Layer 1

PDA determined to 'take on' Boots at second premium pay tribunal

People The PDA is not afraid of "ruffling a few feathers", general secretary John Murphy (pictured) has claimed, ahead of the second employment tribunal next year over cuts to premium pay at Boots.

The Pharmacists' Defence Association (PDA) has reiterated its determination to "take on" Boots as a further 140 employees take the health and beauty giant to an employment tribunal next year.

The PDA was not concerned about "ruffling a few feathers" as it fights on behalf of Boots employees over reductions in their premium pay rates, it told C+D last week.

"We believe that our members have been treated unfairly and we are determined to see this through on their behalf," said PDA general secretary John Murphy.

"We believe that our members have been treated unfairly and we are determined to see this through on their behalf" John Murphy, PDA

More on the premium pay dispute

Boots employees face ‘some risk' in refusing       premium pay cuts

Boots denies pressuring employees into accepting       lower pay

Boots employees win battle over Sunday rate cuts

An employment tribunal ruled in April that Boots had acted unlawfully by cutting premium Sunday rates, as they were part of Boots employees' contractual payments and were not discretionary.

Since then, a further 140 employees have challenged the rates cut and will be facing Boots at a hearing in the new year, the PDA revealed last month.

The PDA expects Boots to argue that most of the claimants should be treated differently to those who were successful in April 2012 on the basis that they did not raise a grievance when the pay cuts were introduced originally.

But the PDA will argue that all claimants worked under sufferance, regardless of whether they originally raised a grievance.

Law firm Charles Russell said the employment tribunal would have to determine whether the claimants had been "working under protest" once the pay cuts had been implemented.

Charles Russell associate Ben Smith queried whether the employees had made it clear to Boots that they did not accept the change in terms, notwithstanding their decision to continue to work. "This does not have to be [by] way of a formal complaint or grievance. If the employees did not make this clear, there is a risk that the employees have impliedly agreed to the change by continuing to work under the terms," he told C+D.

A Boots spokesperson said the multiple "cannot comment on legal proceedings".

Do you think the Boots employees will win the tribunal?

Comment below or email us at [email protected] You can also find C+D on Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook


Mark McDaniel, Non healthcare professional

Bit Late in the day now. These 140 should have stood up and been counted first time around rather than hiding behind those who were brave enought to stand up and be counted. This could have been quashed at the first hurdle had all these 140 said no from the start.

Good Luck to you i say

Gerry Diamond, Primary care pharmacist

Hell hath no fury like

Mark McDaniel, Non healthcare professional

Gerry, aint heard from you in a while. I guess you are limbering up for collecting you award for head of Boots PR. LOL !!!

Did you ever get your promotion ??

Mark McDaniel, Non healthcare professional

Bit like waiting for the lottery numbers to be drawn and buying your winning ticket after the event.

Job of the week

Support Pharmacist
Queen Elizabeth Hospital and Heartl
up to £47,500 dependent on hours (30-40 hours flexible)