Sexual discrimination/equal pay issue

1984ReturnsForReal_2

hedger wrote: »

what about this latest revelation (to be included in the damning appeal letter). wife was turned down by the company for the NEBOSH diploma in feb 09 - the director said "no, the company cudnt afford it", even though other males were put through it shortly b4. the real reason was this was just after she queried her pay so she didnt push it any further as he was still fuming.
just found out 2day:
- her direct comparator male colleague completed an £800 training course a few weeks ago, paid for by the company.
- the male H&S manager has started a masters degree, paid for by the company.
Company Equal Opportunities Policy = “employees will be given training and encouragement to achieve equal opportunities and obtain the skills necessary to implement and comply with the requirements of this policy”.

Hedger.

I seriously suggest you dont bother using that as part of your complaint.

Have you not noticed what is going on in the economy?

Your going to hang yourselves with that one.

Pete111

Yeah....be careful not to actually include anything which may help your argument that a pattern of discrimination was occuring there Hedger. After all, you might actually worry the employer enough that they pay your wife off which will really annoy certain posters...

Seriously, have you guys ever seen a lawyers letter to an employer outlining an employee grievance/appeal? They can be quite um...detailed. I think they mostly work on the principal that if you throw enough !!!!!! some of it will stick (and yes some of it is always absolute bollox but there you go)

Interestingly, my employment lawyer tells me that Tribunals etc are currently being even hotter on companys following process / policy etc as they are trying to encourage firms to stick to due process as more redundancies etc crop up in the UK due to the state of the economy. Harsh on employers perhaps but true apparently

Finally, Linas raises a valid point re new areas of complaint Hedger - where are you getting the new info? Heresay is not ideal so be careful here.

Zazen999

I would suggest that if she was 'not the best' at her job, then they should have taken action citing competence as an issue; rather than going hell bent for leather to make her 'redundant' as soon as the Director made the initial error of showing her the incorrect paperwork. They should also have brought capability up at reviews, and given her some guidance on what standard they were expecting.

But yes, do make sure your sources are watertight; and hopefully the source won't get into trouble for this.

OP - the good thing about such negativity is that you are practicing your retorts here rather than having them come from the employer at a later date; it will hopefully strengthen your resolve prior to any confrontation.

bendix

Contrary opinions - based on intelligence, experience and common sense AND a knowledge of how case law is applied in reality as much as it is printed on the page - is not negativity. It is contrary opinion, no more. That you think it is negativity is strange. It is a difference of opinion, that's all.

You state your credentials based on being a former HR manager. I counter that with the fact I work for one of the largest law firms in the world, with a wealth of experience in Employment Law. Our firm could get the company out of this fix with a carefully worded letter - simple as that - if they wanted it. Another company might prefer to get rid of the nuisance factor with a small payout. I suspect this company - which seems relatively unsophisticated - will push on and end up having to pay something, even if they could avoid it.

In the end, though, the result is the same. The OP's wife wasnt liked by the firm (for whatever reason), wasn't valued and in the end getting rid of her for a small payout might be the best solution for everyone, and then they can all get on with their normal lives.

Caroline73_2

Whatever way - she's not going to a great reference is she?

Zazen999

bendix wrote: »

Contrary opinions - based on intelligence, experience and common sense AND a knowledge of how case law is applied in reality as much as it is printed on the page - is not negativity. It is contrary opinion, no more. That you think it is negativity is strange. It is a difference of opinion, that's all.

You state your credentials based on being a former HR manager. I counter that with the fact I work for one of the largest law firms in the world, with a wealth of experience in Employment Law. Our firm could get the company out of this fix with a carefully worded letter - simple as that - if they wanted it. Another company might prefer to get rid of the nuisance factor with a small payout. I suspect this company - which seems relatively unsophisticated - will push on and end up having to pay something, even if they could avoid it.

In the end, though, the result is the same. The OP's wife wasnt liked by the firm (for whatever reason), wasn't valued and in the end getting rid of her for a small payout might be the best solution for everyone, and then they can all get on with their normal lives.

Who are you talking to here?

aj2703

He's talking to Pete111 (i think).

hedger

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

Irrelevant.

Also confirm how they are getting this info. It seems your using office gossip as fact.

If the company didnt want to pay for your wife to do the NEBOSH thing that was their choice.

It may well be they knew fine she was !!!!! and on her way out.

irrelevant? :rotfl: so they pay for the training and development of males and refuse a female (after she queries her pay)? mmm sounds like sound equal opportunity policy...
the sources? not office gossip. the male colleagues who told her

hedger

Caroline73 wrote: »

Whatever way - she's not going to a great reference is she?

she already has 2 actually from senior people within the company

hedger

bendix wrote: »

Contrary opinions - based on intelligence, experience and common sense AND a knowledge of how case law is applied in reality as much as it is printed on the page - is not negativity. It is contrary opinion, no more. That you think it is negativity is strange. It is a difference of opinion, that's all.

You state your credentials based on being a former HR manager. I counter that with the fact I work for one of the largest law firms in the world, with a wealth of experience in Employment Law. Our firm could get the company out of this fix with a carefully worded letter - simple as that - if they wanted it. Another company might prefer to get rid of the nuisance factor with a small payout. I suspect this company - which seems relatively unsophisticated - will push on and end up having to pay something, even if they could avoid it.

In the end, though, the result is the same. The OP's wife wasnt liked by the firm (for whatever reason), wasn't valued and in the end getting rid of her for a small payout might be the best solution for everyone, and then they can all get on with their normal lives.

explain how "your company" could bypass the whole company appeal procedure and potential tribunal?
explain how she is a "nuisance"?