Stefan Cross Solicitors has just won a major test case in Scotland - which will give a huge boost to equal pay claims from Admin & Clerical workers across the UK.
Edinburgh was the battleground on this occasion - the hearing ran for 10 days over June and August 2008, but the written judgment completely slated the council and its main witness, John Allan, an Employee Relations Manager.
The council’s case was that hundreds of equal pay claims from women (admin & clerical) employees should not be allowed to proceed because they are employed on different conditions of service to their male colleagues.
The Employment Tribunal’s decision gave the council’s argument short shrift, clears the way for existing cases to proceed and opens the door for many more claims from women workers in former APT&C or ‘white collar’ jobs – i.e. clerical workers, social care workers, classroom assistants catering managers and nursery nurses.
Key extracts from the tribunal’s written judgment are reproduced below, for easy reference – a copy of the full judgment is available on request:
Para 459: “Put simply, where the respondent (Edinburgh City Council) has issued a document to an employee which makes specific reference to the Red book, I do not comprehend how it can be said that the terms of the Red Book are not contractual;. In the context of communications between parties about a contract which they are entering or proposing to enter into, each is taken to mean what they say”.
Para 460: “Mr Allan gave evidence to the effect that the issuing of offer letters etc. Containing specific references to the Red Book terms and conditions was a ‘mistake. In my opinion, even if that is true, it cannot alter the legal and contractual effect of doing so, particularly where there has been no attempt by the respondent to rectify that ‘mistake. ”.
Para 539: “In relation to Mr. Allan, I have a degree of sympathy with him because he appeared ultimately to be attempting to defend the indefensible. I do not think that there was an issue of credibility as such but he was forced to adopt a number of relatively absurd positions by reference to the content of documentation put to him.....Ultimately, I felt that I could attach little weight to his evidence”.
Mark Irvine, spokesperson for Action 4 Equality said: “’Defending the indefensible’ sums up the council’s behaviour perfectly – they should be ashamed of the way they fought this case and how they’ve dealt with equal pay. The tribunal’s criticism of the council’s evidence is quite extraordinary, but absolutely entirely justified in the circumstances. The waste of public money is enormous.
The council really has no choice now but to face up to reality and accept that Admin & Clerical staff have just as valid equal pay claims as their manual worker colleagues. Equal pay is not an abstract issue about 'blue' or 'white collar' jobs - it's about levels of skill and responsibility wherever you work - and why there are such big pay differences between male and female jobs."
Saturday, 1 November 2008
Sunday, 26 October 2008
Greenwich - Classroom Assistants
Classroom assistants in Greenwich are the latest group to be arbitrarily excluded from settlement offers the local council is making - in respect of equal pay.
Why single out classroom assistants? Who knows, but other groups are probably affected as well.
Apparently, local management and the trade unions have done a deal which leaves classroom assistants out in the cold – see the post about Enfield Council dated 18 October 2008.
Employers often behave this way – it’s not unusual for them to make up the rules as they go along – and then get their chums in the trade unions to endorse some madcap scheme - that discriminates against one group or another.
If you’re being left out and told you don't have a case – the best thing to do is to take these statements with a huge pinch of salt - and then register your own equal pay claim with the Employment Tribunals.
Because that's what really worries the employers - taking a case to the Employment Tribunals means they're no longer in charge – they can’t make up the rules just to suit themselves - they have to account for what they do and how they behave.
In other words – they are no longer both judge and jury in their own cause.
So, don’t believe local managers or union reps that say you have no claim.
Instead, ask them how the offers to staff are actually calculated, how do they justify excluding some groups – on exactly what grounds - and which male comparators are being used for the purposes of making these offers?.
The employers won’t answer these questions, of course – since that would let the cat out of the bag.
Action 4 Equality’s advice is to challenge what they are doing – don’t take it lying down – you have nothing to lose and potentially lots to gain.
For an application form contact Action 4 Equality London on – 0845 300 3 800
Why single out classroom assistants? Who knows, but other groups are probably affected as well.
Apparently, local management and the trade unions have done a deal which leaves classroom assistants out in the cold – see the post about Enfield Council dated 18 October 2008.
Employers often behave this way – it’s not unusual for them to make up the rules as they go along – and then get their chums in the trade unions to endorse some madcap scheme - that discriminates against one group or another.
If you’re being left out and told you don't have a case – the best thing to do is to take these statements with a huge pinch of salt - and then register your own equal pay claim with the Employment Tribunals.
Because that's what really worries the employers - taking a case to the Employment Tribunals means they're no longer in charge – they can’t make up the rules just to suit themselves - they have to account for what they do and how they behave.
In other words – they are no longer both judge and jury in their own cause.
So, don’t believe local managers or union reps that say you have no claim.
Instead, ask them how the offers to staff are actually calculated, how do they justify excluding some groups – on exactly what grounds - and which male comparators are being used for the purposes of making these offers?.
The employers won’t answer these questions, of course – since that would let the cat out of the bag.
Action 4 Equality’s advice is to challenge what they are doing – don’t take it lying down – you have nothing to lose and potentially lots to gain.
For an application form contact Action 4 Equality London on – 0845 300 3 800
Saturday, 25 October 2008
The Unions and Equal Pay
According to our clients, stories are sweeping across London about the strange reluctance of the trade unions to get stuck and defend their female members' interests on equal pay.
The most recent reports involve the GMB and the London Borough of Enfield - but the same is true across the rest of the city.
The answer is that the trade unions are trying to face both ways at the same time - they negotiated the much higher (bonus related) pay of the male groups in the first place - but then kept their women members in the dark for years.
So, the trade unions are scared of getting sued by their own members - as happened in the case below against the GMB - reported on this blog site earlier in the year.
Sex Discrimination Bombshell for Unions
The big 3 public sector unions (GMB, Unison and Unite) are in a state of shock following a landmark decision yesterday in the Court of Appeal.
The case, known as Allen v GMB, was heard originally in the Employment Tribunals in Newcastle - and found that the GMB had discriminated against their own low-paid women members.
It was the first decision of its kind in the UK and has huge implications for GMB and the other trade unions.
The women workers complained that the GMB was guilty of sex discrimination when it acted on their behalf. The women - who sought equal pay with the men - alleged they were represented inadequately by the union.
The Employment Tribunal decided unanimously that their employer (Middlesborough Council) should have eradicated unequal pay years earlier.
The tribunal also found that the GMB then collaborated with the employer by manipulating members, who had back pay claims, into unwittingly sacrificing their rights - to the benefit of the employers.
In doing so, the tribunal agreed that the union had unjustifiably discriminated against their own low-paid women members.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) reversed the initial decision of the Employment Tribunal in 2007, but the Court of Appeal has now restored the original judgement.
The Court of Appeal has decided that the GMB misrepresented the 'deal' that was on offer from Middlesborough Council - and the case will now be referred back to the Employment Tribunal to consider compensation awards.
The GMB was refused permission by the Court of Appeal to appeal further to the House of Lords - the union is entitled to seek permission from the House of Lords directly, but this must be done by 30 September 2008 - and Stefan Cross will oppose any such application.
Thousands of similar cases are waiting in the wings.
The most recent reports involve the GMB and the London Borough of Enfield - but the same is true across the rest of the city.
The answer is that the trade unions are trying to face both ways at the same time - they negotiated the much higher (bonus related) pay of the male groups in the first place - but then kept their women members in the dark for years.
So, the trade unions are scared of getting sued by their own members - as happened in the case below against the GMB - reported on this blog site earlier in the year.
Read on.....
Sex Discrimination Bombshell for Unions
The big 3 public sector unions (GMB, Unison and Unite) are in a state of shock following a landmark decision yesterday in the Court of Appeal.
