Sexual discrimination/equal pay issue

Pete111

hedger wrote: »

another question on "Protective Award" in terms of proper consultation with the workforce....

does a company legally have to appoint a employee elected consultation rep if they make more than 20 people redundant?

no consultation rep was appointed in my wifes case. She now has in her possession the completed HR1 form relevant to her redundancy.
question on the HR1 "has a employee representative been appointed?" Company answer "Yes"

all throughout her (minuted) appeals she asked why wasnt a employee rep appointed to ensure a fair and transparent process and she was told "we dont need one"

Not doing so is a breach of redundancy process. Basically, if you have more than 20 redundancies within a 90 day period then staff reps should be elected. 30 days time limits between notiofication and termination (usually used for consultation) are also in force.

Add it the list Hedger, the company has (again) left an obvious gap here by the sounds of it.

P

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Pete111 wrote: »

Debatable (though lets not..) But agree that the company has managed to trip itself up at every given opportunity re process thus making the 'way forward' for hedger into a no brainer.....

Not debatable.

If before redundancy the company got wind of potential action they would of done everything possible to ensure Hedgers' wife was on the list.

They knew it was coming & this is the result.

You would of thought the company would of sought proper legal advice first though.

Silly !!!!!!s..

Funny that I still remember the chain of events, even after all this time...

hedger

Pete111 wrote: »

Not doing so is a breach of redundancy process. Basically, if you have more than 20 redundancies within a 90 day period then staff reps should be elected. 30 days time limits between notiofication and termination (usually used for consultation) are also in force.

Add it the list Hedger, the company has (again) left an obvious gap here by the sounds of it.

P

it was added in with the rest of the claims pete. how on earth could a HR manager tick a box that told blatant lies? must say its unbelievable cos this is not a small company we are talking about - about 500 employees

hedger

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Not debatable.

If before redundancy the company got wind of potential action they would of done everything possible to ensure Hedgers' wife was on the list.

They knew it was coming & this is the result.

You would of thought the company would of sought proper legal advice first though.

Silly !!!!!!s..

Funny that I still remember the chain of events, even after all this time...

if you recall the correct chain of events you will know that my wife was on the list as soon as it was decided there wud be redundancies, well before any inkling of action bein taken. this was as a direct result of querying her pay many months b4. after she appealed the decision a mish mash of lies and cover-up has taken place to cover their tracks. the tribunal will decide who is tellin the truth after listening to barristers and both sides versions

1984ReturnsForReal_2

hedger wrote: »

if you recall the correct chain of events

last year when she went for her annual review the director very foolishly set down the male advisors package details. after reading the letter my wife said it would be great if i earned this much however i dont - the male employee is earning £6500 a year more than my wife and alos receives £100 per month more car allowance! the director near died with embarrasment after realising his error in showing the other guys package. my wife followed this meeting up with an email to the director asking for equal pay but he said "it is up to each employee to negotiate their package when they start". since then she has been treated terribly (including bein forced to work in scotland for 3 days a week) and was afraid of pushing it further (despite me urging her to).

now there is the threat of redundancies

I remember the correct chain of events Hedger.

Why would anyone put a request in writing for equal pay unless they were going to use it against the company at a later date?

But that is old ground.

For every action there is a reaction.

Pete111

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

I remember the correct chain of events Hedger.

Why would anyone put a request in writing for equal pay unless they were going to use it against the company at a later date?

But that is old ground.

For every action there is a reaction.

Well they could do it to try to acheive equal pay I suppose.....but lets not get into all this again guys!

To my mind the inital argument over equal pay etc has probably been completetely submerged by the deluge of incompetance re process from the employer. Their HR manager is an embarrasment to the profession - it's not as if following a clear, set process is rocket science.

Pretty sure the book is going to be thrown at them re process/unreasonableness/deception but you can never be sure with tribunals.

Zazen999

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Why would anyone put a request in writing for equal pay unless they were going to use it against the company at a later date?

Because they want equal pay and it's the law???

hedger

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

I remember the correct chain of events Hedger.

Why would anyone put a request in writing for equal pay unless they were going to use it against the company at a later date?

But that is old ground.

For every action there is a reaction.

because they have more responsibility and are earning thousands of pounds less? it was only a polite query asking to be brought up in salary and it was held against her resulting in her dismissal - that "reaction" as you call it is not really allowed in todays world

hedger

tribunal set for ALL cases to be heard in May :T

woody01

Although the wife may have a case (but i still doubt more than a few quid judging by the evidence out down), the Tribunal will see that this has in fact been engineered to take this to arbitration long before the redundancies loomed.

Unfortunately, due to the construction of this, the tribunal will not see your wife in a very favourable manner.