Establishing the proper selection pool

Taylor v Commissioners of Inland Revenue IDS Brief 649, EAT

• Taylor was a valuation executive and whilst on maternity leave was graded
4 in an appraisal. This meant she was not suitable for promotion due to lack of
experience.

Before her return a scheme was introduced whereby valuation executives who
satisfied three criteria were promoted to senior valuer. Taylor met two of the
criteria but because she was not graded 2 in the most recent appraisal was not
promoted. The following year, after being graded 1, she sought retrospective
promotion but this was refused.

She complained of indirect sex discrimination, arguing that but for her
absence she would have gained the necessary experience and promotion earlier.
The tribunal dismissed her claim and held the three criteria were indivisible
and the relevant "pool" was all the valuation executives. Of those
promoted there was no disproportionate impact on women.

Taylor successfully appealed and the EAT held the pool was those who could
comply with the same two criteria as Taylor and in those circumstances the
impact was disproportionate and fewer women were promoted.

Does a car allowance constitute wages?

Johnson v Hampshire Probation Service Employment Lawyer 35, EAT

• Johnson was classified an essential car user as he used his car for
business. As such he received a lump sum allowance and a mileage rate
allowance. When he was reclassified as a casual user he received only the
mileage rate allowance.

He complained to the tribunal of an unlawful deduction of wages, arguing the
lump sum was an emolument rather than a payment in respect of expenses. His
complaint was unsuccessful.

Johnson appealed, also unsuccessfully. The EAT held that, even if the employee
might have profited from the payments, the allowances for the essential car
user were to compensate for expenses incurred in carrying out employment.

The same applied to the allowance provided to a casual user. There was no
difference between the payments made under either classification. Accordingly
the payments were not emoluments and there was no unlawful deduction.

Comments are closed.