Sexual discrimination/equal pay issue

1984ReturnsForReal_2

ohreally wrote: »

You might be a little off the mark there. Around 12 months would be a fairer estimate and the candidate has up to 5 years to complete the units.

Costs tend to run from £4,700 + vat to £7,000+ vat
for all the 4 units.

Thanks.


I knew I was erring on the side of the OP.


Thats even worse then.


I was going to say £5k+ but you can do elearning etc which will come in alot lower..

1984ReturnsForReal_2

hedger wrote: »

hes doing the masters in scotland at uni paid for by the company. he asked to do it cos he wud have so much time on his hands - the company agreed to pay for it. the solicitor said it is def worth asking the question

Best of luck.

I bet your solicitor doesnt turn up to the tribuneral & if he does he shuts his gob about that one.

hedger

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Best of luck.

I bet your solicitor doesnt turn up to the tribuneral & if he does he shuts his gob about that one.

again wat a weird thing to say? (if u cud spell tribunal it may help :cool:)
IF the solicitor turns up it will be in the hope that he/she can prove wat happened was wrong. Im staggered at the assumed total belief that the company has acted totally correctly in this situation

1984ReturnsForReal_2

hedger wrote: »

again wat a weird thing to say? (if u cud spell tribunal it may help :cool:)
IF the solicitor turns up it will be in the hope that he/she can prove wat happened was wrong. Im staggered at the assumed total belief that the company has acted totally correctly in this situation

Who said they acted totally correct?
　
　
Your making yourself look silly.
　
　
I have just blown your latest statements of malpractice out of the water & you don't even know it because your not listening.
　
　
What I have said is exactly what they will say (if they contest) & you cant even argue with it.

You have written nothing that indicates sexual discrimination throughout 13 pages.

You have just also produced evidence that qualifications in general (for example a NEBOSH Diploma) carry a salary premium but I bet you cant even see that.

By the way, I know my spelling is poor thats why I will never be a proof reader. Unfortunately for you my maths is excellent & so are my business decisions.


Unfair pay......... Possibly but I doubt it. It would depend on the contract & salary review policy of the company.

Sexual Discrimination.... Not a hope in hell.

Unfair Redundancy... Very much doubt it. In any case she is best off out for her own sake & that of the company.

hedger

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Who said they acted totally correct?
　
　
Your making yourself look silly.
　
　
I have just blown your latest statements of malpractice out of the water & you don't even know it because your not listening.
　
　
What I have said is exactly what they will say (if they contest) & you cant even argue with it.

You have written nothing that indicates sexual discrimination throughout 13 pages.

You have just also produced evidence that qualifications in general (for example a NEBOSH Diploma) carry a salary premium but I bet you cant even see that.

By the way, I know my spelling is poor thats why I will never be a proof reader. Unfortunately for you my maths is excellent & so are my business decisions.


Unfair pay......... Possibly but I doubt it. It would depend on the contract & salary review policy of the company.

Sexual Discrimination.... Not a hope in hell.

Unfair Redundancy... Very much doubt it. In any case she is best off out for her own sake & that of the company.

so u do think there are answers to be given? thats all I've been saying all along!!
ps. the company has no contract or salary review policies or pay bands

again i wud ask you and others to read this link which seems very clear to me
http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/l1010001.htm

olly300

Caroline73 wrote: »

Hedger, based on the subjective information you have given points to the fact that they want your wife out.

If she was good at her job and on the lowest pay then I don't see why they want rid off her.

Logic goes out of the window when Humans are involved.

For example if you have a member of staff who can claim disability discrimination very easily, and you have the choice of making them redundant, or another able-bodied member of staff who is paid higher, you get rid of the disabled person.

This is because the disabled person would cost you more in:
1. Legal fees if they find a case against you.
2. Training and awareness on disability issues to avoid having a case against you in the first place.
3. Enforcing you to make reasonable adjustments


Likewise with women in male dominated industries, men in female dominated industries, black people in white dominated industries etc.

And yes I've worked for quite a few companies who simply use differences as an excuse to get rid of people who have the potential to cause them hassle as they lack the common sense to use this person's differences to their commercial advantage.

olly300

bendix wrote: »

Again, you miss the point. You're hung up on the female thing. Just because she is a woman, u can't assume she is being treated differently (maybe even unfairly) JUST because of her sex. There could be any number of reasons. Unless you can categorically prove beyond reasonable doubt that she is being treated differently SOLELY because of her sex - something very very difficult to prove, by the way - there is no way of proving sexual discrimination or unequal opportunities.

Simply being a woman is not evidence of being discriminated against.

You don't seem to be able to grasp that, and I'm struggling to see why. I think you need to let that part go and focus on the redundancy issue, but I fear you won't.

Employment cases are civil cases.

You just need to prove a higher probability.

This shows you have no idea of what you are talking about.

olly300

Caroline73 wrote: »

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

Not true.

References are normally part of any compromise agreement.

Also if you have a discrimination claim (it doesn't even have to go as far as tribunal putting in a grievance is enough) against a company and they give you a poor reference which prevents you getting a job, you can take them back to tribunal each time until they stop giving you a poor reference.

It's now very easy to obtain copies of references written about you, which is why you must never give anyone a poor reference as you can become personally liable for it.

Discrimination cases are complicated but they are not that hard to understand.

hedger

http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/index/employment/discrimination-at-work-1/bullying-in-the-workplace.htm

"Examples of bullying behaviour


Bullying includes abuse, physical or verbal violence, humiliation and undermining someones confidence. You are probably being bullied if, for example, you are:

• constantly picked on
• humiliated in front of colleagues
• regularly treated unfairly
• physically or verbally abused
• blamed for problems caused by others
• always given too much to do, so that you regularly fail in your work
• regularly threatened with the sack
• unfairly passed over for promotion or denied training opportunities"

1984ReturnsForReal_2

hedger wrote: »

• unfairly passed over for promotion or denied training opportunities"

Flogging a dead horse:


However, if there is evidence of sex discrimination in the pay system, the employer has to try to justify the difference. This involves showing that it:

• Corresponds to a “real need” of the business
• Is reasonably necessary and appropriate to that need
• Is proportionate to that need

The reason put forward for the difference in pay must be the actual reason (although it can be given in hindsight). In other words the employer does not have to have thought of it at the time, provided it really does explain the difference. The reason must also be “significant and relevant”.
Examples of genuine material factor defences that employers have used to defeat equal pay claims include:

• Market forces and skills shortages
• Red circling
• Geographical differences
• Different skills, qualifications and experience.



Your wife was most likely denied training because it was a massive cost in the recession to a company highly effected.