Women's pay ruling goes to court

Two policewomen have gone to the Court of Appeal over payments given to their male colleagues, but not to them.

The women, both mothers who work for West Midlands Police, cannot claim the payments as the force gives them only to people who work 24/7 shifts.

The women say childcare means they cannot do this and say the payments are meant for people working in demanding environments, not just for night work.

The force argues it has the discretion to decide who gets the payments.

Denied payments

Robin Allen QC, representing Susan Blackburn and Victoria Manley, told three appeal judges the Special Priority Payments (SPP) were meant as a reward for working in specially demanding conditions or environments.

Under the original West Midlands Police scheme to introduce the payments, the women would have been included.

But, because more officers would be entitled to the payment than the Home Office enforced 30% limit, the force brought in the rule that only officers who work a 24/7 shift pattern would get the payments.

Mr Allen said that meant the women were denied the payments, even though they met all other conditions.

In 2006, an employment tribunal ruled the women were entitled to the payments after finding they were doing the same job as male colleagues, and that they could not do nightshifts because of their children.

But, an appeal tribunal later ruled that the chief constable's idea to reward those working nights could not be achieved if those who did not were paid the same amounts.

Mr Allen argued the money was given by the Home Office for a more general purpose than rewarding night workers.

Elizabeth Slade QC, for the police force, is arguing the appeal tribunal was correct to find the Chief Constable did have the discretion to decide the condition.