The case, known as Allen v GMB, was heard originally in the Employment Tribunals in Newcastle - and found that the GMB had discriminated against their own low-paid women members.
It was the first decision of its kind in the UK and has huge implications for GMB and the other trade unions.
The women workers complained that the GMB was guilty of sex discrimination when it acted on their behalf. The women - who sought equal pay with the men - alleged they were represented inadequately by the union.
The Employment Tribunal decided unanimously that their employer (Middlesborough Council) should have eradicated unequal pay years earlier.
The tribunal also found that the GMB then collaborated with the employer by manipulating members, who had back pay claims, into unwittingly sacrificing their rights - to the benefit of the employers.
In doing so, the tribunal agreed that the union had unjustifiably discriminated against their own low-paid women members.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) reversed the initial decision of the Employment Tribunal in 2007, but the Court of Appeal has now restored the original judgement.
The Court of Appeal has decided that the GMB misrepresented the 'deal' that was on offer from Middlesborough Council - and the case will now be referred back to the Employment Tribunal to consider compensation awards.
The GMB was refused permission by the Court of Appeal to appeal further to the House of Lords - the union is entitled to seek permission from the House of Lords directly, but this must be done by 30 September 2008 - and Stefan Cross will oppose any such application.
Thousands of similar cases are waiting in the wings.
Saturday, 18 October 2008
News from Enfield
Enfield Council has got its manual workers up in arms.
Apparently the council has gone back on a promise to make settlement offers to all manual grades – but now only supervisory staff will now benefit.
Not surprisingly, this has down very badly with the bulk of the cleaning and catering staff – as well as home carers and many others - who have perfectly good and equal pay claims.
According to local reports, the council is planning to bring in new terms and conditions – which means a change of contract for all existing staff.
But the council is also putting word about that people will be sacked if they don’t sign – and that the new contract will contain a clause that prevents anyone from pursuing an equal pay claim.
The truth is - this is all propaganda and nonsense.
First of all, no one will lose their job or be sacked over a change of contract – the existing contract may be terminated and replaced by a new one – but everyone will still be doing the same job they’re doing today – albeit under different terms and conditions.
So, don’t be bullied into doing what the council wants you to do – giving up your claim - on the basis of silly rumours.
Secondly, if the council is going to force through new terms and conditions – you’d be made not to bang in a claim for equal pay – because that way at least you’ll protect your right to 6 years back pay and compensation.
Leave things until after a change of contract has taken place – and you may not find that as easy.
The unions, as usual, are doing the employer’s dirty work – instead of standing up for their women members.
So, our advice to Enfield employees is clear – the best way to protect your interests is to register an equal pay claim with the employment tribunals – change of contract or no change of contract.
And the sooner you act the better!
Apparently the council has gone back on a promise to make settlement offers to all manual grades – but now only supervisory staff will now benefit.
Not surprisingly, this has down very badly with the bulk of the cleaning and catering staff – as well as home carers and many others - who have perfectly good and equal pay claims.
According to local reports, the council is planning to bring in new terms and conditions – which means a change of contract for all existing staff.
But the council is also putting word about that people will be sacked if they don’t sign – and that the new contract will contain a clause that prevents anyone from pursuing an equal pay claim.
The truth is - this is all propaganda and nonsense.
First of all, no one will lose their job or be sacked over a change of contract – the existing contract may be terminated and replaced by a new one – but everyone will still be doing the same job they’re doing today – albeit under different terms and conditions.
So, don’t be bullied into doing what the council wants you to do – giving up your claim - on the basis of silly rumours.
Secondly, if the council is going to force through new terms and conditions – you’d be made not to bang in a claim for equal pay – because that way at least you’ll protect your right to 6 years back pay and compensation.
Leave things until after a change of contract has taken place – and you may not find that as easy.
The unions, as usual, are doing the employer’s dirty work – instead of standing up for their women members.
So, our advice to Enfield employees is clear – the best way to protect your interests is to register an equal pay claim with the employment tribunals – change of contract or no change of contract.
And the sooner you act the better!
Thursday, 14 August 2008
Court of Appeal (3)
The recent decision from the Court of Appeal - see post dated 3 and 4 August - continues to arouse a great deal of interest.
We've had lots of enquiries from people seeking clarification about the part of the judgment that deals with 'blue' and 'white' collar claims.
Essentially, some employers - and many in London- - have been trying to argue that equal pay claims are only valid if they restrict themselves to jobs within the same bargaining group - e.g. manual worker to manual worker.
Now this would be great news for the employers - if it were true - because female dominated jobs such as classroom assistants or clerical workers - would be prevented from comparing their earnings to those of traditional male jobs that are much better paid - e.g. refuse workers, gardeners and gravediggers.
So, despite the fact that these female jobs require more skill and carry greater responsibility - the employers were trying to get away with the bogus argument that the difference in pay is not caused by blatant pay discrimination - but by pure happenstance and the historical differences between 'blue' and 'white' collar bargaining groups.
But the good news is that the Court of Appeal has given this nonsense short shrift - and deservedly so - which means that many female dominated jobs on 'white' collar or APT&C pay scales - have just as valid claims as their colleagues in manual worker jobs.
For years, classroom assistants and skilled clerical workers have been paid much less than refuse workers, gardeners and gravediggers - and that's the reason why people have a claim for 6 years back pay + interest.
Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross have said so from day one - it's been the employers and the trade unions who have been keeping 'white' collar or APT&C workers in the dark - and discouraged people from pursuing equal pay claims.
The Court of Appeal has made it clear that the employers and trade unions were wrong - so if you're in a 'white' collar or APT&C job, you may well have a substantial claim for back pay - we can tell you for sure with just one phone call.
Ring Action 4 Equality London on - 0845 300 3 800
We've had lots of enquiries from people seeking clarification about the part of the judgment that deals with 'blue' and 'white' collar claims.
Essentially, some employers - and many in London- - have been trying to argue that equal pay claims are only valid if they restrict themselves to jobs within the same bargaining group - e.g. manual worker to manual worker.
Now this would be great news for the employers - if it were true - because female dominated jobs such as classroom assistants or clerical workers - would be prevented from comparing their earnings to those of traditional male jobs that are much better paid - e.g. refuse workers, gardeners and gravediggers.
So, despite the fact that these female jobs require more skill and carry greater responsibility - the employers were trying to get away with the bogus argument that the difference in pay is not caused by blatant pay discrimination - but by pure happenstance and the historical differences between 'blue' and 'white' collar bargaining groups.
But the good news is that the Court of Appeal has given this nonsense short shrift - and deservedly so - which means that many female dominated jobs on 'white' collar or APT&C pay scales - have just as valid claims as their colleagues in manual worker jobs.
For years, classroom assistants and skilled clerical workers have been paid much less than refuse workers, gardeners and gravediggers - and that's the reason why people have a claim for 6 years back pay + interest.
Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross have said so from day one - it's been the employers and the trade unions who have been keeping 'white' collar or APT&C workers in the dark - and discouraged people from pursuing equal pay claims.
The Court of Appeal has made it clear that the employers and trade unions were wrong - so if you're in a 'white' collar or APT&C job, you may well have a substantial claim for back pay - we can tell you for sure with just one phone call.
Ring Action 4 Equality London on - 0845 300 3 800
Monday, 4 August 2008
Court of Appeal (2)
We've been getting lots of enquiries following the recent Court of Appeal decision - see post dated 2 August 2008 - from people asking for more information about 'protected earnings'.
Let's take a practical example to illustrate the significance of the court's judgment - and why so many Londoners now have a further claim.
In Council A, a refuse worker was being paid £9.00 and hour (including bonus) - prior to the introdcution of a new pay and grading system.
