Get in touch 0117 325 0526

Case update (1): Disability discrimination – pay protection

disability-bad-back-250Summary: Is it a reasonable adjustment to protect a disabled employee’s pay?

Yes, in certain circumstances, says the EAT in G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd v Powell available here.

Facts:  The employee, Mr Powell, worked for G4S Cash Solutions as an engineer. After a back injury prevented him from doing heavy lifting he was moved to the lower graded role of ‘key runner’, delivering materials to engineers based in different locations. Initially he retained his existing salary. However, after about a year, he was told that the change wasn’t permanent and that his salary was going to be reduced by 10%. Mr Powell was not prepared to accept a lower salary and was ultimately dismissed.

Mr Powell brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. Mr Powell argued that his contract had been validly varied so that he was carrying out the key runner role on the engineer pay rate. He also claimed that G4S had failed to make reasonable adjustments by refusing to allow him to work permanently as a key runner at the salary rate of an engineer.

The Tribunal found that that there was no valid variation of contract but that G4S had failed in its duty in relation to make reasonable adjustments.

The EAT held that there had been a valid contractual variation of Mr Powell’s contract when he returned from sickness absence to a changed role and that Mr Powell had consented to the variation.   Also, G4S had failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments for Mr Powell. There was no reason in principle why an employer cannot be required to protect an employee’s pay as a reasonable adjustment and Mr Powell’s higher rate of pay should have continued indefinitely.  In particular the EAT noted that:

Implications: This decision is important for employers as it shows that it is possible for an employee’s pay to be permanently protected when they are redeployed and that employers should consider carefully their reasons for not protecting pay for disabled employees moving to new roles because of a disability. Cost may be a reason to argue that pay protection is not a reasonable adjustment, but Tribunals will look at this in the context of the employer’s resources and whether or not there would be wider cost or policy ramifications.

However, this decision does not mean that such pay protection will be considered reasonable in every case.  The reasonableness of potential adjustments must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the factors set out in the Equality and Human Rights Commission Code (available here) including the costs of making the adjustment and the financial and other resources available to the employer. The EAT also made it clear that an adjustment may cease to be reasonable, for example, if the employer’s economic circumstances change.

Share this...

Newsletter sign up

Review Solicitiors