Sexual discrimination/equal pay issue

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Zazen999 wrote: »

To be fair to Hedger.

The Director mistakenly let it be known that the female was earning less than the male and then sacked her when she tried to find out why.

There is legislation in place that says people must not be paid less if they are doing the same job just because they are a female.

This was kicked off by the Director making a mistake; not by the employee making wrong noises at wrong times....and the mistake shows the company to have been 'breaking the law'.

If the employer had issues with the employee before that point, they had not communicated it to her prior to her being given the information that she was being paid a significantly lower salary.

I don't think that shouting the employee's husband down every time he states what happened is going to make him stop getting justice for his wife; and calling him names just shows those up who do so; for not being able to argue and state their case in a professional and calm manner.

1: She wasnt sacked

2: They mentioned her salary needed to be addressed

3: Equal pay arguement is null & void in this example & if you believe that to be the case you have either no experience or understanding of her role & or the legislation that Harriet Harmen is trying to change because it has so many holes in it it resembles Swiss Cheese.


Once again you & other readers assume because she is a woman it is Sexual Discrimation & she is entitled to equal pay.

Hedgers senario happens all the time, there is nothing new here. If you imagine his wife to be a man this example happens all the time.

Just because she is a woman you put her in a box. Well, unfortunately the box doesnt fit.

There is no evidence that Hedger has mentioned of sexual discrimination. Equal pay issue doesnt exist in this instance. Its poor redundancy process at best. They do of course have questions to answer & must answer them.

& if you read this thread properly Hedger is looking & has been looking to take action prior to this redundancy so she is better off out of it anyway.

If an IT rules in favour of equal pay it has been because of the companies lack of procedure not the merits of the case.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Pete111 wrote: »

Morning all. Wow - lots of excitable posts on this once more. It's like the good old days a few months back

Hedger defending his wifes position to the hilt, myself and others giving him words of encouragement with his case. Woody getting really personal once more and instantly denigrating anyone who has the audacity to oppose his 'facts' whilst being backed up in more measured tones by 1984 and Bendix.....gives me warm feeling inside.

P

Well there is nothing like a bit of realism is there?

Funnily enough this is turning out exactly as I expected & put in black & white on this thread for the last few months!!

Zazen999

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

1: She wasnt sacked

2: They mentioned her salary needed to be addressed

3: Equal pay arguement is null & void in this example & if you believe that to be the case you have either no experience or understanding of her role & or the legislation that Harriet Harmen is trying to change because it has so many holes in it it resembles Swiss Cheese.


Once again you & other readers assume because she is a woman it is Sexual Discrimation & she is entitled to equal pay.

Hedgers senario happens all the time, there is nothing new here. If you imagine his wife to be a man this example happens all the time.

Just because she is a woman you put her in a box. Well, unfortunately the box doesnt fit.

There is no evidence that Hedger has mentioned of sexual discrimination. Equal pay issue doesnt exist in this instance. Its poor redundancy process at best. They do of course have questions to answer & must answer them.

& if you read this thread properly Hedger is looking & has been looking to take action prior to this redundancy so she is better off out of it anyway.

If an IT rules in favour of equal pay it has been because of the companies lack of procedure not the merits of the case.

She was also the best adviser that had ever had. Apparently.

hedger

a lot of interest in our case! the way I see it is the company has serious questions to answer

1. equal pay query - why she was treated so poorly after a simple request
2. refusal of training - why she was refused this for "cost reasons" when males werent
3. redundancy process - more holes than sieve. this I am very confident on
4. appeals procedure or lack of - some very important queries /requests were made to justify their decision and the company couldnt or wouldnt answer
5. post employment victimisation by telling lies in a reference - no matter what anyone says this is illegal.

before woody (the guy who "abides by employment law" ) says "prove it" behind each of these we have a litany of information and recorded facts (i doubt the company have much). all I will say is that we are confident my wife, as she has done so far in the appeals, can stand up and explain the facts of the matter in a 100% truthful, detailed & coherent way. The company can state their position but imho they would need to lie to cover up some of the goings on.
It will be up to a tribunal who they believe.......

