Sexual discrimination/equal pay issue

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Hedger you have also stated that management stated her salary was to be addressed.

I take it this was to be done at an appropriate time, for instance a yearly appraisel.

hedger

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Hedger you have also stated that management stated her salary was to be addressed.

I take it this was to be done at an appropriate time, for instance a yearly appraisel.

when it came to light at her yearly appraisal (last year) the director, after being queried on it for a couple of weeks, fobbed her off with a c0ck n bull story about the parent company cudnt give a pay rise until next year (2009) because all the pay rises had been budgeted for. he wudnt put anything in writing and said he might be able to put the rise thru without them knowing by paying her more car allowance next year (we are not sure how he wuda kept that secret from them?). we know that he actually done nothing hoping it wud go away cos he obviously wuda had to admit he had shown another employees salary. he said angrily to just leave it. her direct manager then mentioned a while later that the director had said to him that "they had better" get my wifes salary improved. nothing ever happened tho and her 2009 appraisal due in May has never taken place

hedger

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

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.

we are arguing that the skills, qualifications (remember the male did NOT have the diploma when he was hired) and experience are broadly equivalent. market forces wud not have been an issue either in our opinion

honeyD

I think I read that Hedger's wife had offered to pay the fees herself after their first refusal because of costs?
Have read the thread and just wanted to say good luck to Hedger and his wife, whatever happens.

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

hedger wrote: »

when it came to light at her yearly appraisal (last year) the director, after being queried on it for a couple of weeks, fobbed her off with a c0ck n bull story about the parent company cudnt give a pay rise until next year (2009) because all the pay rises had been budgeted for. he wudnt put anything in writing and said he might be able to put the rise thru without them knowing by paying her more car allowance next year (we are not sure how he wuda kept that secret from them?). we know that he actually done nothing hoping it wud go away cos he obviously wuda had to admit he had shown another employees salary. he said angrily to just leave it. her direct manager then mentioned a while later that the director had said to him that "they had better" get my wifes salary improved. nothing ever happened tho and her 2009 appraisal due in May has never taken place

And what about previous years appraisals?

Its quite possible a budget didnt exist that year. However unless your wife asked every year saying no for a budget in one year is reasonable especially due to the way the economy went.

For all your moaning hedger you havent shown any evidence of sexual discrimination at all.

Yes your wife is paid less and yes she has been turned down for training but any business will justify this easily due to 1) Qualifications and 2) Time requirred for the training she wanted.

hedger

honeyD wrote: »

I think I read that Hedger's wife had offered to pay the fees herself after their first refusal because of costs?
Have read the thread and just wanted to say good luck to Hedger and his wife, whatever happens.

correct - they wudnt give her the time off either when she offered to pay herself

thnks for the good luck

1984ReturnsForReal_2

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

And what about previous years appraisals?

Its quite possible a budget didnt exist that year. However unless your wife asked every year saying no for a budget in one year is reasonable especially due to the way the economy went.

For all your moaning hedger you havent shown any evidence of sexual discrimination at all.

Yes your wife is paid less and yes she has been turned down for training but any business will justify this easily due to 1) Qualifications and 2) Time requirred for the training she wanted.

1) Market at the time of employing the other H&S person
2) Qualifications
3) Time off
4) Business needs in recession
5) Business financial needs as recession hits cashflow
6) Business restructing due to redundancy issues
7) Additional duties & pressure on staff due to after effects of cost cutting.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

hedger wrote: »

correct - they wudnt give her the time off either when she offered to pay herself

thnks for the good luck

Now if she offered to pay her own salary as well as her course fees, exam fees & tutition would be a whole different ball game.

hedger

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

And what about previous years appraisals?

Its quite possible a budget didnt exist that year. However unless your wife asked every year saying no for a budget in one year is reasonable especially due to the way the economy went.

For all your moaning hedger you havent shown any evidence of sexual discrimination at all.

Yes your wife is paid less and yes she has been turned down for training but any business will justify this easily due to 1) Qualifications and 2) Time requirred for the training she wanted.

er so ur case for the difference in pay is not having a qualification but directly preventing the person obtaining the qualification? despite paying for other male colleagues to do it previously and as recently as last mnth paying for a masters degree for another colleague to better themselves. Im no expert but to me that reason doesnt look too good when presented in front of a tribunal

hedger

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Now if she offered to pay her own salary as well as her course fees, exam fees & tutition would be a whole different ball game.

:rolleyes: