Reduced Benefits on Temporary promotion

Lucky77_2

Hi to all,

Can you guys offer your opinion for a case where an employee is offered a temporary promotion with a pay increase but the benefits pot also provided to the specific higher grade is not included?(by benefits pot I mean things like mobile, car allowance, health care etc.)

Isn't that against the equal pay policy?

Any help much appreciated

Annisele

If your employer has their own equal pay policy, then you need to check what that policy says.

However, if you're just talking about the general law, I think you're out of luck (but if I'm wrong somebody will be along shortly to say so).

Employers are perfectly allowed to discriminate, in pay and in other things, so long as they don't discriminate for an unlawful reason. So, if they decide that they're going to pay somebody with a particular qualification more than somebody without it, that's fine. If they decide that they're going to pay John £35k and Jack £30k when they do the same job, because John's better at negotiating his own pay package, that's fine too. If they decide they're going to pay John more because of race/sex/disability/insert protected characteristic of your choice, that's not fine.

SarEl

But this is a temporary promotion - so there is no discrimination because these benefits are reserved for those with permanant positions. The only way to access those benefits would be toseriously impress so that temporary becomes permanant.

scheming_gypsy

A temporary promotion sounds more like you're being seconded in to a different role so you're unlikely to get the benefits of doing it on a permanent basis.

Lucky77_2

Hm many thanks for the responses guys although I'm not referring to the basic salary which I understand could be different(within certain ranges) for different people based on experience etc but for basic benefits/tools which are consistent and the same for everyone on this grade. Wouldn't that mean they should apply the same to everyone performing at this level of the Hierarchy? Otherwise it should be discriminatory by definition.?

Emmzi

the question isn't whether it is discriminatory.

It is whether it is illegally discriminatory because it is due to a protected characteristic.

Perm vs temp is not a protected characteristic in law.

KiKi

Lucky77 wrote: »

Wouldn't that mean they should apply the same to everyone performing at this level of the Hierarchy? Otherwise it should be discriminatory by definition.?

Is it discriminatory? Yes. But discrimination itself isn't unlawful - unless it is a protected characteristic in law, such as your gender, disability, race.

The basis on which you are being discriminated against is that you are in a temporary role, maybe on secondment, or stepped up. That is not a protected characteristic, and therefore it's not unlawfully discriminatory.

They are not obliged to give you the same benefits, as others have explained.

HTH
KiKi