Selective pay rises & worker-staff on more than management?

Miss_Cheef

Sorry, I don't know how else to phrase it so that's why I said worker-staff. Obviously everyone works.
And I'm going to guess the answer is - so long as they pay the minimum of minimum wage then they can do whatever they want? But I will ask all the same just in case.

I am a manager of a department. I have recently gone back to work after being on long term sick leave.
I spoke with the team at some point on my return - have we heard anything about a pay rise? Reason being at this stage last year was when we last got one.
I was told by all of them - yes. It's coming in this next pay. One of my team said unlike the others, they hadn't been given an outright pay rise. Theirs had been subject to conditions (due to them turning up to work a little late constantly). 

When I was called to check in for an update on how I was getting on with my return, at the very end of the meeting, I said to HR - I believe there's a pay rise coming to our department. 
I probably should have phrased it different such as how is a pay rise looking, but it was done by then.

HR kicked off. Got mad that people are discussing money (I'm sure the workforce in most companies discuss pay amongst themselves at some point?.
Denied any pay rise at all initially. Then moved to say it's not across the board.
Well no - I'm not asking about other departments, I'm asking about our department.
Tried saying we didn't get a review until December last year so we're not due one until December this year (basically a way to palm me off for a few extra months) - I've checked my payslips, I was right - it was this time last year, not December.

Totally denied any rise. Just wasn't true.

This angered me a little as I would rather they were just honest - you're not getting one because you've been sick. 
The chances of the whole team lying to me (they went in to more specific detail too that was just way too believable) are very very unlikely. Having worked for this company a long time, the chances of them denying everything to palm me off I would say is high.

I put the case of the late starter person to them & that's when HR in a roundabout way went back on themselves & admitted a pay rise had been offered, but the person hadn't turned up on time so therefore got no rise - as an attempt to back up their earlier claim of no knowledge about any rise when clearly an offer of one had been made.

This person also told me they had basically been offered the chance to be on the exact same pay as me. The others in the department are on more than this person - so with their rise, they will be on more than me, the manager, with less responsibility than me.


I was actually only wanting to know the situation because I have an ongoing claim (not against the company) relating to my sick leave. If they had said this sick leave is the reason I am the only one not getting a rise, then I could put this to my solicitor who could maybe use it in a compensation claim (or maybe not).

I'm going to guess that while a poor situation, the company is doing nothing wrong as they're still paying me at least minimum wage. 

But you don't know unless you ask so here I am asking.

Grumpy_chap

Pay rises can be offered to all staff, no staff, or just some staff and there is no reason why salary is the same so long as the reason for differences are not linked to a protected characteristic.

There is no reason why staff cannot earn more than their line manager.  It is quite common for that to happen in professional industries / businesses.

Miss_Cheef said:

Sorry, I don't know how else to phrase it so that's why I said worker-staff. Obviously everyone works.
And I'm going to guess the answer is - so long as they pay the minimum of minimum wage then they can do whatever they want? But I will ask all the same just in case.

I am a manager of a department. I have recently gone back to work after being on long term sick leave.
I spoke with the team at some point on my return - have we heard anything about a pay rise? Reason being at this stage last year was when we last got one.
I was told by all of them - yes. It's coming in this next pay. One of my team said unlike the others, they hadn't been given an outright pay rise. Theirs had been subject to conditions (due to them turning up to work a little late constantly). 

When I was called to check in for an update on how I was getting on with my return, at the very end of the meeting, I said to HR - I believe there's a pay rise coming to our department. 
I probably should have phrased it different such as how is a pay rise looking, but it was done by then.

HR kicked off. Got mad that people are discussing money (I'm sure the workforce in most companies discuss pay amongst themselves at some point?.
Denied any pay rise at all initially. Then moved to say it's not across the board.
Well no - I'm not asking about other departments, I'm asking about our department.
Tried saying we didn't get a review until December last year so we're not due one until December this year (basically a way to palm me off for a few extra months) - I've checked my payslips, I was right - it was this time last year, not December.

Totally denied any rise. Just wasn't true.

