Birmingham City Council v Abdulla & Others - Case Study Example

Birmingham Council v Abdulla & Others The case Birmingham Council v Abdulla & Others is an important recent case under the employment law, which is of great significance since it sets some precedence that might be exploited in the future, necessitating more cases which are similar to this one to be filed in the courts. Under this case, Abdulla and others, who are the plaintiffs, had brought 174 equal pay claims against the Birmingham City Council, which had to be determined by the Supreme Court (Old Square Chambers, 2012). Previously, the case had been dealt with by both the high court and the court of appeal, which had upheld the same ruling, prompting the defendant, in this case Birmingham City Council, to proceed and file the case with the Supreme Court. The actual case to be determined by the Supreme Court was not whether the plaintiffs should be paid the equal pay claims they were seeking from the Birmingham City Council; rather, it was purely a case of jurisdiction. In the case that was presented before the high court, former employees of Birmingham the City Council were demanding to be paid equal employment claims after realising that some of their ex-colleagues had been compensated for the same by the council (Old Square Chambers, 2012). However, while the claims that the former employees were raising could be genuine and valid, the legal issue that arises in the case is that by the time they realized that their ex-colleagues had been compensated for the equal pay claims, it was already too late since 6 months had expired. The law pertaining to this situation provides that a claimant has 6 months to present their employment claims to the Employment Tribunal from the date of the wrongdoing by the employer, after which such claims would not be admissible to the Tribunal (Honeyball, 2012, p. 47). However, the same law provides that the claimants have up to 6 years to present any claim to the civil courts, from the date of a wrongful act. Therefore, finding that their claim could not be admitted by the Employment Tribunal, the claimants presented the case before a civil court. In return, the Birmingham City Council filed a response to the court seeking to have the case struck out of the civil court, on the basis that such a case was better dealt with by the Employment Tribunal, as opposed to the civil court (Old Square Chambers, 2012). The high court upheld that the case could be heard by the civil court since its circumstances did not qualify the exceptional circumstances against which a case could be struck out of the civil court and be referred to the Employment Tribunal. The defendant in this case, the Birmingham City Council, filed an appeal regarding the high court decision, which was also rejected by the Court of Appeal, which held the same ruling that the Supreme Court had given. It is upon the rejection of the appeal by the Court of Appeal that Birmingham the City Council filed the case for determination by the Supreme Court, so that the Supreme Court could determine whether the case could be struck out of the civil court and referred back to the Employment Tribunal (Honeyball, 2012, p. 47). Facts of the Case The case Birmingham City Council v Abdulla & Others [2012] is a case falling under the employment law, specifically under the Equality Act 2010, which provides that both the male and female workers shall be compensated the same for the services they deliver to an employer, which requires similar efforts and for which similar qualifications are required (Barnard & Hepple, 2004, p. 22). According to this act, if a woman’s contact is based on no less favorable terms compared to those of men, and the woman does the same roles and she is in the same employment, terms of equality should be applied for both men and women (Hepple, 2011, p. 54). However previously, the employer in this case, the Birmingham City Council, had not compensated both women and men equally for their contracts for which they delivered their services to the council. After the Equality Act 2010 was passed, acknowledging that both men and women should be accorded equal terms of payment for similar services delivered to an employer, some of the former employees of the council placed claims for the compensation for equal terms, which they were granted. However, another group of 174 employees realised later that their ex-colleagues had placed claims for equal pay and that they had been compensated (Equality Act, 2010, p. 242). Nevertheless, the discovery was made more than 6 months later, which meant that such claims could not be filed with the Employment Tribunal since they could not be admitted, as the law provided that the claimants should file their claims with the tribunal, within a duration of 6 months from the date of the unlawful act that is alleged to have been perpetrated against the claimant. Therefore, the claimants took the claim to the Supreme Court where the law provided that such claims could be filed within a duration of 6 years (Cotter, 2008, p. 284). The Supreme Court rejected the Birmingham City Council’s argument that the case should be struck out of the civil court, since it was best handled by the Employment Tribunal. The council based their argument on section 2(3) of the Equal Pay Act, which provides that a claim can be struck out of the civil court if the case be conveniently disposed by the Employment Tribunal (Thornton, 2010, p. 27). The council then filed the case with a court of appeal, which sought to have the claim struck out of the civil court, which the Court of Appeal rejected. Both the high court and the Court of Appeal ruled that the interpretation of section 2(3) of the Equal Pay Act, in particular regarding the meaning of ‘more conveniently’, could not qualify to indicate that in the situation, the civil court could not hear the case (Hills, 2012, p. 44). The council then appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Judgment The Supreme Court on its side dismissed the appeal filed by the Birmingham City Council. In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the parliament had not repealed the provisions of law to extend the duration for which claims can be submitted to the Employment Tribunal from 6 months to a much higher duration (Hills, 2012, p. 25). The court held that this was possibly because there already existed an alternative avenue through which the claimants could file their claims, even after the 6 months have expired (Hills, 2012, p. 33). Additionally, in issuing its ruling, the Supreme Court interpreted the provisions of section 2(3) of the Equal Pay Act by stating that the provisions sought to ensure that a case was dealt with in the forum that it is best suited. Nevertheless, according to the Supreme Court, while it could be more convenient for the Employment Tribunal to hear an employment claim, it can only do so under circumstances where the tribunal has jurisdiction (Fredman, 2011, p. 151). Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the reason for not bringing the case before the Employment Tribunal is not relevant while determining the convenience of presenting a claim to the Employment Tribunal. Thus, according to the Supreme Court, the presentation of the case before the civil court was not an issue of convenience but rather an issue of jurisdiction since the presentation of the claim surrounded the filing of the claim with the civil court after it was apparent that the Employment Tribunal no longer had jurisdiction over the claim (Collins, 2010, p. 17). The Supreme Court held that despite the fact that the case could be disposed off conveniently by the Employment Tribunal, its referral back to the tribunal would be unnecessary since the case could be struck out by the tribunal on the basis of being out of time (Barnard & Hepple, 2004, p. 35). This cannot be seen to be convenient since the referral of the case back inconveniences its execution. The Supreme Court added that the law does not provide that a civil court can strike out a claim filed with it, because of the claimant’s behaviour (Honeyball, 2012, p. 47). The aspect of behavior, according to the Supreme Court, should only be looked into when determining the costs applicable to the case, rather than being applied as a basis for determining the convenience of the case before the civil court or the tribunal, since the reason for bringing the case to the civil court should not be regarded when considering whether the case should be struck out, as provided under section 2(3) of the Equal Pay Act (Holland & Burnett, 2008, p. 7). Analysis of the Decision People have always been busy with jobs and searching for other employment, especially in the circumstance that they have stopped working with their former employer (Sewell, 2013, p. 294). Additionally, people have many other issues to attend to, especially after they stop working, so that finding time to address certain issues might become problematic since they have to settle and start a new life that is different from their usual working life. Under such circumstances, it is possible that such people may fail to get a suitable opportunity to lodge a claim against their former employer for any wrongdoing within a period of 6 months, which is essentially the reason that an alternative channel for lodging such claims have been established by the law to ensure that such individuals can still have justice done, through presenting their claims in a civil court, within an extended duration of 6 years (Workplace law handbook, 2010, p. 19). This must have been the consideration made when such laws were established, providing for two different alternatives for lodging claims against employers, so that individuals can select the most convenient avenue for them to use. Therefore, the decision by the Supreme Court in this case was the most appropriate since it serves to secure justice for employees against the wrongdoing of their employers, even after the 6 months within which the Employment Tribunal can address the claims have expired, unless there is abuse of the process (Fredman, 2011, p. 152). Should the Supreme Court have ruled otherwise in this case, then, the need for the alternative option for the employees to pursue justice could have been undermined. Additionally, should the Supreme Court have ruled in favour of the Birmingham City Council, then, the convenience clause under section 2(3) of the Equal Pay Act could have been misapplied since the court could have applied the reason for filing the claim as the basis for ordering the case to be struck out of the civil court, while the principle of convenience, rather than reason for the case submission, should inform the decision to strike out the case. Therefore, the decision by the Supreme Court under this case was the most appropriate (Gennard & Judge, 2005, p. 123). Additionally, by upholding that ruling, the Supreme Court ensured that employers will be keen on treating all the genders equally in compensation for their services since such failures may come to hurt the businesses later (Hardy, 2011, p. 72). Nevertheless, such a decision has its negative implication since it may serve to open a flood gate of litigations through having former employees file claims against their employers in large numbers, which may even overwhelm the courts and prevent them from addressing the issues effectively (Cotter, 2008, p. 285). The decision could also see many businesses run to bankruptcy through paying equal pay claims that become extra costs to the businesses. Additionally, by upholding such a ruling, the Supreme Court also made the process of business transfer of ownership even more harder, considering that while buying any business, the prospective buyer of that business could require that the due diligence of the business, in relation to section 2(3) of the Equal Pay Act, be referred back to 6 years, to ensure that the new owner does not suffer the consequences of future claims under the law (Hardy, 2011, p. 77). Conclusion The case Birmingham City Council v Abdulla & Others [2012] is one of the most recent significant cases in the field of employment law that has been heard and determined by the Supreme Court, which charts a new precedence for the application of the Equality Act 2010. However, it may open a floodgate of litigations to the civil courts through many former employees filing claims against their former employers, which may diminish the effectiveness of the courts to handle cases while also threatening to render many businesses bankrupt. Nevertheless, it serves to uphold the principle of alternative course of justice for employees. It is also a fundamental case towards ensuring that the employers treat all their employees equally in relation to payment. References Barnard, C. & Hepple, B. (2004). The future of labour law: Liber amicorum Bob Hepple. Oxford [u.a.]: Hart. Collins, H. (2010). Employment law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cotter, A.-M. M. (2008). Just a number: An international legal analysis on age discrimination. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Pub. Equality Act 2010: Chapter 15. (2010). Norwich: TSO. Fredman, S. (2011). Discrimination law. Oxford [etc.]: Oxford University Press. Gennard, J. & Judge, G. (2005). Employee relations. London: Chartered institute of personnel and development. Hardy, S. T. (2011). Labour law in Great Britain. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International. Hepple, B. A. (2011). Equality: The new legal framework. Oxford: Hart Pub. Hills, G. (2012). The Equality Act for educational professionals: A simple guide to disability inclusion in schools. London: Routledge. Holland, J. A. & Burnett, S. (2008). Employment law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Honeyball, S. (2012). Honeyball & Bowers' textbook on employment law. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press. Old Square Chambers. (2012). [2012] UKSC 47 - Birmingham City Council v. Abdulla & Others [2012]. [Online] Available at: http://www.oldsquare.co.uk/ca/cases/1/?c=1200719 Sewell, H. (2013). The Equality Act 2010 in mental health: A guide to implementation and issues for practice. Thornton, M. (2010). Sex discrimination in uncertain times. Acton, A.C.T: ANU E Press. Workplace law handbook 2011: Employment law and human resources handbook. (2010). Cambridge: Workplace Law Group. Read More