The Queen's London parks are facing a £750,000 race discrimination 'test case' amid claims that black toilet cleaners were subjected to 'double-standard' pay and conditions at work.

A group of agency-employed

The Queen's London parks are facing a £750,000 race discrimination 'test case' amid claims that black toilet cleaners were subjected to 'double-standard' pay and conditions at work.

A group of agency-employed cleaners and toilet and playground attendants - who are mostly black African - say they are treated differently to the mainly white admin staff who work directly for park managers, The Royal Parks Ltd.

Until December last year, the 15 minimum wage workers were paid at least £4,000-a-year less than direct employees at parks including Hyde Park and Regent's Park, who were all on at least the higher London Living Wage, they claim.

But they say they still now work on much less favourable conditions - relating to overtime, holidays, sick pay and pensions - and are suing park manager, The Royal Parks Ltd, for indirect race discrimination.

Their claim, filed at Central London Employment Tribunal, includes about £500,000 in back pay to bring them in line with the bottom of the parks' pay scale for in-house workers, as well as damages for 'injury to feelings.'

But trade union United Voices of the World (UVW), which is backing their claim, says it is a landmark 'test case' which could set a precedent affecting up to 3.3 million outsourced workers across the UK.

A group of agency-employed cleaners and toilet and playground attendants - who are mostly black African - say they are treated differently to the mainly white admin staff who work directly for park managers, The Royal Parks Ltd (pictured: A protest demanding 'justice for Royal Park workers)

The Royal Parks Ltd - a charity formed in 2017 to manage 5,000 acres of London parkland owned by the Crown, including Hyde Park, Green Park, Richmond Park, Greenwich Park, St James's Park, Bushy Park, Regent's Park and Kensington Gardens - would not confirm whether it plans to defend the claim, which is being brought under the Equality Act 2010.

According to the workers' claim documents, the charity and its predecessors have 'always recognised the legitimacy' of the London Living Wage, currently £10.75-an-hour, and does not undercut it even at the bottom of its in-house pay scale.

However, in November 2014, its predecessor, the Royal Parks Agency, sought tenders to outsource some maintenance jobs, including roles for cleaners and toilet and playground attendants.

Facilities management company, Vinci Construction UK Ltd, was one of those who tendered, offering two options in its bid, one costed on the basis of the Living Wage and the other on the National Minimum Wage, currently no more than £8.72-an-hour.

'In November 2014, the Royal Parks Agency selected Vinci as its contractor and opted for the National Minimum Wage bid over the London Living Wage bid,' says the workers' barrister, Changez Khan.

'Around the same time, the Royal Parks Agency exercised similar control or influence over the other terms on which work was made available for park attendants.

Until December last year, the 15 minimum wage workers were paid at least £4,000-a-year less than direct employees at parks including Hyde Park and Regent's Park (pictured), who were all on at least the higher London Living Wage, they claim

'In particular, it determined what their entitlements would be in respect of overtime, on-call allowance, sick pay, annual leave, pension, redundancy pay and maternity pay.

'Park attendants receive the statutory minimum entitlements only. By contrast, at all material times, direct employees of the Royal Parks Agency or the Royal Parks Ltd's direct employees have received generous contractual entitlements far in excess of the statutory minimum.'

Mr Khan said that between 2014 and December 2019, the Royal Parks Agency and The Royal Parks Ltd had several times reviewed the rate of pay and other benefits offered to outsourced park attendants.

He continued: 'Whenever they were provided by Vinci with costings based on the London Living Wage, they maintained and reaffirmed the existing practice of opting for National Minimum Wage and statutory minimum entitlements for outsourced workers.'

Mr Khan said the discrepancy in pay and conditions resulted in strike action, culminating last December when Royal Parks Ltd decided to pay agency staff the London Living Wage.

'This change was applied retrospectively from 1st November 2019,' he said, but added: 'The disparity in relation to sick pay and other benefits - entitlements to annual leave, pension, overtime, on-call allowance, redundancy pay and maternity pay - remains in place.'

Fifteen agency workers - 14 of them black and from Ghana, Nigeria or Sierra Leone, plus one white Italian - are now spearheading a case against the park managers over what they say is indirect racial discrimination.

Eleven of the claimants are cleaners and toilet attendants in the parks, while four are playground attendants.

Up until December, Royal Parks Ltd had maintained a 'double standard' on the acceptable minimum rate of pay, taking a 'selective approach to upholding the London Living Wage,' said Mr Khan.

'At all material times, it has maintained a two-tier policy on entitlement to other contractual benefits...Its practice has been to afford different benefits to staff depending on whether they are direct employees or outsourced workers.'

Mr Khan claims the difference in pay until December last year and ongoing difference in other conditions have a 'disparate impact' on black and ethnic minority workers, as they are more likely to be outsourced agency workers.

'The Royal Parks Ltd claims to recognise the legitimacy of the London Living Wage for London-based workers,' he added.

'Logically, it cannot be a legitimate aim to distinguish between directly employed staff and sub-contractors, given that both are London-based.

'The two-tier approach to contractual benefits is also unjustified.'

The Royal Parks Ltd - a charity formed in 2017 to manage 5,000 acres of London parkland owned by the Crown, including Hyde Park, Green Park, Richmond Park (pictured), Greenwich Park, St James's Park, Bushy Park, Regent's Park and Kensington Gardens - would not confirm whether it plans to defend the claim, which is being brought under the Equality Act 2010

Richard O'Keefe, head of legal services at United Voices of the World, said: 'This is a test case.

'We are asking the courts to consider for the first time whether a double standard as to what is an appropriate minimum rate of pay, sick and maternity pay provision and pension contributions as between 90% white in-house staff and 90% black outsourced contract workers is justified by the purported efficiencies and cost savings that outsourcing is said to effect.

'That question will be fact sensitive, but if in principal this type of outsourcing arrangement requires justification to be Equality Act compliant, it will force employers to think more carefully before they operate a two-tier system which disadvantages migrant labour.'

The union claims that, before December last year, the agency workers were paid at least £4,000 less per year than in-house colleagues on the London Living Wage.

They are claiming for their pay to be backdated, damages for injury to feelings and the difference in pension contributions.

The union says that, with interest built up over the years, the workers are claiming about £750,000 in total.

The claim was filed at the tribunal last week. No date has been set for it to be heard.

The Royal Parks declined to confirm whether it plans to defence the claim, but a spokesman said: 'All staff employed directly by The Royal Parks are recruited through an open, transparent and fair process.

'Contract staff are employed directly by a number of companies, including Vinci.'