Sexual discrimination/equal pay issue

bendix

hedger wrote: »

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

By using the law as it is written in statutes, and my applying the law as it sometimes manifests in practice.

It's not rocket science. It's done all the time. We regularly represent (successfully) companies who are being sued for a variety of issues, including employment matters.

Irrespective of all your carefully acquired documents and policies and procedures, it remains incredibly easy (from what you've written) for the company to defend a charge of unequal treatment. They can laugh off the incident of training for this guy as a commercial decision - some employees are worth investing in training, others aren't. Your wife does not have some kind of preordained right for training just because she wants it and just because someone else at her grade got it.

I can't help but think you're rather naive in these matters.

hedger

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

1) You have nothing to show the authorisations/refusals are anything to do with sex. Furthermore if your wife had already raised a grievance or been highlighted for a redundancy it would be foolish to do further taining.

As for that still gossip. Do you really think this gentleman knows the reason behind why your wifes was refused? No so his being authorised and him saying that is irrelvent. Different courses as well

Frankly you and your wife seem like a pair of pricks determined to be discriminated against,.

that must be the worst post i have ever read on here - leaving the "pricks" comment to one side "we seem determined to be discrimnated against"? thats like saying a black person deserves to be treated differently cos hes black and if he raises it he deserves all he gets. wat planet are you on?

aj2703

It seems to me that for a number of people inparticular this is more of a personal thing rather then a neutral one. The comments are now becoming a bit to personal.

"Face facts....she is sheite at her job and the compan y do not want to waste money on her."

"Frankly you and your wife seem like a pair of pricks determined to be discriminated against,."

Why are you guys lowering yourselves to comments like these.?. Yes everyone has an opinion, but for gods sake show some maturity and keep the comments clean.

Zazen999

As I said, the negativity can be used to formulate your arguments to the employer; you're certainly getting some practice in here.

[Bendix, this is what I mean by negativity, do you see now?]

Alot of people seem to have skipped the bit that kick started this whole affair; that the Director was in error showing the OP's wife someone else's pay scale. ERGO: this has nothing to do with the OP's wife's ability; and if there had been an issue, with her ability, attitude, attainment; then it should have been addressed either at review, or she would have been 'let go' citing ability....not some jumped up 'redundancy'.

hedger

aj2703 wrote: »

It seems to me that for a number of people inparticular this is more of a personal thing rather then a neutral one. The comments are now becoming a bit to personal.

"Face facts....she is sheite at her job and the compan y do not want to waste money on her."

"Frankly you and your wife seem like a pair of pricks determined to be discriminated against,."

Why are you guys lowering yourselves to comments like these.?. Yes everyone has an opinion, but for gods sake show some maturity and keep the comments clean.

well said aj - some are showing the same anger and discriminatory behaviour that the employer has. like ive said its no wonder these things are still happenin in the workplace :rolleyes:

hedger

Zazen999 wrote: »

As I said, the negativity can be used to formulate your arguments to the employer; you're certainly getting some practice in here.

[Bendix, this is what I mean by negativity, do you see now?]

Alot of people seem to have skipped the bit that kick started this whole affair; that the Director was in error showing the OP's wife someone else's pay scale. ERGO: this has nothing to do with the OP's wife's ability; and if there had been an issue, with her ability, attitude, attainment; then it should have been addressed either at review, or she would have been 'let go' citing ability....not some jumped up 'redundancy'.

100% correct - she has 3 x very good appraisals in her possession and the company has a selection assessment from her senior site manager (that originally was required but wasnt considered after the selection process was mysteriously changed) showing she was doing a fine job on a prestigious project ie. "the client specifically requested that she was appointed as the H&S Advisor". that particular senior manager and the director of that site (both not knowing about about her equal pay issue) are mystified that shes been let go and replaced immediately on that site by a male colleague (who in the words of the site director is "nowhere near as competent or thorough"). even they have said, all be it in private, that the "equal pay" director had it in for her and made sure the selection process was under his control.

bendix

hedger wrote: »

2. sure they can but if its seen to be unfair and preventing a woman from progressing then it doesnt look good. why have an equal opportunities policy then?
QUOTE]


You just don't get it do you? You keep using this fact that she's a woman. Why do you assume she didnt get the training because she's a woman - could it not be that they just don't want to train her, don't see the value, and don't think she has a long-term future?

It is nothing to do with her being a woman. It is all to do with her being a less-valued employee.

Get over it.

I personally suspect the company might make you a small compensation payment just to get rid of the nuisance factor. But is it really worth all this angst?

hedger

bendix wrote: »

hedger wrote: »

2. sure they can but if its seen to be unfair and preventing a woman from progressing then it doesnt look good. why have an equal opportunities policy then?
QUOTE]


You just don't get it do you? You keep using this fact that she's a woman. Why do you assume she didnt get the training because she's a woman - could it not be that they just don't want to train her, don't see the value, and don't think she has a long-term future?

It is nothing to do with her being a woman. It is all to do with her being a less-valued employee.

Get over it.

I personally suspect the company might make you a small compensation payment just to get rid of the nuisance factor. But is it really worth all this angst?

well if they did think that then it totally flies in the face of their company equal opportunities policy. i really hope they admit that in writing

bendix

Why is training one person over another a breach of equal opportunities? It is not implied in an equal opportunities policy that everyone is treated identically. If I have two employees (one black and one white) and I see more merit and career potential in the black guy and decide to invest in some training, is that discriminatory against the white guy? NO - it's a business decision I need to make based on the long-term sustainability of my business, and the employees' mutual progress within that business. If two people at the same level have different size offices, is that a breach of equal opportunities? Of course not, but the principle is the same.


I'm curious hedger. What is your endgame in all this? What is it that you actually want?

The job for your wife back? Compensation? Your day in court, boldly arguing your wife's case?

Either way, I suspect this is all going to end the same way . . .


I actually feel sorry for your wife. She obviously made a powerful enemy, not a smart thing to do in a small company, but what's done is done.

woody01

hedger wrote: »

1. she is as skilled as her male colleagues. appraisals/experience/responsibilities shud prove that
2. sure they can but if its seen to be unfair and preventing a woman from progressing then it doesnt look good. why have an equal opportunities policy then?
3. Pete talks the most sense on this issue. not because he agrees with a lot im saying but because he knows there are answers that the company need to provide and he hasnt resorted to wild judgements on me and my wife without knowing anything about us.
4. All evidence is factual and documented. the unequal pay, the training, the selection process, the lies etc.

if she was so "sheite" at her job why does her appraisals show something completely different?

1. You have already said she isn't. I also assume you know sweet FA about Nebosh and the different grades.
2. Its not unfair to prevent progression of someone if they are earmarked for the chop which your wife clearly is.
3. You assume Pete talsk the most sense because he is blowing sunshine up your !!!!! and telling you WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR, as opposed to the stark facts.
4. You have actually convinced yourself now you have a strong case. This is going to be an expensive lesson for you.

She is may not be sheite at her job. Just not as good as her colleagues.


This wouldn't even get to the tribunal stage. Its a classic case of someone getting the chop and thinking of every excuse to fight back.