In that same council, a carer or a cook was being paid only £6.00 per hour - so she had an equal pay claim based on the difference between the two jobs - i.e. £3.00 per hour backdated for 6 years.
The introduction of a new pay and grading system means that the carer or cook's jobreceied a small increase in pay - let's assume to £7.00 per hour.
But what the council employers have done is to protect the pay of the refuse worker - at £9.00 per hour - so the male job is still being paid £2.00 per hour more than the female job - and for years into the future.
so, the significance of the Court of Appeal decision is that the carer and the cook (along with many other jobs) can now say:
"I want my job paid at the protected rate too!"
The new claim is for the difference in pay - in this particular case £2.00 an hour - for as long ast the pay gap continues.
A worked example would be: £2.00 (the pay gap) x 30 (hours worked per week) x 52 (weeks of the year) x 4 (the number of years that male jobs are protected) = £24,960 + interest. NB the length of the protection period varies from council to council.
Needless to say - the employers are not explaining this to the thousands of women workers who now have substantial new claims - nor are the trade unions because they're too busy planning more madcap strikes.
But Action 4 Equality London and Stefan Cross are prepared to act for you - and if you need help contact us on 0845 300 3 800 or drop Mark Irvine a note at: markirvine@compuserve.com
Let's take a practical example to illustrate the significance of the court's judgment - and why so many Londoners now have a further claim.
In Council A, a refuse worker was being paid £9.00 and hour (including bonus) - prior to the introdcution of a new pay and grading system.
In that same council, a carer or a cook was being paid only £6.00 per hour - so she had an equal pay claim based on the difference between the two jobs - i.e. £3.00 per hour backdated for 6 years.
The introduction of a new pay and grading system means that the carer or cook's jobreceied a small increase in pay - let's assume to £7.00 per hour.
But what the council employers have done is to protect the pay of the refuse worker - at £9.00 per hour - so the male job is still being paid £2.00 per hour more than the female job - and for years into the future.
so, the significance of the Court of Appeal decision is that the carer and the cook (along with many other jobs) can now say:
"I want my job paid at the protected rate too!"
The new claim is for the difference in pay - in this particular case £2.00 an hour - for as long ast the pay gap continues.
A worked example would be: £2.00 (the pay gap) x 30 (hours worked per week) x 52 (weeks of the year) x 4 (the number of years that male jobs are protected) = £24,960 + interest. NB the length of the protection period varies from council to council.
Needless to say - the employers are not explaining this to the thousands of women workers who now have substantial new claims - nor are the trade unions because they're too busy planning more madcap strikes.
But Action 4 Equality London and Stefan Cross are prepared to act for you - and if you need help contact us on 0845 300 3 800 or drop Mark Irvine a note at: markirvine@compuserve.com
Sunday, 3 August 2008
Women Win Landmark Equal Pay Case
The Court of Appeal delivered another landmark judgment last week - of huge significance to the thousands of outstanding equal pay claims currently before the UK Employment Tribunals.
In a lengthy and detailed judgment, the court decided firmly in favour of women claimants in two crucial areas.
Firstly, the court agreed that employers continue to discriminate against their women workers, if local pay protection is given to male bonus earners - but not their female colleagues.
What has happened in many councils is that - despite the introduction of new and supposedly fairer pay structures - the much higher pay of traditional male jobs has been protected - they continue to earn the same as before - so the big pay gap between male and female jobs continues for years into the future.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that such schemes are unlawful - because they continue the pay discrimination of the past - opening the door to more claims from thousands of of employees - even if they have already accepted and offer of settlement.
Secondly, the court agreed that different collective bargaining structures are not a barrier to female employees pursuing equal pay claims - by comparing pay and earnings across 'blue' and 'white' collar groups.
Again , the court's judgment is great news - because it means that female clerical workers or classroom assistants (to name but two examples) are able to compare their pay to that of traditionally much higher paid male refuse workers and gardeners.
The employers will now have to explain and defend these big differences in pay - they can't hide behind different pay bargaining arrangements as the reason for the pay gap (as opposed to blatant discrimination) - which many have been doing up until now.
So, the stance taken taken by Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross has been vindicated by the Court of Appeal - while the employers and trade unions have been left with egg all over their faces - again!
In a lengthy and detailed judgment, the court decided firmly in favour of women claimants in two crucial areas.
Firstly, the court agreed that employers continue to discriminate against their women workers, if local pay protection is given to male bonus earners - but not their female colleagues.
What has happened in many councils is that - despite the introduction of new and supposedly fairer pay structures - the much higher pay of traditional male jobs has been protected - they continue to earn the same as before - so the big pay gap between male and female jobs continues for years into the future.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that such schemes are unlawful - because they continue the pay discrimination of the past - opening the door to more claims from thousands of of employees - even if they have already accepted and offer of settlement.
Secondly, the court agreed that different collective bargaining structures are not a barrier to female employees pursuing equal pay claims - by comparing pay and earnings across 'blue' and 'white' collar groups.
Again , the court's judgment is great news - because it means that female clerical workers or classroom assistants (to name but two examples) are able to compare their pay to that of traditionally much higher paid male refuse workers and gardeners.
The employers will now have to explain and defend these big differences in pay - they can't hide behind different pay bargaining arrangements as the reason for the pay gap (as opposed to blatant discrimination) - which many have been doing up until now.
So, the stance taken taken by Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross has been vindicated by the Court of Appeal - while the employers and trade unions have been left with egg all over their faces - again!
Saturday, 26 July 2008
Allen v GMB Judgment
The fall out continues from the recent Court of Appeal judgment in the Allen v GMB case - see post dated 17 July 2008.
Action 4 Equality has been inundated with enquiries from around the country - from ordinary union members who have been badly advised about their equal pay claims.
Lots of low-paid workers have lost out - thousands of pounds in many cases - because they were encouraged (by their trade union) to accept poor offers of settlement from their council employer.
The effect of the Court of Appeal decision - - which was scathing in its criticism of the GMB - is that trade unions can now be held to account for this kind of behaviour and union members can seek financial compensation in the courts.
The decision is a body blow for the trade unions, but great news for ordinary union members.
The Court of Appeal has soundly punished the bad behaviour of the GMB in Middlesborough - which opens the door for other union members to bring similar claims.
If you need advice about your own situation, contact Action 4 Equality London on 0845 300 3 800 or e-mail Mark Irvine at: markirvine@compuserve.com
Action 4 Equality has been inundated with enquiries from around the country - from ordinary union members who have been badly advised about their equal pay claims.
Lots of low-paid workers have lost out - thousands of pounds in many cases - because they were encouraged (by their trade union) to accept poor offers of settlement from their council employer.
The effect of the Court of Appeal decision - - which was scathing in its criticism of the GMB - is that trade unions can now be held to account for this kind of behaviour and union members can seek financial compensation in the courts.
The decision is a body blow for the trade unions, but great news for ordinary union members.
The Court of Appeal has soundly punished the bad behaviour of the GMB in Middlesborough - which opens the door for other union members to bring similar claims.
If you need advice about your own situation, contact Action 4 Equality London on 0845 300 3 800 or e-mail Mark Irvine at: markirvine@compuserve.com
Friday, 25 July 2008
Labour and the unions
Union leaders are meeting the Prime Minister (Gordon Brown) today - to discuss a series of demands that the unions want to see included in the Labour Party's next election manifesto.
Union bosses feel they are in a very strong negotiating position because they are again acting as Labour's paymasters - providing 90% of the party's funding - now that individual donors have deserted the fold following the recent 'cash for honours' row and police investigation.
So, their shopping list is wide and varied - ranging from new picketing rights during an industrial dispute (bonkers) to the introduction of 'fair employment' rights in council contracts (good idea - but 10 years too late).
