Challenging pay comparing against colleague

Southend1

AP007 wrote: »

You don't have to prove that you have to prove they get more cause they are male.

I think you actually only have to be doing "like work". It is for the employer to show that there is a genuine reason for any difference in pay, which is not based on the sex of an individual.


See below info from ACAS.....

Men and women doing equal work and work rated as of equal value are entitled to equal pay. Employers may wish to carry out a pay audit to ensure that men and women are getting equal pay according to the Equality Act 2010.
Employers must give men and women equal treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment contract if they are employed on:

• 'like work' - work that is the same or broadly similar
• work rated as equivalent under a job evaluation study (See: Recruitment and management)
• work found to be of equal value

A woman is employed on 'like work' with a man if her work is of the same or a broadly similar nature. It is for the employer to show that there is a genuine reason for any difference in pay, which is not based on the sex of an individual.

Southend1

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

in places I've worked they state that staff should not discuss wages.

No need to take their advice though IMO. I don't really get the taboo over discussing wages in this country.

AP007

Southend1 wrote: »

I think you actually only have to be doing "like work". It is for the employer to show that there is a genuine reason for any difference in pay, which is not based on the sex of an individual.


See below info from ACAS.....

Men and women doing equal work and work rated as of equal value are entitled to equal pay. Employers may wish to carry out a pay audit to ensure that men and women are getting equal pay according to the Equality Act 2010.


Employers must give men and women equal treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment contract if they are employed on:

• 'like work' - work that is the same or broadly similar
• work rated as equivalent under a job evaluation study (See: Recruitment and management)
• work found to be of equal value

A woman is employed on 'like work' with a man if her work is of the same or a broadly similar nature. It is for the employer to show that there is a genuine reason for any difference in pay, which is not based on the sex of an individual.

No its still if they are getting more BECUASE they are male.

They can say they have more experience or they have performed better or anything they like.

What about two females on different salaries? No rule for that at all.

zzzLazyDaisy

warez22 wrote: »

I will keep this brief, but I just wanted clarification that I am doing the right thing.

I am currently part time (32 hours a week) but were I to work full time I would earn £20000. My colleague earns £25000 for identical job description. He has worked for company for 6 years. The company I work for absorbed my previous employer, retaining the same Directors. I have worked for the current and historical company in total for 15 years..

The problem is that different legal provisions may apply, depending on how the former employer was 'absorbed' - for example TUPE applies to some take-overs and not others, which may affect the situation. So.......

1 when did this this take-over / merger happen?

2 was the old company actually absorbed into the new company, or did it retain a separate identity within the company structure? (By this I mean was company A bought out by company B, and your employment transferred to company B as your new employer; OR was company A purchased by company B and kept as a distinct entity - in other words your wage slip, P60 etc still states company A as your employer

3 Are you both employed on exactly the same contracts with exactly the same provisions (apart from the hours and the wages) .... which is NOT the same as saying that your job descriptions are the same.

If you can come back with answers to these questions it will help us to get a handle on the situation.

D

Southend1

AP007 wrote: »

No its still if they are getting more BECUASE they are male.

They can say they have more experience or they have performed better or anything they like.

What about two females on different salaries? No rule for that at all.

No it's if they are getting less and there is no genuine reason for the difference. OP states performance is better and can be evidenced to be so, therefore there are clearly good grounds to challenge the employer in this case.

I have to say I am becoming concerned about some of the "dodgy" advice you are giving posters on this board. I would urge all posters to be cautious and seek proper advice (e.g. from their union, ACAS, CAB, lawyer etc) before taking any action based on people's opinions on this board (including my own).

AP007

Southend1 wrote: »

No it's if they are getting less and there is no genuine reason for the difference. OP states performance is better and can be evidenced to be so, therefore there are clearly good grounds to challenge the employer in this case.

I have to say I am becoming concerned about some of the "dodgy" advice you are giving posters on this board. I would urge all posters to be cautious and seek proper advice (e.g. from their union, ACAS, CAB, lawyer etc) before taking any action based on people's opinions on this board (including my own).

I haven't given advice I have stated any company can pay what they like to whom they like for whatever reason as long as its NOT you are female and they are male.

You can go to the boss and say 'I do more'. 'I know more' blah blah blah and they say 'so'?

You are deluded if you think people get the same salary to the penny if there are no salary scales and probably in the private sector.

warez22

Wow, thanks for all the replies!

I worked for Company B for 12 years, Company B was totally absorbed by Company A and didn't retain the Company name. It became Company A.

My colleague and I have the same job titles, but I can't say for certain that we have the same contracts of employment. We had new contracts when we were taken over, but I have no access to the Contract that he is on.

Thank you.

Southend1

AP007 wrote: »

I haven't given advice I have stated any company can pay what they like to whom they like for whatever reason as long as its NOT you are female and they are male.

You can go to the boss and say 'I do more'. 'I know more' blah blah blah and they say 'so'?

You are deluded if you think people get the same salary to the penny if there are no salary scales and probably in the private sector.

I don't know why but often when we disagree in a thread it is because you seem to think that I think that everyone is or should be paid the same. I don't remember ever saying this, so please be aware it is not my belief. However I also do not believe that people should be discriminated against at work on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, religion etc etc.

Although as Daisy has pointed out, there may be some complications related to TUPE etc, OP seems to have a good case for raising a grievance over this. I don't think that it's right to advise everyone to put up and shut up at work over issues like this - we all have a right not to be treated detrimentally due to protected characteristics such as gender and a right to stand up for ourselves if we feel we have been discriminated against.

I'm not going to get into a long and drawn out argument with you on this so I won't be replying to any more of your comments on this thread.

DKLS

Southend1 wrote: »

Why shouldn't anyone discuss their wages with a colleague?
QUOTE]

Its been a sackable offence to discuss salaries at a number of places where I have worked. That was due to the vast difference in salaries, there was up to 30k difference for the same role.

Southend1

DKLS wrote: »

Southend1 wrote: »

Why shouldn't anyone discuss their wages with a colleague?
QUOTE]

Its been a sackable offence to discuss salaries at a number of places where I have worked. That was due to the vast difference in salaries, there was up to 30k difference for the same role.

Sounds like a great way to perpetuate illegal discrimination!