This angered me a little as I would rather they were just honest - you're not getting one because you've been sick. 
The chances of the whole team lying to me (they went in to more specific detail too that was just way too believable) are very very unlikely. Having worked for this company a long time, the chances of them denying everything to palm me off I would say is high.

I put the case of the late starter person to them & that's when HR in a roundabout way went back on themselves & admitted a pay rise had been offered, but the person hadn't turned up on time so therefore got no rise - as an attempt to back up their earlier claim of no knowledge about any rise when clearly an offer of one had been made.

This person also told me they had basically been offered the chance to be on the exact same pay as me. The others in the department are on more than this person - so with their rise, they will be on more than me, the manager, with less responsibility than me.


I was actually only wanting to know the situation because I have an ongoing claim (not against the company) relating to my sick leave. If they had said this sick leave is the reason I am the only one not getting a rise, then I could put this to my solicitor who could maybe use it in a compensation claim (or maybe not).

I'm going to guess that while a poor situation, the company is doing nothing wrong as they're still paying me at least minimum wage. 

But you don't know unless you ask so here I am asking.

Savvy_Sue

Some companies do get very antsy about staff discussing remuneration among themselves, but unless it's been stated in a staff handbook or your terms and conditions, I'm not sure they can do a lot about it. 

ariarnia

with the 'long term sick' thing though. makes me wonder if that would/could be discrimination. long term illness can count as or be caused by something that counts as disability. another thing would be what the contract of employment or internal policies specifically says about pay rises. 

I'm thinking cases like this https://kingfisherps.co.uk/employer-victimised-employee-by-not-giving-a-pay-increase/ (Whilst there was no contractual right to a pay rise, prior to bringing the claim the employee had always received one.) and this https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/refusing-pay-rises-due-to-sickness-absence-record-unlikely-to-be-illegal/ (Any decision to refuse a pay rise would be discretionary and would not be applied to people with long-term illnesses or those with disabilities, the Trust said.) with both suggesting there's a line where it would or would not be unlawful depending on the specific details of the case and the policy. 

Marcon

Miss_Cheef said:

I was actually only wanting to know the situation because I have an ongoing claim (not against the company) relating to my sick leave. If they had said this sick leave is the reason I am the only one not getting a rise, then I could put this to my solicitor who could maybe use it in a compensation claim (or maybe not).

Your email is quite long and a bit unfocussed, so I wonder if your conversation with HR was in a similar vein? Did you tell them, clearly and succinctly, why you were asking? It sounds as if things might have ranged over somewhat wider territory and your actual concern perhaps got buried en route...?

Miss_Cheef

Marcon said:

Miss_Cheef said:

I was actually only wanting to know the situation because I have an ongoing claim (not against the company) relating to my sick leave. If they had said this sick leave is the reason I am the only one not getting a rise, then I could put this to my solicitor who could maybe use it in a compensation claim (or maybe not).

Your email is quite long and a bit unfocussed, so I wonder if your conversation with HR was in a similar vein? Did you tell them, clearly and succinctly, why you were asking? It sounds as if things might have ranged over somewhat wider territory and your actual concern perhaps got buried en route...?

Yeah sorry I struggled to put it in to words really.

I put it to them at the end of the conversation that is it because I have been off work for some time that I'm not getting one and the others are. To be fair, I didn't mention the solicitor.

They just denied any knowledge of a pay rise again. Maintained its a December thing even though my payslip last year showed otherwise, though I imagine that doesn't matter.

I'm not disabled. I just had a bad injury that prevented the duties being carried out.

If they said we want to see how you perform, whether you can do the job,  that'd be fine. I get that. If they said it's because I've been off then although I don't agree, I'd get that.

But the fact they outright denied when these guys in my dept are certainly not lying,  it just angered me a little. They expect us to be honest but then they're not honest themselves.

I'd have to go over my payslips over the years but if I remember correctly we've had 1 per year for the past quite a few years. Again, I'm going to guess this is also irrelevant so long as I meet minimum payment.