What's noticeable is the absence of any sensible measures to strengthen the existing equal pay legislation - which has been on the statute books for almost 40 years ever since the Equal Pay Act of 1970.
Why is this? Because although Labour and the trade unions claim to support equal pay - they have a terrible track record when it comes to delivering results.
The fact is that Labour run councils and Labour supporting trade unions have presided over pay systems - that for years have blatantly discriminated against many female jobs.
So, the unions are not anxious to draw attention to their part in this ignoble affair - because it would require them to face up to some home truths about how well the unions stand up for the rights of their women members.
Union bosses feel they are in a very strong negotiating position because they are again acting as Labour's paymasters - providing 90% of the party's funding - now that individual donors have deserted the fold following the recent 'cash for honours' row and police investigation.
So, their shopping list is wide and varied - ranging from new picketing rights during an industrial dispute (bonkers) to the introduction of 'fair employment' rights in council contracts (good idea - but 10 years too late).
What's noticeable is the absence of any sensible measures to strengthen the existing equal pay legislation - which has been on the statute books for almost 40 years ever since the Equal Pay Act of 1970.
Why is this? Because although Labour and the trade unions claim to support equal pay - they have a terrible track record when it comes to delivering results.
The fact is that Labour run councils and Labour supporting trade unions have presided over pay systems - that for years have blatantly discriminated against many female jobs.
So, the unions are not anxious to draw attention to their part in this ignoble affair - because it would require them to face up to some home truths about how well the unions stand up for the rights of their women members.
Thursday, 17 July 2008
Sex Discrimination Bombshell for Unions
The big 3 public sector unions (GMB, Unison and Unite) are in a state of shock following a landmark decision yesterday in the Court of Appeal.
The case, known as Allen v GMB, was heard originally in the Employment Tribunals in Newcastle - and found that the GMB had discriminated against their own low-paid women members.
It was the first decision of its kind in the UK - and has huge implications for the GMB and other trade unions.
The women workers complained that the GMB was guilty of sex discrimination when it acted on their behalf. The women - who sought equal pay with the men - alleged they were represented inadequately by the union.
The Employment Tribunal decided unanimously that their employer (Middlesborough Council) should have eradicated unequal pay years earlier.
The tribunal also found that the GMB then collaborated with the employer by manipulating members, who had back pay claims, into unwittingly sacrificing their rights - to the benefit of the employer.
In doing so, the tribunal agreed that the union had unjustifiably discriminated against their own low-paid women members.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) reversed the initial decision of the Employment Tribunal in 2007, but the Court of Appeal has now restored the original judgement.
The Court of Appeal has decided that the GMB misrepresented the 'deal' that was on offer from Middlesborough Council - and the case will now be referred back to the Employment Tribunal to consider compensation awards.
The GMB was refused permission by the Court of Appeal to appeal further to the House of Lords - the union is entitled to seek permission from the House of Lords directly, but this must be done by 30 September 2008 - and Stefan Cross will oppose any such application.
Thousands of similar cases are waiting in the wings.
The case, known as Allen v GMB, was heard originally in the Employment Tribunals in Newcastle - and found that the GMB had discriminated against their own low-paid women members.
It was the first decision of its kind in the UK - and has huge implications for the GMB and other trade unions.
The women workers complained that the GMB was guilty of sex discrimination when it acted on their behalf. The women - who sought equal pay with the men - alleged they were represented inadequately by the union.
The Employment Tribunal decided unanimously that their employer (Middlesborough Council) should have eradicated unequal pay years earlier.
The tribunal also found that the GMB then collaborated with the employer by manipulating members, who had back pay claims, into unwittingly sacrificing their rights - to the benefit of the employer.
In doing so, the tribunal agreed that the union had unjustifiably discriminated against their own low-paid women members.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) reversed the initial decision of the Employment Tribunal in 2007, but the Court of Appeal has now restored the original judgement.
The Court of Appeal has decided that the GMB misrepresented the 'deal' that was on offer from Middlesborough Council - and the case will now be referred back to the Employment Tribunal to consider compensation awards.
The GMB was refused permission by the Court of Appeal to appeal further to the House of Lords - the union is entitled to seek permission from the House of Lords directly, but this must be done by 30 September 2008 - and Stefan Cross will oppose any such application.
Thousands of similar cases are waiting in the wings.
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
Striking Differences
Council workers in London are being called out on 2 days of strike action today - in pursuit of a better and fairer pay rise - see post dated 1 July 2008.
But the irony is that this industrial action will do nothing to address the big inequalities in pay that already exist - between traditional male and female jobs.
The unions that are manning the barricades - are the same union that have turned a blind eye to equal pay for the past 10 years - completely ignoring the fact that unskilled male jobs (refuse workers, gravediggers and gardeners) have been getting paid much more than carers, catering workers and classroom assistants.
Where have the unions been all these years - why have there been no strikes or national days of action to highlight the issue of equal pay for women workers?
Strike action will do nothing to improve the lot of low paid women workers relative to the men - even after the strikes are over striking differences in they way they are treated will continue.
If a female carer or a classroom assistant goes on strike for a day, they lose a day's pay - never to be recovered, a short-term sacrifice for a longer-term gain, allegedly.
But if a refuse worker or a gardener goes on strike for a day, they get paid to back and pick up the day's work that was lost - so they don't lose out in the same way as their female colleagues.
When the dust has settled low paid women workers will remain stuck where they are now - at the bottom of the pile. Truth is the trade unions can't see the wood for the trees - despite the fact that two thirds of the council workforce are women workers.
But the irony is that this industrial action will do nothing to address the big inequalities in pay that already exist - between traditional male and female jobs.
The unions that are manning the barricades - are the same union that have turned a blind eye to equal pay for the past 10 years - completely ignoring the fact that unskilled male jobs (refuse workers, gravediggers and gardeners) have been getting paid much more than carers, catering workers and classroom assistants.
Where have the unions been all these years - why have there been no strikes or national days of action to highlight the issue of equal pay for women workers?
Strike action will do nothing to improve the lot of low paid women workers relative to the men - even after the strikes are over striking differences in they way they are treated will continue.
If a female carer or a classroom assistant goes on strike for a day, they lose a day's pay - never to be recovered, a short-term sacrifice for a longer-term gain, allegedly.
But if a refuse worker or a gardener goes on strike for a day, they get paid to back and pick up the day's work that was lost - so they don't lose out in the same way as their female colleagues.
When the dust has settled low paid women workers will remain stuck where they are now - at the bottom of the pile. Truth is the trade unions can't see the wood for the trees - despite the fact that two thirds of the council workforce are women workers.
Saturday, 12 July 2008
Why do I need to take out a grievance?
Because the Equal Pay Act requires that anyone who wishes to pursue a claim must first of all give the employer a chance to address the issue internally - before it is taken outside the council to the Employment Tribunals.
In practice, this means raising an individual grievance on behalf of everyone who is pursuing a claim - but this is not as daunting as it first seems because Stefan Cross does this for all clients automatically - there is little for individuals to do other than turn up at any meeting that is arranged.
You don't have to say anything or get involved in a discussion about your case - as this has already been submitted to the employer in a detailed statement.
Our experience is that not all employers observe this stage - and often those that do don't take it very seriously - because they don't address the issues or even attempt to explain the big pay differences between traditional male and female jobs.
But while the grievance stage often ends up as a terrible waste of people's time - because of the employer's refusal to engage and explain their position - it is nonetheless extremely important.
Because - as the trade unions have discovered - the Employment Tribunals can take a very dim view of anyone who tries to cut corners and fails to observe the rules.
