Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

BonusesCase lawPay & benefits

Case of the week: Unmonitored bonus incentive schemes a ‘sham’

by Personnel Today 3 Oct 2008
by Personnel Today 3 Oct 2008

Hartlepool Borough Council and others v Dolphin and others

FACTS The claimants were employed by Hartlepool Borough Council in a variety of roles, including minibus driver, school escort, kitchen staff, cleaners and leisure workers. The claimants’ roles did not attract any type of bonus, with the exception of the kitchen staff, who received a bonus as a result of previous litigation.

Between them, the claimants compared their roles with other roles at the council, namely trade supervisor, joiner, electrician, painter, driver, labourer, gardener, road sweeper and refuse driver.

As a result of negotiations with trade unions in the 1970s, these roles, which were primarily undertaken by men, attracted incentive bonuses. The claimants brought equal pay claims, arguing that they were performing work of equal value and/or work rated equivalent to their male comparators.

The council argued that the incentive bonus schemes were performance related and in place to improve productivity. It claimed the difference in treatment was due to a genuine material factor which was not the difference in sex.

DECISION The Employment Tribunal found that the council’s incentive bonus schemes were a sham. It held that the reason for the introduction of the schemes disappeared years ago, and they could no longer be held to constitute an incentive.

There was no proper monitoring of the schemes and any reviews of performance that did take place were only done in response to new systems or new technology. Performance was not measured on any basis that would improve the employees’ productivity, but instead was tailored to work already done. The reason for the schemes was “tainted by sex”, said the tribunal, and the claimants’ claims were upheld.

The council appealed, arguing that the tribunal should not have taken into account its absence of proper monitoring as to the continued effect of the schemes. The council claimed that if it thought the schemes were achieving their objectives, then that should be enough.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that the tribunal had been entitled to consider the absence of proper monitoring. The correct question to ask was: “Were the schemes intended to and do they in fact achieve productivity improvements?”

The tribunal needed to establish whether the schemes were genuine and achieved their purpose.

The EAT held that the reason for the schemes’ introduction in the 1970s could not be relied upon to provide a genuine reason for the continuation of the schemes in 2004, which was when these claims were first brought, and dismissed the appeal.

IMPLICATIONS This case emphasises the importance of monitoring and properly regulating any type of pay scheme, including pay rises and overtime pay as well as bonus schemes.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

It will not be enough to show that a scheme creating a difference in treatment was justified at the time of implementation – a scheme that does not start out as discriminatory could become so in the future.

Sandra Wallace, partner, DLA Piper




Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Play together, stay together
next post
Women, holograms and migrants to dominate in workplace of 2028

You may also like

Public sector workers gain pay rises of up...

22 May 2025

HSBC employees warned of office attendance link to...

22 May 2025

Deloitte scales back salary rises and promotions

22 May 2025

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

Legislation could block bonuses at Thames Water

16 May 2025

Next to improve wage-setting transparency after shareholder pressure

16 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Ofgem workers ballot for strike action

2 May 2025

‘Unacceptable to question integrity’ of Supreme Court judgment

2 May 2025

Trans ex-judge to appeal Supreme Court biological sex...

29 Apr 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+