Sexual discrimination/equal pay issue

aj2703

I agree, bendix it was a stupid comment to make saying she should take her skills elsewhere. Why should she..?. If they both do the exact same job on a day to day basis then there should be no difference at all.

bendix

My point is simple. She was in the job first. This guy then joined, and he somehow managed to get paid £6000 extra. Why? Because the liked the look of his suit? Because he is a man?

Nonsense. He got it because he negotiate a better deal for himself.

Businesses are full of situations like this. Football teams have players doing the same job - some earning ten times what their teammates are earning. My firm is a legal partnership. Many of the female partners earn more than the male partners. Should the guys complain it's about sex?

No . . of course not.

hedger

bendix wrote: »

My point is simple. She was in the job first. This guy then joined, and he somehow managed to get paid £6000 extra. Why? Because the liked the look of his suit? Because he is a man?

Nonsense. He got it because he negotiate a better deal for himself.

Businesses are full of situations like this. Football teams have players doing the same job - some earning ten times what their teammates are earning. My firm is a legal partnership. Many of the female partners earn more than the male partners. Should the guys complain it's about sex?

No . . of course not.

i'll ask you for the 3rd time then.... how did the woman, in the successor case example I used, win her case when a guy came in after her, done the same job but got a load more money for doin it. going by your logic he simply negotiated a better deal - so why didnt the judge dismiss her case instead or awarding her the money she deserved?
and if ur logic is true how come there is equal pay legislation AT ALL if all an employer has to say is a man struck a better deal?

bendix

hedger wrote: »

i'll ask you for the 3rd time then.... how did the woman, in the successor case example I used, win her case when a guy came in after her, done the same job but got a load more money for doin it. going by your logic he simply negotiated a better deal - so why didnt the judge dismiss her case instead or awarding her the money she deserved?
and if ur logic is true how come there is equal pay legislation AT ALL if all an employer has to say is a man struck a better deal?

I don't know. We dont know. There could be all sorts of issues not recorded in the case. We'd have to read the trial transcripts, the evidential submissions, the judge's complete summing up.

If you're relying on this case as a precedent that you'll win, think again. English law is made of case law, all of this develops, changes and supercedes each other over years.

But, hey, good luck.

I personally don't think you have a case, based on my knowledge of the law, but one can never know what judge or arbitrator you will get on the day.

skintchick

Are there other people doingthis job in the company and are all teh women paid less than the men?

If not then this will be a hard one to make stick.

I agree it's rubbish, but my OH earns less than other people at his place doing the same job and it's because they joined at different times and are from different firms before mergers. Nothing to do with sex.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Just one question.

How did you get a copy of his job specification?

woody01

Pete111 wrote: »

Yep - that's how I got to be an HR director for a multinational. By giving shocking employee relations advice....

I say again. If what he writes is true then there is likely to be a case here and I would not like to be advising the other side as they have dropped the ball by letting slip the other guys salary just prior to a redundancy situation.

Equal pay legislation does exist and many cases have gone to tribunal on this here in the UK. These days they tend to be overshadowed by Sex discrimination cases that hit the headlines when City Girls take their banks to the cleaners....

Sorry.I also work for a large global company and you are definitely wrong.

There are so many different variables its unbelievable. No two employees have an IDENTICAL record so its near on impossible to enforce any existing legislation.

It doesnt matter if the OPs wife and the other fella are doing the same job. The fact he negotiated a higher salary, and also the probability that he is far more experienced, probably means he is entitled to more money.

Maybe that is why you 'used to work', and i 'currently' work

BlueIsTheColour

With regards to the work, it doesnt have to be identical work, it can be like work or work of a similar value, hence all the local authority cases now, where dinner ladies are using the legislation to compare themselves to refuse collectors for example. Its why most local authorities are currenty undergoing mass job evaluations working towards single status, and its why Acas have been involved in hundreds of thousands compromise agreements around the country....

Spirit_2

woody01 wrote: »

Sorry.I also work for a large global company and you are definitely wrong.

There are so many different variables its unbelievable. No two employees have an IDENTICAL record so its near on impossible to enforce any existing legislation.

It doesnt matter if the OPs wife and the other fella are doing the same job. The fact he negotiated a higher salary, and also the probability that he is far more experienced, probably means he is entitled to more money.

Maybe that is why you 'used to work', and i 'currently' work

Unequal pay can originate from many innocent beginnings, not related to gender. The jobs do not have to be identical in what they do, but of "equal value". It is possible to measure this using job evaluation schemes so that different jobs can be measured relative to each other.

However innocent the beginning, if the jobs can be established as being of 'equal value' then it is capable of being challenged for equal pay if some staff enjoy more pay or benefits than others doing equal work. Equality can be sex, race, religeon, sexual orientation.

There may be a case to answer here, it would be hard to demonstrate that being allocated to working on a project in Scotland was discriminatory, but the pay differential certainly warrants 'an objective justification'.

Good Luck

Spirit

hedger

the employment law solicitor confirmed yday that there is most definately a case to answer. she advises sending a grievance letter to HR immediately and an equal pay questionnaire. the fact that the director has kept this away from HR and refused to answer previous emails looks poor on their part.
solicitor reckons the company will no doubt state some "genuine material factor" which we are confident will be very weak - IF they cannot provide this then they are in trouble legally - of that there is no doubt.
more experienced = no (my wife is older)
more qualified = no. job requirements stated 3rd level qualification which he didnt have (my wife has). NEBOSH qualification required - he and my wife both have
more responsibilty - no. both employees were handed a list of their duties a couple of weeks ago, my wife has more responsibilities
lack of labour skills available at the time - no. not a specialist role, plenty of candidates available