Scotland's Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has struck out all trade union claims that have not lodged an initial individual grievance - which comes as a great shock to many union members.
For more information on this point visit the Action 4 Equality Scotland blog site at: www.action4equalityscotland.blogspot.com
In practice, this means raising an individual grievance on behalf of everyone who is pursuing a claim - but this is not as daunting as it first seems because Stefan Cross does this for all clients automatically - there is little for individuals to do other than turn up at any meeting that is arranged.
You don't have to say anything or get involved in a discussion about your case - as this has already been submitted to the employer in a detailed statement.
Our experience is that not all employers observe this stage - and often those that do don't take it very seriously - because they don't address the issues or even attempt to explain the big pay differences between traditional male and female jobs.
But while the grievance stage often ends up as a terrible waste of people's time - because of the employer's refusal to engage and explain their position - it is nonetheless extremely important.
Because - as the trade unions have discovered - the Employment Tribunals can take a very dim view of anyone who tries to cut corners and fails to observe the rules.
Scotland's Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has struck out all trade union claims that have not lodged an initial individual grievance - which comes as a great shock to many union members.
For more information on this point visit the Action 4 Equality Scotland blog site at: www.action4equalityscotland.blogspot.com
Thursday, 10 July 2008
Equal Pay - Time Limits
We've had a rash of enquiries recently about whether any time limits apply to making an equal pay claim.
The answer is - YES - and it's very important the time limits are observed, otherwise even the strongest claim will be regarded as 'out of time' - and will not be entertained by the Employment Tribunals.
The general rule is that people have six months to register an equal pay claim with the tribunals - if they:
Generally speaking a new contract would be issued for a completely different job - not the same job in a new location or the same job on different hours.
But it's better to be safe than sorry - so always ask for advice - a quick phone call or e-mail will do the trick.
Many people in London have not been advised properly on these issues - both by their employers and the trade unions - and have lost out as a result.
The answer is - YES - and it's very important the time limits are observed, otherwise even the strongest claim will be regarded as 'out of time' - and will not be entertained by the Employment Tribunals.
The general rule is that people have six months to register an equal pay claim with the tribunals - if they:
- retire from employment altogether
- leave their current employer (for another job or no job)
- take up another job with the same employer - that involves a change of contract
Generally speaking a new contract would be issued for a completely different job - not the same job in a new location or the same job on different hours.
But it's better to be safe than sorry - so always ask for advice - a quick phone call or e-mail will do the trick.
Many people in London have not been advised properly on these issues - both by their employers and the trade unions - and have lost out as a result.
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Tail Wagging the Dog
A major pay battle looms for council workers in London - with large scale industrial action on the cards for the first time in years.
The unions have rejected a 2.45% pay offer from the employers - and Unison is now gearing up for two days of strikes later in July - after its council worker members voted by 55% to 45% to support a campaign of industrial action.
But what Unison is not telling its members is that only 27% of them bothered to take part in the recent industrial action ballot - which means that fewer than 90,000 members (out of 600,000) actively voted in support of strike action - while more than 500,000 voted No or voted with their feet - by not returning their ballot papers.
Either way it´s hardly a resounding vote of confidence in the strategy of union leaders - when almost three quarters of the grassroots membership can´t even be bothered to participate in such an important ballot.
The result is that the planned campaign of strike action will be hugely unpopular with members - even before it begins - which is hardly a recipe for success.
No one really believes that industrial action will bring about a great improvement in the recent 2.45% offer - and there is a ready alternative to pointless days of strike action - access to independent arbitration - which has the great advantage of not costing low paid members lots of money they can ill afford to lose.
So, quite why Unison is allowing the tail to wag the dog is a mystery - an unpopular strike that fails to engage with the members - will never shift the employers - especially when both sides can put their respective cases to an independent arbitration panel.
The unions have rejected a 2.45% pay offer from the employers - and Unison is now gearing up for two days of strikes later in July - after its council worker members voted by 55% to 45% to support a campaign of industrial action.
But what Unison is not telling its members is that only 27% of them bothered to take part in the recent industrial action ballot - which means that fewer than 90,000 members (out of 600,000) actively voted in support of strike action - while more than 500,000 voted No or voted with their feet - by not returning their ballot papers.
Either way it´s hardly a resounding vote of confidence in the strategy of union leaders - when almost three quarters of the grassroots membership can´t even be bothered to participate in such an important ballot.
The result is that the planned campaign of strike action will be hugely unpopular with members - even before it begins - which is hardly a recipe for success.
No one really believes that industrial action will bring about a great improvement in the recent 2.45% offer - and there is a ready alternative to pointless days of strike action - access to independent arbitration - which has the great advantage of not costing low paid members lots of money they can ill afford to lose.
So, quite why Unison is allowing the tail to wag the dog is a mystery - an unpopular strike that fails to engage with the members - will never shift the employers - especially when both sides can put their respective cases to an independent arbitration panel.
Thursday, 19 June 2008
Getting your priorities all wrong
The trade unions are making lots of noise about the effect inflation is having on recent pay deals they've struck - which speaks volumes about their priorities when it comes to low paid women members (who make up the bulk of the public sector workforce).
The media is full of quotes from the likes of Unison's Dave Prentis - with dire threats about strike action as inflation reaches 3.3% and is predicted to rise to well over 4% by the end of this year.
Recent pay deals - such as the recent NHS agreement worth 8% over 3 years - won't now keep pace with inflation, so union members will see their standard of living fall - and the reputation of union negotiators will take a big hit.
But the real scandal is that strike action over the odd percentage point is small beer - compared to the vast sums that many women union members have lost - as a result of unequal pay over the past 10 years.
The facts are that:
An example of an equal pay claim for a woman council worker on full-time hours would be: £3.00 per hour x 37 hours x 52 weeks x 6 years (back pay) = £34,632 + interest!!
So, why hasn't the huge pay gap with male council workers excited the interest of the trade unions all these years? A very good question.
The media is full of quotes from the likes of Unison's Dave Prentis - with dire threats about strike action as inflation reaches 3.3% and is predicted to rise to well over 4% by the end of this year.
Recent pay deals - such as the recent NHS agreement worth 8% over 3 years - won't now keep pace with inflation, so union members will see their standard of living fall - and the reputation of union negotiators will take a big hit.
But the real scandal is that strike action over the odd percentage point is small beer - compared to the vast sums that many women union members have lost - as a result of unequal pay over the past 10 years.
The facts are that:
- Many female dominated jobs are paid much less than their male colleagues
- The pay gap is enormous - up to 50% in some cases - with women workers being paid up to £3.00 an hour less than men
- The unions have known about the pay gap all this time - and have let the employers get away with murder
An example of an equal pay claim for a woman council worker on full-time hours would be: £3.00 per hour x 37 hours x 52 weeks x 6 years (back pay) = £34,632 + interest!!
So, why hasn't the huge pay gap with male council workers excited the interest of the trade unions all these years? A very good question.
Tuesday, 10 June 2008
Making a claim
If you want to pursue and equal pay claim with Action 4 Equality, all we need to get things moving are:
- Your name
- Your address
- Your post code
You can ring - 0845 300 3 800 - and leave these details, or you can request an application form by sending an e-mail to Mark Irvine at : markirvine@compuserve.com
Union speaks with forked tongue
The union blowhards who tried to disrupt the recent Action 4 Equality meeting in Bromley - are now trying to do the council's dirty work - by telling their members that there are no male comparators on which to base an equal pay claim.
Yet, in the same breath, they are also saying that the union has been in discussions with the council - about a possible 'buy out' of claims - although a final agreement has still to be reached.
Now this is completely bonkers - why would the council enter into negotiations if people did not have a valid equal pay claim?