I wasn't aware its common for line managers to be paid less than those they're in charge of. Not sure why someone would then take that role on.

While it may be common, where I work it is not. It's never happened. The line manager has always been on a bit more than the staff they manage. Not a lot more. I remember one manager showed us his payslip and it was 50p on basic rate. Another manager was significantly more but it's always been more.

elsien

Do you always go via HR?
I’m wondering if initially this would have been better going through your line manager instead? 

HampshireH

Does your organisation have a policy on pay and renumeration? Are they adhering to that?

Exodi

You obviously know why HR would obfuscate about whether the lack of pay increase is due to your long term sickness. You're not going to get them to say "yes it is", much as you try. Even if the sickness was totally out of your control, I can see why the senior management team might be miffed by a worker strolling in from long term sickness, asking about their assumed payrise.

I wouldn't say subordinates being on more than their managers is common, but it does happen in some industries. As an example, I used to work for a company that serviced fuelling equipment on airports and MOD sites. The manager would book engineers appointments, resolve issues, ensure paperwork was filled out and submitted, jobs were billed, etc. As the engineers were specialised and certified, they were all on more than the manager they reported to.

It's not illegal to pay people different amounts (unless it can be proven the discrepancy is due to protected characteristics - e.g. men of the same experience/skills earn more than women in the same role). The question now is: what do you do about it?

Would you leave if they're not willing to give you an increase? Are they saying you will receive in an increase in December and would you be willing to wait? Could they replace you at your current pay or would they have to pay more? You need to understand whether you are in a strong position first. How have they managed to cope while you were on long term sickness - did they hire someone else in, or did the existing team absorb your work? If the latter, a pay increase could almost make sense.

Undervalued

ariarnia said:

with the 'long term sick' thing though. makes me wonder if that would/could be discrimination. long term illness can count as or be caused by something that counts as disability. another thing would be what the contract of employment or internal policies specifically says about pay rises. 

I'm thinking cases like this https://kingfisherps.co.uk/employer-victimised-employee-by-not-giving-a-pay-increase/ (Whilst there was no contractual right to a pay rise, prior to bringing the claim the employee had always received one.) and this https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/refusing-pay-rises-due-to-sickness-absence-record-unlikely-to-be-illegal/ (Any decision to refuse a pay rise would be discretionary and would not be applied to people with long-term illnesses or those with disabilities, the Trust said.) with both suggesting there's a line where it would or would not be unlawful depending on the specific details of the case and the policy. 

It can do but even then it would not automatically make it unlawful discrimination. It is complicated as the case you mention illustrates.

ariarnia

Undervalued said:

ariarnia said:

with the 'long term sick' thing though. makes me wonder if that would/could be discrimination. long term illness can count as or be caused by something that counts as disability. another thing would be what the contract of employment or internal policies specifically says about pay rises. 

I'm thinking cases like this https://kingfisherps.co.uk/employer-victimised-employee-by-not-giving-a-pay-increase/ (Whilst there was no contractual right to a pay rise, prior to bringing the claim the employee had always received one.) and this https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/refusing-pay-rises-due-to-sickness-absence-record-unlikely-to-be-illegal/ (Any decision to refuse a pay rise would be discretionary and would not be applied to people with long-term illnesses or those with disabilities, the Trust said.) with both suggesting there's a line where it would or would not be unlawful depending on the specific details of the case and the policy. 

It can do but even then it would not automatically make it unlawful discrimination. It is complicated as the case you mention illustrates.

which is why i was mentioning it. it seemed it was being dismissed out of hand. 

op might also want to consider that an injury can be a disability. the key quote would be if the injury causes a long term negative impact. long term meaning longer that 12 months and the negative impact including both the time unable to work plus any time on phased return or with necessary changes to duties or workplace adjustments 

as you already ave a lawyer looking at a case for yo then it's worth mentioning. if your payslips demonstrate you/everyone have a pay rise every year then it can be an implied term (especially if there's no relevant workplace policy) 

https://www.peninsulagrouplimited.com/topic/pay-benefits/annual-pay-rises-go-wrong/