Unlawful Deduction in Wages and Discrimination

Undervalued

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

Being upset I can understand, but wanting to sue an employer that holds the cards against you is pure folly. Don't do it as you will lose. Will you need to rely on a reference from this company in the future? Can you afford to stump up that £1200? What if the case if protracted?

Looking into your dilemma, it would appear that something or someone in your work environment invoked that drop in commission. As stated above, regularly meeting KPI's targets could also be sign of underutility? Have you upset someone that might want you out?

Keep in mind that even if you win the tribunal cannot order the employer to give you a reference.

You might be able to negotiate a decent reference as part of a pre tribunal settlement but that depends you being prepared to take the risk of starting proceedings and having enough of a case that the employer is willing to consider a settlement.

As I say, take one to one advice and listen to it even if it is not what you want to hear.

fed_up_and_stressed

Guest 101 pay secrecy clause are now unenforceable when the discussion relates to equal pay. The law also now enables employees to bring a claim of victimisation if they have been disciplined, dismissed, or otherwise had action taken against them for discussing possible discrimination in their pay.

Equality Act 2010, part 5 chapter 3 section 77

user230

Undervalued- I am already looking into alternative jobs as I do not wish to continue working here for longer than I have to.
Just to clarify though, if they do dismiss me following me raising a grievance in which revolves around a protected right (unlawful deductions from wages) will this not count as automatic unfair dismissal?

Guest 101- I wouldn’t know; I haven’t seen my contract nor have I been issued anything in writing that prohibits us from discussing wages.
One of the reasons they gave me was the fact I didn’t bring on new clients but when I challenged this they started ‘umm’ing and ‘ahh’ing so I don’t think they can definitively say what the reason for the new structure is.

I don’t go around the office bullying and intimidating people verbally or physically so nobody would be able to accuse me of a similar offence. What I am accusing them of doing is making these allowances for him because he is an older male.

There are many reasons why people are paid differently, I agree. But if there is a standardised commission structure for all consultants then there must be a reason to remove and change individual structures? I was paid on a different structure so for them to change it without my agreement is considered an unlawful deduction of wages. They haven’t served me with a new contract nor have they sought my agreement so as far as I’m aware this is an infringement of my right. And I believe they are infringing on my right because of my gender and age.

Undervalued

user230 wrote: »

Undervalued- I am already looking into alternative jobs as I do not wish to continue working here for longer than I have to.
Just to clarify though, if they do dismiss me following me raising a grievance in which revolves around a protected right (unlawful deductions from wages) will this not count as automatic unfair dismissal?

Yes but only if you can prove that is why they dismissed you. Within the first two years you can be dismissed for no reason at all and they do not have to give a reason.

The days of automatic tribunal awards for technical breaches have gone. Yes, if you can prove unlawful sexual discrimination then you are likely to be awarded a worthwhile sum. However, the vast majority of tribunal awards are far less than people think. Don't be mislead by the odd headline grabbing case and assume that is the norm.

Undervalued

user230 wrote: »

To give an example of how I believe I am being discriminated against, there was another colleague (male) within my team(whom has now left) whom was underperforming and on performance reviews yet he was not subject to a commission structure change. Furthermore, a client was taken off me and given to him for reasons that were not made apparent to me.

This same colleague almost physically assaulted me and had it not been for a manager physically stopping him he would have punched me. The manager did make this clear in his statement however they found him to have not been threatening or intimidating so I believe they've been treating me unfairly for some time now.

Just by way of example let me put their likely spin on the above.....

You managed to upset a long standing and valued member of the team so much this normally placid chap nearly lost his temper.

Despite having no evidence (or any right to the "evidence") you made unfounded claims about his work performance which is in any case none of your business.

Because of that they couldn't risk leaving a valued client in your care so had to pass the responsibility to an already overworked colleague.....

See what I mean?

As I say, you may be 100% justified in all your grievances but this is an example of what you may be up against.

pmlindyloo

Undervalued wrote: »

Just by way of example let me put their likely spin on the above.....

You managed to upset a long standing and valued member of the team so much this normally placid chap nearly lost his temper.

Despite having no evidence (or any right to the "evidence") you made unfounded claims about his work performance which is in any case none of your business.

Because of that they couldn't risk leaving a valued client in your care so had to pass the responsibility to an already overworked colleague.....

See what I mean?

As I say, you may be 100% justified in all your grievances but this is an example of what you may be up against.

And this is why the OP needs advice on what to raise in her formal grievance and why the OP needs to wait and see what the employer says.

A lot of what the OP syas is irrelevant to her actual grievance which is basically that the employer has changed the structure of pay without, seemingly, good reason. Plus others, it seems, have not had their pay structure changed under the same circumstances as the OP.

The OP needs advice about what to put in the grievance, particularly as regards what is irrelevant and what is relevant.

One of the many problems with this kind of 'problem' is that all kinds of extra information 'comes out' which is not really part of the grievance.

user230

Undervalued- I agree, they can easily twist everything and I know this. I know that proving my case will not be easy to say the least. What would they consider as evidence though? If there is an email trail showing that physical aggression was intended but subsequent investigations found the opposite?

I know about his poor performance because hourly/weekly reports are sent to the entire team so we all can see what we’re doing (and also to implicitly encourage competition). I can see therefore that his hours were the lowest and instead of being encouraged to improve his own bookings there were allowances made for him (clients were given to him, he shared the commission structure with the team) and there are people in the company who can attest to the fact allowances were made for him that aren’t being made for me. His billings became my business when I was being grilled on why the team hours aren’t growing.

With regards to the valued client, the client was not happy with him and in fact requested for me by name otherwise they threatened to terminate the contract. Therefore I can see no reason as to why the client couldn’t be trusted with me nor can I see any reason why him and I should be treated any differently. I was outperforming him, I am more qualified than him and I had a better relationship with clients. The only difference between us is religion, age and gender. I don’t believe it’s entirely down to religion but I sincerely believe its because of my age and gender as this is a widespread issue amongst my female colleagues.

Pmlindyloo- Thank you, I agree wholeheartedly. I am struggling to identify what to address or include in my grievance. In an ideal scenario I am not looking for it to go to tribunal, I didn’t even want to pursue formal proceedings but I see no other option open to me.

user230

Also just to add; if I raise a grievance and I am dismissed wouldn't it be easy to argue that I was dismissed unfairly because I spoke up about a protected right? I mean, I've never had a disciplinary nor have I ever been the subject of formal poor performance reports. What reason could they possibly put forward for dismissing me if not for my grievance?

Ozzuk

user230 wrote: »

What reason could they possibly put forward for dismissing me if not for my grievance?

You weren't 'fitting in';
You weren't bringing in new clients
You weren't focused on succeeding in the company
You didn't work well with others
You had a bad attitude.

Not saying any of the above are true, but they could likely spin it that way.

Undervalued

Ozzuk wrote: »

You weren't 'fitting in';
You weren't bringing in new clients
You weren't focused on succeeding in the company
You didn't work well with others
You had a bad attitude.

Not saying any of the above are true, but they could likely spin it that way.

Exactly, and as I said before they don't have to give a reason at all. If you are determined to proceed with this get some professional advice before submitting any grievance.