So, the unions are talking nonsense - they have kept their members in the dark for years - and now they're trying to help the employer - by spreading misinformation and discouraging people from pursuing an equal pay claim.
The unions behaviour is likely to backfire with their members - because the employees we are speaking to are very angry that secret talks appear to be taking place with the council - which the ordinary members know nothing about.
You can bet that if the council does make a 'buy out' offer - they will refuse to explain how it is calculated - and so will the unions.
Because if they did explain how they come up with these figures - it would give the game away - people would see that they are being cheated - and that they would be much better off pursuing an equal pay claim.
Yet, in the same breath, they are also saying that the union has been in discussions with the council - about a possible 'buy out' of claims - although a final agreement has still to be reached.
Now this is completely bonkers - why would the council enter into negotiations if people did not have a valid equal pay claim?
So, the unions are talking nonsense - they have kept their members in the dark for years - and now they're trying to help the employer - by spreading misinformation and discouraging people from pursuing an equal pay claim.
The unions behaviour is likely to backfire with their members - because the employees we are speaking to are very angry that secret talks appear to be taking place with the council - which the ordinary members know nothing about.
You can bet that if the council does make a 'buy out' offer - they will refuse to explain how it is calculated - and so will the unions.
Because if they did explain how they come up with these figures - it would give the game away - people would see that they are being cheated - and that they would be much better off pursuing an equal pay claim.
Saturday, 7 June 2008
Self Praise Is No Praise
"Self praise is no praise", is an old but a very true saying - and it's just as relevant in dealing with equal pay as in any other walk of life.
We received the following e-mail from a council employee earlier in the week - a few personal details have been changed to protect the person's privacy and identity:
Hi Mark
Job Evaluation and Equal Pay
Got your name and your site from my Unison rep today.
I'm really at my wits end with job evaluation and an important equal pay issue with my employer. My issues have been dragging on for ages with no one taking responsibility for moving things on.
I feel I have gone round in circles and been let down in trying to get a solution. Please can you advise on what to do now?
Thanks, and your site is great.
Regards
HB
We take it as a compliment that Unison stewards are referring their members to Action 4 Equality - for advice about job evaluation and equal pay - it just confirms what we've been saying about ordinary members being kept in the dark all these years.
So, if you have an equal pay query - drop a note to: markirvine@compuserve.com
We received the following e-mail from a council employee earlier in the week - a few personal details have been changed to protect the person's privacy and identity:
Hi Mark
Job Evaluation and Equal Pay
Got your name and your site from my Unison rep today.
I'm really at my wits end with job evaluation and an important equal pay issue with my employer. My issues have been dragging on for ages with no one taking responsibility for moving things on.
I feel I have gone round in circles and been let down in trying to get a solution. Please can you advise on what to do now?
Thanks, and your site is great.
Regards
HB
We take it as a compliment that Unison stewards are referring their members to Action 4 Equality - for advice about job evaluation and equal pay - it just confirms what we've been saying about ordinary members being kept in the dark all these years.
So, if you have an equal pay query - drop a note to: markirvine@compuserve.com
Wednesday, 4 June 2008
Now there's a surprise!
Action 4 Equality has been operating in London for a very short time - but already there are signs of panic among HR managers in Bexley.
As soon as our clients claims are registered with the employers - a surprising thing always happens - and the same pattern is now emerging in London
HR managers - who previously showed no interest in equal pay - are suddenly keen to discuss the issue - and sometimes they have the bare faced cheek to suggest that anyone pursuing a claim to the Employment Tribunals is acting a bit hasty.
Remember these are the same managers who have failed to implement the 1998 Single Status Agreement for the past 10 years - an agreement that was supposed to deliver a fairer deal for low paid women workers.
In Bexley, the HR department has suddenly sprung into life - but only after receipt of equal pay claims from Stefan Cross - they have told our clients that their claims will not succeed - but can we talk about the possibility of a negotiated settlement.
Now there's a surprise! Hands up any one who believes the council would be remotely interested in discussing a settlement - without the helpful encouragement from Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross?
The truth is the council is now doing our work for us - because it's perfectly obvious that they would never be willing to consider a settlement - if people didn't have valid claims.
Our advice to clients is that this is a hugely encouraging sign - there's no need to discuss your case with management - the basis of your claim has already been made very clear by Stefan Cross.
So, all you need to do once your claim is up and running is to sit tight - contact us for advice by all means - but if HR or anyone else wants to talk about settlement - simply refer them to Mark Irvine or Stefan Cross.
As soon as our clients claims are registered with the employers - a surprising thing always happens - and the same pattern is now emerging in London
HR managers - who previously showed no interest in equal pay - are suddenly keen to discuss the issue - and sometimes they have the bare faced cheek to suggest that anyone pursuing a claim to the Employment Tribunals is acting a bit hasty.
Remember these are the same managers who have failed to implement the 1998 Single Status Agreement for the past 10 years - an agreement that was supposed to deliver a fairer deal for low paid women workers.
In Bexley, the HR department has suddenly sprung into life - but only after receipt of equal pay claims from Stefan Cross - they have told our clients that their claims will not succeed - but can we talk about the possibility of a negotiated settlement.
Now there's a surprise! Hands up any one who believes the council would be remotely interested in discussing a settlement - without the helpful encouragement from Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross?
The truth is the council is now doing our work for us - because it's perfectly obvious that they would never be willing to consider a settlement - if people didn't have valid claims.
Our advice to clients is that this is a hugely encouraging sign - there's no need to discuss your case with management - the basis of your claim has already been made very clear by Stefan Cross.
So, all you need to do once your claim is up and running is to sit tight - contact us for advice by all means - but if HR or anyone else wants to talk about settlement - simply refer them to Mark Irvine or Stefan Cross.
If you haven't yet made a claim - all we need is your name, address and post code to send out an application form/s.
Tuesday, 3 June 2008
Equal Pay and Manual Workers
Haringey Council - aided and abetted by tame local union reps - is trying to hoodwink staff into believing that only manual workers can bring equal pay claims.
The council has recently paid £4 million in compensation to limited groups of female manual workers - on the basis that they've been much paid less than traditional male jobs (refuse drivers, gravediggers and suchlike) - for many years.
Now the council won't explain how these 'buy outs' have been calculated - nor will the unions - even though they have the information at their fingertips - since they were jointly responsible for negotiating these 'male only' bonus schemes.
But the propaganda now being put around - by managers and unions alike - is that other APT&C groups such as Teaching Assistants can't bring an equal pay claim - because they can't use the same manual worker comparators such as refuse drivers and gravediggers.
What a load of old tosh - equal pay is not restricted to manual workers - it's about the skills and responsibilities of your job.
Refuse Drivers - along with other relatively highly paid manual worker jobs - are perfectly valid comparators - the only test is whether there is a difference in pay and can that pay gap be justified - when comparing the skills and responsibilities of the respective male and female job.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense would say that a Teaching Assistant cannot be worth less than a Refuse Driver or a Gravedigger - and that's why these groups and many others are perfectly capable of pursuing an equal pay claim.
Action 4 Equality has achieved settlements for Teaching/Classroom Assistants in lots of other areas - for example in Glasgow - which is Scotland's largest council and a much bigger employer than Haringey.
So, don't listen to the Jeremiahs who tell you what you can't do - by pursuing an equal pay claim with Action 4 Equality - you have nothing to lose and plenty to gain!
The council has recently paid £4 million in compensation to limited groups of female manual workers - on the basis that they've been much paid less than traditional male jobs (refuse drivers, gravediggers and suchlike) - for many years.
Now the council won't explain how these 'buy outs' have been calculated - nor will the unions - even though they have the information at their fingertips - since they were jointly responsible for negotiating these 'male only' bonus schemes.