Pete111

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Well there is nothing like a bit of realism is there?

Funnily enough this is turning out exactly as I expected & put in black & white on this thread for the last few months!!

What do you reckon - will it go all the way? What's your end game prediction here 1984?

Am inclined to think the employer will make an offer on the eve of tribunal. I think it's clear they have some hefty gaps in their processes which (all other arguments re discrimination aside) may well catch them out if put in front of a panel.

Whether Hedgers wife would be in the mood to accept is another matter....

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Pete111 wrote: »

What do you reckon - will it go all the way? What's your end game prediction here 1984?

Am inclined to think the employer will make an offer on the eve of tribunal. I think it's clear they have some hefty gaps in their processes which (all other arguments re discrimination aside) may well catch them out if put in front of a panel.

Whether Hedgers wife would be in the mood to accept is another matter....

If they are sensible they will offer. After all the company is responsible for a big f/up with the director not following procedure.

I wouldnt expect it to be more than 5k-10k in recognition of the salary review they "missed because of the downturn in business" due to the "recession".

hedger

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

If they are sensible they will offer. After all the company is responsible for a big f/up with the director not following procedure.

I wouldnt expect it to be more than 5k-10k in recognition of the salary review they "missed because of the downturn in business" due to the "recession".

and theyll be told what to do with that. this is much more than them "missing a salary review". this is about being unfairly dismissed and then possibly (but hopefully not) being prevented from taking up new employment. the loss of earnings alone is potentially substantial

1984ReturnsForReal_2

hedger wrote: »

a lot of interest in our case! the way I see it is the company has serious questions to answer

1. equal pay query - why she was treated so poorly after a simple request
2. refusal of training - why she was refused this for "cost reasons" when males werent
3. redundancy process - more holes than sieve. this I am very confident on
4. appeals procedure or lack of - some very important queries /requests were made to justify their decision and the company couldnt or wouldnt answer
5. post employment victimisation by telling lies in a reference - no matter what anyone says this is illegal.

before woody (the guy who "abides by employment law" ) says "prove it" behind each of these we have a litany of information and recorded facts (i doubt the company have much). all I will say is that we are confident my wife, as she has done so far in the appeals, can stand up and explain the facts of the matter in a 100% truthful, detailed & coherent way. The company can state their position but imho they would need to lie to cover up some of the goings on.
It will be up to a tribunal who they believe.......

1) You seem to think your wife is entitled to more rights than a man simply because she is a woman.
2) You asked for the company to spend a great deal of money & drop available headcount in a recession & in an industry heavily effected by it.
3) Your probably right BUT we only hear your side of the story on it & to be honest she is better off out of the company & the comany is better off getting rid of her as you were already talking of legal action before she was in for redundancy.
4) Lets be honest, did she really want her job back? or was it just an appeal for the sake of the IT which you have already stated?
5) That depends on the capacity of the phone call & whether any lies were told & what information the new employer requested & what information the old employer volunteered without being asked & in what capacity he said it. Also it requires the new employer to get involved & in most cases they wont.

& by the way if your union guy really did say "this is the worst case" he is either telling porkies or isnt very experienced at all (I have been waiting to say that for ages!!).

1984ReturnsForReal_2

hedger wrote: »

and theyll be told what to do with that. this is much more than them "missing a salary review". this is about being unfairly dismissed and then possibly (but hopefully not) being prevented from taking up new employment. the loss of earnings alone is potentially substantial

Then Hedger, you are in for a game of Russian roulette.

Pete111

Hi Hedger

If I were you I would reserve any decision on whether or not to go ahead with your ET until you have seen if an offer is forthcoming and if so, what level it is at.

Keep your options open, ET's are almost never a sure thing.

P