifications which I bring to my new post of Head of Technical Services enable me to perform at the requisite level expected of a Head of Department and Head of Technical Services.

5 To re-advertise my current post, with its current responsibilities and at its appropriate salary scale would require a completely re-written person specification containing a degree or a Professional Qualification as a minimum essential requirement. See doc29

6 Had I known that the panel, under advisement from Belfast City Council, would ignore all my additional relevant qualifications, I would have prepared my revised job description entirely differently by including an updated person specification with the job description. I was unaware that I should do this because there was no training given in the proper preparation of a revised job description for evaluation.
(See doc 82 item 11-add info and pages 7&8 of this statement).

Tribunal 080305 32

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NT) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008

Job Evaluations-Fullness Male

1 Knowledge and Skills

I received no expert guidance from Larne Borough Council personnel officers who controlled the job evaluation process and gave second hand advice to me when I requested guidance
on the various stages of the scheme.

2 The advice given by Larne Borough Council personnel officers and project officers was often misleading and was obtained
second hand from Belfast City Council. It was obvious that the personnel officers were unfamiliar with the operation of the scheme and had in turn to refer to Belfast City Council for guidance and instruction whenever new questions were asked by me.
(See docs 4, 5, 8, 18).

3 Lorraine Hunter on the other hand had no need to seek advice as T Clarke, who had been advised by BCC, assisted her in the
preparation of her job descriptions and pushed her evaluations quickly through Council.

Job Evaluations

4 Fullness Conclusion

As there is logical explanation for the differences in the fullness of ~~the~~ ^my job evaluation ^^{compared to that of Lorraine Hunter} ~~of females in Head Office and males in the Depot~~ I believe that these differences amount to
discrimination and that Larne Borough Council has unlawfully discriminated against me.
See docs 82.51, 82.52

Tribunal 080305 33

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order

1976.

Page Deleted
[Diagram or picture not reproduced in HTML version - see original .rtf file to view diagram or picture]

Tribunal 080305 34

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been, treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.
Page deleted

[Diagram or picture not reproduced in HTML version - see original .rtf file to view diagram or picture]

Tribunal 080305 35

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Page deleted
[Diagram or picture not reproduced in HTML version - see original .rtf file to view diagram or picture]

Tribunal 080305 36

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.
Page deleted

[Diagram or picture not reproduced in HTML version - see original .rtf file to view diagram or picture]

F-,
Tribunal 080305 37

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Discrimination-Conclusion

1 For thirteen out of the fifteen years I have been employed by
Larne Borough Council I have never taken toil leave.

2 I stopped working longer hours when I became aware that the
senior management team were underpaying me and affecting
my pension which is payable on 18th August 2009 unless I
decide to work beyond the age of 65.

3 In 2006 I finally received evidence which I needed to bring a
ease of discrimination against my employers and began to work
towards receiving the proper payment for my post.

4 I admit to being naive in my attitude to my employment and for
allowing my motivation to blind me to the long term bias of my
employer towards senior females which I now recognise as
discrimination towards me.

5 I discovered that preferential treatment was being given to ^^{Lorraine Hunter and Joanna Coyle}~~senior female staff by~~ the Larne Borough Council and by the Deputy Chief Executive over a period of many years.

6 For years I was unaware that other employees were paid relatively more than I was for posts with less responsibility and which require less knowledge and skill. For example other female heads of department such as Financial Controller received a salary of P04 whilst I was paid at PO1 level between
1992 and 2004. Since 2004 a job evaluation has identified that
my post should be valued at P06 which is the highest level of
remuneration below director level within L B C.
(See doc 83 report from BCC)

7 I have concluded that my salary should be graded even higher than P06. Many mistakes have been made during the evaluation of my post. Had these not been disputed by me my salary would be struck at P05.~~the same as some other heads of department.~~ Too many simple mistakes were made in the presentation of my job description and in the evaluation of my job description by experts. (See doe 83 report by BCC)

8 I think it is not possible to make so many mistakes when
dealing with one person's evaluation over such a long period. Tribunal 080305 38

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (Nl) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Discrimination-Conclusion

1 I find it difficult to accept that these were genuine mistakes which were corrected only when highlighted by me or my Trade Union representative. There appears to be a glass ceiling set on my salary which I cannot break through.

2 An examination of the results tabulated in the BCC report indicates that Heads of Department are all paid at P05. Surely the impose of job evaluation is to reward the differences in posts and to make allowance for differentials such as knowledge and skill, resources and supervision in addition to all the duties not considered by the evaluating consultants.

3 My post was scored at P05 until I proved this score to be incorrect. I still think my job description is undervalued. Not all of the duties have been considered nor have allowances been made for them during my evaluation or afterwards by Council.

4 I was unaware that other employees were paid for elements of work which I had not been paid for. For example I discovered by accident that other employees were paid for being on call on occasional weekends whilst I was not paid whilst being permanently on call for 8 years. Permanently means 24 hours per day 7 days per week and 52 weeks per year.

5 As a dedicated employee and responsible Head of Department I was prepared to accept ^^{on call} without remuneration had this been commonplace throughout the organisation. However when the organisation is found to pay some employees for a certain task and deliberately fails to pay others; then this is unacceptable. The principle of openness and transparency should apply in any Government organisation.

6 When additional responsibilities were added to my remit I was expected to accept them without additional payment by the evaluation team. Belfast City Council used the unacceptable argument that my title of Head of Technical Services could be forever expanded without an increase in salary and Council subsequently failed to make.allowance for the additional work.

Tribunal 080305 39

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the wounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination.(NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008
Discrimination-Conclusion

~~For much of my employment I have been deprived of essential resources by Larne Borough Council's most senior managers.~~

Between 1992 and 2004 I was remunerated at P01 level until
my first job evaluation determined that my salary should have
been P06. This increase was made in spite of the fact that the
Consultants ignored additional duties in my job description
when' became Head of Technical Services.

Larne Borough Council made no allowance for the additional
items of work which Belfast City Council failed to include in
my job evaluation. The result of these failures is to strike a
salary for my post which is too low when compared with the
salary for the same post in a smaller Council and lower than it
should be.

~~The most senior employees in Council~~^^{Colin McGarry and Trevor Clarke}have been treating ^{Lorraine Hunter differently} ~~the senior female staff in their departments differently~~ to the manner in which they treat me.^ ^{Lorraine Hunter and Joanne Coyle} ~~Those female staff~~ have been given assistance in preparing job-descriptions and have had their posts scored higher than they should have in elements of
their job evaluations.

In addition senior female staff have been given the resources
required to fulfil their functions whereas I have been deprived of
essential resources thus requiring me to work for excessively
long hours over a period of many years without e proper remuneration

Tribunal 080305 40

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Para Witness statement — George Drury - 5 March 2008

Payments I am owed
Job evaluation

1 My post was evaluated at P01 between 1992 and
2004. (See doc 83 page 7 item 3.0)

2 My post was re-evaluated at P06 and backdated to nil
January 2004 although it should have been
backdated to 2001.
No claim is made for underpayment between 1992
and 2001 as I failed to mention this loss on IT 1.

3 Between January 2001, when substantial additional 37,500

duties were added to my post, and January 2004
when it was re-evaluated at P06 an additional
payment of 5 grades is due.

P01 to P06 for 3 years (2001/2004) = 5grades
*£2.5k *3 = 5*2.5*3.

4 The real value of my post is P08
(See page 23 paragraph 4)

5 Therefore between January 2001 and March 2008 an
additional payment of 2 grades is due.

6 P06 to P08 for 7 years and 2 months to the date of 35,835

the Tribunal = 2 grades *,2.5k per grade*7 ^1/6 years
=2*2.5*7^1/6
7 On-call allowance — 36,608
(See page 23 and doc 46 email re on call payment)
8 Hurt feelings due to the stress of dealing with this 7,500
claim, being undervalued for years and having to
prove my real worth rather than simply receiving it.

JOB EVALUATION TOTAL 117,443

Tribunal 080305 41

It is my belief that Larne Borough Council has been treating me differently than other, senior female, members of staff and that such treatment amounts to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976.

Page deleted

Tribunal 080305 42