But the propaganda now being put around - by managers and unions alike - is that other APT&C groups such as Teaching Assistants can't bring an equal pay claim - because they can't use the same manual worker comparators such as refuse drivers and gravediggers.
What a load of old tosh - equal pay is not restricted to manual workers - it's about the skills and responsibilities of your job.
Refuse Drivers - along with other relatively highly paid manual worker jobs - are perfectly valid comparators - the only test is whether there is a difference in pay and can that pay gap be justified - when comparing the skills and responsibilities of the respective male and female job.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense would say that a Teaching Assistant cannot be worth less than a Refuse Driver or a Gravedigger - and that's why these groups and many others are perfectly capable of pursuing an equal pay claim.
Action 4 Equality has achieved settlements for Teaching/Classroom Assistants in lots of other areas - for example in Glasgow - which is Scotland's largest council and a much bigger employer than Haringey.
So, don't listen to the Jeremiahs who tell you what you can't do - by pursuing an equal pay claim with Action 4 Equality - you have nothing to lose and plenty to gain!
Monday, 2 June 2008
Secondary equal pay claims
We've had lots of enquiries recently about so-called 'secondary' equal pay claims - these arise because councils continue to protect the higher pay of the of traditional male groups - even after new local pay structures have been introduced.
So, even if you've accepted a 'compensation' settlement from the council - this only covers the past, not the future - and you will continue to have a claim for equal pay for as long as the pay gap continues.
In many cases, the employers have agreed pay protection for years into the future - and that means sizeable claims for many female dominated jobs that have been losing out for years.
The root problem has been the employers failure to implement the 1998 Single Status (equal pay) agreement - and the willingness of the trade unions to turn a blind eye to the blatant pay discrimination against their low paid women members.
In addition, many female dominated jobs will continue to have an equal pay claim even after a new job evaluation (JE) scheme has been introduced.
Action 4 Equality has plenty of evidence to show that many employers have used job evaluation to introduce Single Status on the cheap - and in ways that simply maintain all the old pay differentials.
See the Action 4 Equality Scotland site for examples of employers behaving badly when it comes to job evaluation - www.action4equalityscotland.blogspot.com
So, the message is there's still lots to play for on equal pay - but you can only benefit if you stand up for your rights and register an individual claim.
So, even if you've accepted a 'compensation' settlement from the council - this only covers the past, not the future - and you will continue to have a claim for equal pay for as long as the pay gap continues.
In many cases, the employers have agreed pay protection for years into the future - and that means sizeable claims for many female dominated jobs that have been losing out for years.
The root problem has been the employers failure to implement the 1998 Single Status (equal pay) agreement - and the willingness of the trade unions to turn a blind eye to the blatant pay discrimination against their low paid women members.
In addition, many female dominated jobs will continue to have an equal pay claim even after a new job evaluation (JE) scheme has been introduced.
Action 4 Equality has plenty of evidence to show that many employers have used job evaluation to introduce Single Status on the cheap - and in ways that simply maintain all the old pay differentials.
See the Action 4 Equality Scotland site for examples of employers behaving badly when it comes to job evaluation - www.action4equalityscotland.blogspot.com
So, the message is there's still lots to play for on equal pay - but you can only benefit if you stand up for your rights and register an individual claim.
Bromley - Carers Meeting
Bromley played host to a meeting of council Home Carers last week - the meeting was positive and well attended - and, as usual, people were amazed to learn the extent to which they have been kept in the dark about Single Status and Equal Pay.
Apparently, Bromley Council have not made any compensation offers to their employees - nor have they introduced a new non-discriminatory Job Evaluation (JE) scheme - as they promised to do 10 years ago.
So, the council is vulnerable to equal pay claims not just from the Home Carers - but also from a wide range of other council employees - including catering staff, classroom assistants and clerical workers.
Bizarrely, the local Unison branch secretary turned up at the meeting - along with a few union heavies - with the aim of intimidating the Home Carers who had actually been invited to attend.
Thankfully, the women gave the Unison reps short shrift - they demanded to know why the unions hadn't been holding their own meetings about equal pay and keeping members properly informed.
The women then they took a unanimous vote and told the union goons to sling their hook - which they did with their tails firmly between their legs.
So, the moral of the story is don't take any lessons from union officials who have sat on their lazy backsides for the past 10 years - in far too many areas the unions are part of the establishment - part of the problem - and not part of the solution when it comes to equal pay.
Apparently, Bromley Council have not made any compensation offers to their employees - nor have they introduced a new non-discriminatory Job Evaluation (JE) scheme - as they promised to do 10 years ago.
So, the council is vulnerable to equal pay claims not just from the Home Carers - but also from a wide range of other council employees - including catering staff, classroom assistants and clerical workers.
Bizarrely, the local Unison branch secretary turned up at the meeting - along with a few union heavies - with the aim of intimidating the Home Carers who had actually been invited to attend.
Thankfully, the women gave the Unison reps short shrift - they demanded to know why the unions hadn't been holding their own meetings about equal pay and keeping members properly informed.
The women then they took a unanimous vote and told the union goons to sling their hook - which they did with their tails firmly between their legs.
So, the moral of the story is don't take any lessons from union officials who have sat on their lazy backsides for the past 10 years - in far too many areas the unions are part of the establishment - part of the problem - and not part of the solution when it comes to equal pay.
Saturday, 24 May 2008
Single Status and Equal Pay - What's the difference?
Single Status is simply the name given to an important agreement from 1998 - UK councils and trade unions promised to end the distinction between 'blue collar' (Manual) workers and 'white collar' (APT&C) staff.
A key part of the agreement was a commitment to sweep away years of pay discrimination against many female dominated jobs - carers, cooks, cleaners, clerical workers and classroom assistants - by introducing a modern, fit for purpose and non-discriminatory pay structure.
The employers and trade unions agreed that the only way to achieve the kind of modern pay structure both sides desired - was via a new Job Evaluation (JE) scheme that gave female dominated jobs a better deal.
The problem was that the employers and the trade unions both sat on their backsides for the next 10 years - blaming each other for the lack of progress - but ultimately failing to deliver on their promises to a largely female workforce.
Equal pay is underpinned by legislation - it is the law of the land - enshrined in the 1970 Equal Pay Act and subsequent legislation.
Equal Pay trumps any collective agreement between employers and trade unions - because these collective agreements are voluntary in nature - and do not carry the same force as a binding legal agreement.
So, employers and trade unions may say they believe in equal opportunities and equal pay - but pursuing an Equal Pay claim puts the matter in the hands of the courts - where issues are decided by an independent Employment Tribunal.
Employers and trade unions often feel threatened by the involvement of the courts - because they lose control of the situation - they are no longer playing by their own internal rules - and have to account for their actions to an external independent body.
After a decade of empty promises - our advice to council workers, in London and elsewhere, is to use the Employment Tribunal route - because the council employers and trade unions have lost any credibility they once had.
A key part of the agreement was a commitment to sweep away years of pay discrimination against many female dominated jobs - carers, cooks, cleaners, clerical workers and classroom assistants - by introducing a modern, fit for purpose and non-discriminatory pay structure.
The employers and trade unions agreed that the only way to achieve the kind of modern pay structure both sides desired - was via a new Job Evaluation (JE) scheme that gave female dominated jobs a better deal.
The problem was that the employers and the trade unions both sat on their backsides for the next 10 years - blaming each other for the lack of progress - but ultimately failing to deliver on their promises to a largely female workforce.
Equal pay is underpinned by legislation - it is the law of the land - enshrined in the 1970 Equal Pay Act and subsequent legislation.
Equal Pay trumps any collective agreement between employers and trade unions - because these collective agreements are voluntary in nature - and do not carry the same force as a binding legal agreement.
