Sexual discrimination/equal pay issue

Pete111

Pretty sure that your wife is in line for redundancy - everything written by you points towards it barring the fact that keeping her on will be cheaper (oh the irony!)

As such, given your strength of feeling re her treatment, you need to figure out the approach that may get her the best pay off. The company are unlikely to offer more than they have to without good reason which is why raising the equal pay issue is an option for you if you are prepared to fight.

There has been loads (too much) of conjecture on the relative merits of your argument from a legal perspective. The bit people are ignoring is the fear factor. In my experience, if a company feels there is a risk of being had up for discrimination etc they are going to exaimine the possibility of making a payment via a compromise agreement to mitigate it. I have seen companies run a mile from a confrontation when IMHO they had a watertight case and I was advising them to hold the line. Is your wifes company one of these or prepared to take it all the way? Until you put your cards down you will not know what they will do. But, given your depth of feeling and that (most likely) she will be losing her job anyway you might as well play the game.

As before going to tribunal is risky, stressful and potentially expensive. I think therefore a deal via a CA this should be your real aim.

Right - thats it for me on this one. I have work to do!

P

hedger

Pete111 wrote: »

Pretty sure that your wife is in line for redundancy - everything written by you points towards it barring the fact that keeping her on will be cheaper (oh the irony!)

As such, given your strength of feeling re her treatment, you need to figure out the approach that may get her the best pay off. The company are unlikely to offer more than they have to without good reason which is why raising the equal pay issue is an option for you if you are prepared to fight.

There has been loads (too much) of conjecture on the relative merits of your argument from a legal perspective. The bit people are ignoring is the fear factor. In my experience, if a company feels there is a risk of being had up for discrimination etc they are going to exaimine the possibility of making a payment via a compromise agreement to mitigate it. I have seen companies run a mile from a confrontation when IMHO they had a watertight case and I was advising them to hold the line. Is your wifes company one of these or prepared to take it all the way? Until you put your cards down you will not know what they will do. But, given your depth of feeling and that (most likely) she will be losing her job anyway you might as well play the game.

As before going to tribunal is risky, stressful and potentially expensive. I think therefore a deal via a CA this should be your real aim.

Right - thats it for me on this one. I have work to do!

P

very sensible post (as usual) pete.

only a fool cud fail to see that she is being lined up for redundancy. all she wants is treated fairly and equally with her colleagues. we know (and its difficult to get that over to people on here) that she is not being treated fairly due to 1 guy moving the goalposts. we would be fools to roll over and let that happen. in ur words "we are playing the game" cos she has nothing to lose anyway.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

You have dealt your cards.

Good luck with the outcome.

As for recording the meeting just take a dictaphone & hide it in something.

Whatever the outcome dont expect a glowing reference.

hedger

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

You have dealt your cards.

Good luck with the outcome.

As for recording the meeting just take a dictaphone & hide it in something.

Whatever the outcome dont expect a glowing reference.

why not? there are plenty of senior people (including a director) who would happily give my wife a good reference

woody01

In my experience, if a company feels there is a risk of being had up for discrimination etc they are going to exaimine the possibility of making a payment via a compromise agreement to mitigate it

What experience might that be? 100% obviously nothing to do with employment law.

The only companies that get shakey at empty threats are the particularly stupid ones that do not employ lawyers to handle compromise agreements.

Sorry Pete111, but you are giving the OP false hope and incorrect information again.

Academic

and today's word from dictionary corner..........

arrogant: having or showing an exaggerated opinion of one's own importance, merit, ability, etc.; conceited.

bendix

Academic wrote: »

and today's word from dictionary corner..........

arrogant: having or showing an exaggerated opinion of one's own importance, merit, ability, etc.; conceited.

. . . says the guy who calls himself an academic.

Pete111

woody01 wrote: »

What experience might that be? 100% obviously nothing to do with employment law.

The only companies that get shakey at empty threats are the particularly stupid ones that do not employ lawyers to handle compromise agreements.

Sorry Pete111, but you are giving the OP false hope and incorrect information again.

Don't be sorry Woody.

You posts are ever more amusing for their increasingly childlike content. What are you going to post about me next? That my degrees are worthless? that my last performance related bonus was an illusion? Frankly it's all getting rather silly, but in response to your blatant troll I will endeavour to respond in a vaguely grown up fashion. (though yes, I should know better)

Experience. Hmmmmm let me think.....

Over a decade in HR mate - which is basically 100% relevant. I deal with employment law each and every day and over the years have thoroughly enjoyed the fun and games ever changing legislation creates. I've also helped several friends expand their redundancy packages quite significantly due to overly confident management types thinking they know best and employment law is just flim flam - ring any bells old chap?

We HR bods are probably one of the best sounding boards re these type of questions. Simply put, we know what makes companies worry in the real world (ie not the world according to over opinionated and faceless plonkers on internet forums) and how to identify, mitigate or play on risk factors - it's what we do.

As such it's interesting and in some ways rewarding for me to cross the fence to try and give my opinion to an individual in a dispute against a company whilst laying out the pros and cons of a given approach. I know I have been helpful to others on this board as they have followed my advice and got positive results and/or enhanced pay outs which they have then posted about.

What I don't do is claim I know everything (I don't) not that my opinion is fact (it isn't and FYI nor is yours despite you really really wanting it to be) or draw wide ranging and ridiculous conclusions of a posters abilities/qualifications/experience from a couple of posts that I disagree with.

Finally, A shortlist of some of the relevant 'Stupid' companies I have worked for prior to my current role who have made pay offs in similar situations to that posted by Hedger

Arriva.
BP.
Virgin.

All small insignificant firms with absolutely no access to lawyers I'm sure. In fact I imagine they have all gone bust by now due to their policy of not taking every single claim against them all the way to tribunal....




P
PS Damn! I wasn't posting on this thread again was I?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

hedger wrote: »

why not? there are plenty of senior people (including a director) who would happily give my wife a good reference

Very naive comment.

If this goes the way you are leading it they are not going to bend over backwards for your wife after they find out she has been copying work & personnel details.

hedger

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Very naive comment.

If this goes the way you are leading it they are not going to bend over backwards for your wife after they find out she has been copying work & personnel details.

eh? explain that one to me please?