A government employee who claimed he was underpaid while covering for a more senior colleague has lost his tribunal case, but the chairman said a private sector employer likely “would have paid”.
James Drinkwater, a construction worker with the DoI, was substituting for another employee for an extended period in 2023 and 2024.
He expected a 20% uplift on his pay, but the Department applied a cap to prevent him earning more than the colleague he was covering for.
The Employment and Equality Tribunal heard that the 20% “plussage” had been used as an administrative convenience following the introduction of the 2016 Agreement, which replaced older terms.
Kirsten Porter, representing the department, argued that the 2015 Agreement was “historic” and did not apply to Mr Drinkwater, who was employed in 2021.
The Tribunal found that Mr Drinkwater’s contractual entitlement was “to be paid the difference between his own pay and that of the person he is substituting for”.
It also strongly suggested that a private sector employer would have just paid him to settle the matter and said it is possible the costs of fighting the case had hit the public purse more than just paying it would have done.
John Wright added: “We want to say that i t was apparent to u s that i n Mr Drinkwater PSC had a loyal, hardworking and skilled employee.
“He has obtained qualifications and increased his pay. We wish him well. His preparation and presentation of his case was intelligent and well thought out.”