So, employers and trade unions may say they believe in equal opportunities and equal pay - but pursuing an Equal Pay claim puts the matter in the hands of the courts - where issues are decided by an independent Employment Tribunal.
Employers and trade unions often feel threatened by the involvement of the courts - because they lose control of the situation - they are no longer playing by their own internal rules - and have to account for their actions to an external independent body.
After a decade of empty promises - our advice to council workers, in London and elsewhere, is to use the Employment Tribunal route - because the council employers and trade unions have lost any credibility they once had.
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
Bromley Meeting
The arrangements for the Action 4 Equality meeting in Bromley have now been confirmed - the details are as follows:
Date: Wednesday 28 May 2008
Time: 2 pm to 4 pm
Venue: Sanderson Hall, Mickelem Road, St Paul's Cray, Orpington.
All welcome - whether you are an existing client, a potential client - or whether you just want to know about your rights to equal pay.
No need for an appointment - just pop in anytime - between 2 pm and 4 pm next Wednesday afternoon.
Date: Wednesday 28 May 2008
Time: 2 pm to 4 pm
Venue: Sanderson Hall, Mickelem Road, St Paul's Cray, Orpington.
All welcome - whether you are an existing client, a potential client - or whether you just want to know about your rights to equal pay.
No need for an appointment - just pop in anytime - between 2 pm and 4 pm next Wednesday afternoon.
Saturday, 17 May 2008
Knowledge is Power
HR Magazine have been in touch to ask Mark Irvine to write a short piece for a forthcoming edition of their magazine - the idea being that a topical question is posed and a number of 'experts' are invited to respond.
Here is the question and below that what Mark had to say:
"Should employees share their pay information with colleagues?
Yes, definitely.
In a modern workplace, knowing what different groups of employees earn, relative to one another, is a matter of fairness and good practice.
If information and understanding are restricted to an elite group, there is scope for mischief and bad behaviour.
In 1998 UK council and trade unions signed a landmark Single Status (equal pay) agreement, after years of painstaking negotiations.
Both sides acknowledged that many female jobs (e.g. home carers) were badly undervalued and paid less than unskilled male groups (e.g. refuse workers), who earned big bonuses of 50% on top of their basic pay.
But the existence and size of the ongoing pay gap was deliberately kept hidden. By the same employers and trade unions (Unison, GMB and TGWU) who promised - a decade ago - to deliver a non-discriminatory pay structure and better deal for women workers.
So, as in other areas of public life, daylight really is the best disinfectant.
Mark Irvine
Action 4 Equality
Here is the question and below that what Mark had to say:
"Should employees share their pay information with colleagues?
Yes, definitely.
In a modern workplace, knowing what different groups of employees earn, relative to one another, is a matter of fairness and good practice.
If information and understanding are restricted to an elite group, there is scope for mischief and bad behaviour.
In 1998 UK council and trade unions signed a landmark Single Status (equal pay) agreement, after years of painstaking negotiations.
Both sides acknowledged that many female jobs (e.g. home carers) were badly undervalued and paid less than unskilled male groups (e.g. refuse workers), who earned big bonuses of 50% on top of their basic pay.
But the existence and size of the ongoing pay gap was deliberately kept hidden. By the same employers and trade unions (Unison, GMB and TGWU) who promised - a decade ago - to deliver a non-discriminatory pay structure and better deal for women workers.
So, as in other areas of public life, daylight really is the best disinfectant.
Mark Irvine
Action 4 Equality
Wednesday, 14 May 2008
More London Meetings
London Borough of Bromley
We are in the process of arranging a meeting in Bromley - interest has been expressed by a number of different groups including Home Carers - no date has been agreed as yet, but if you are interested in coming along drop me a note - or keep an eye on the web site for further news.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Same story in Tower Hamlets - this time Classroom Assistants are taking the lead and we will let people know when a date and time has been finalised - this will obviously be at a time of day to suit people finishing their work
Organising a Meeting
If you want to organise a local meeting in your own area - we're happy to come along and explain things to new or existing clients - all we need is a place to meet such as a church hall or community centre - just so long as it's not on council premises. If you have somewhere in mind drop me a note and we'll sort something out.
Spreading the Word
Meantime, keep spreading the word about Action 4 Equality London - let people know the telephone number (0845 300 3 800) and our web site address - www.action4equalitylondon.blogspot.com
The more people who take out an equal pay claim - the more pressure the employers will come under - and the sooner they are likely to settle their claims.
If you need any help or advice, drop me a note at - markirvine@compuserve.com
We are in the process of arranging a meeting in Bromley - interest has been expressed by a number of different groups including Home Carers - no date has been agreed as yet, but if you are interested in coming along drop me a note - or keep an eye on the web site for further news.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Same story in Tower Hamlets - this time Classroom Assistants are taking the lead and we will let people know when a date and time has been finalised - this will obviously be at a time of day to suit people finishing their work
Organising a Meeting
If you want to organise a local meeting in your own area - we're happy to come along and explain things to new or existing clients - all we need is a place to meet such as a church hall or community centre - just so long as it's not on council premises. If you have somewhere in mind drop me a note and we'll sort something out.
Spreading the Word
Meantime, keep spreading the word about Action 4 Equality London - let people know the telephone number (0845 300 3 800) and our web site address - www.action4equalitylondon.blogspot.com
The more people who take out an equal pay claim - the more pressure the employers will come under - and the sooner they are likely to settle their claims.
If you need any help or advice, drop me a note at - markirvine@compuserve.com
Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Up All Night?
A bemused client has e-mailed to ask if I am up all through the night - posting information and responding to queries on the Action 4 Equality blog site.
Why? Because the time of some of the postings show up as being written in the wee small hours of the morning - 4.02 am or 5.45 am - which on the face of things suggests either a bad case of insomnia or an attitude towards work that borders on the obsessive.
But the truth is much more boring and prosaic.
The Action 4 Equality site is hosted by Google - and the server that's used is located somewhere in the USA - so the times are recorded somewhere far across the Atlantic Ocean - not in good old Greenwich Mean Time!
We take pride in delivering a high level of service to clients and potential clients - by responding to enquiries and dealing with issues as quickly as possible.
Many people kindly tell us that - compared to the trade unions - Action 4 Equality provides a Rolls Royce level of service, which is good to hear.
But a 'round the clock' 24/7 operation would be pushing things a bit far - even for us.
Why? Because the time of some of the postings show up as being written in the wee small hours of the morning - 4.02 am or 5.45 am - which on the face of things suggests either a bad case of insomnia or an attitude towards work that borders on the obsessive.
But the truth is much more boring and prosaic.
The Action 4 Equality site is hosted by Google - and the server that's used is located somewhere in the USA - so the times are recorded somewhere far across the Atlantic Ocean - not in good old Greenwich Mean Time!
We take pride in delivering a high level of service to clients and potential clients - by responding to enquiries and dealing with issues as quickly as possible.
Many people kindly tell us that - compared to the trade unions - Action 4 Equality provides a Rolls Royce level of service, which is good to hear.
But a 'round the clock' 24/7 operation would be pushing things a bit far - even for us.
Monday, 12 May 2008
Haringey Council
Haringey is following a well-trodden path - according to a meeting with clerical workers in London last week.
The council has made one-off 'buy out' offers to some manual workers - but excluded large groups of staff (such as clerical workers) with perfectly valid equal pay claims.
The 'buy outs' follow the usual pattern adopted by employers in other parts of the country:
Male and female jobs are still be treated very differently - and there are no prizes for guessing which group is still losing out.
If you need advice about how your own situation, contact Action 4 Equality London on 0845 300 3 800 or drop me a note at: markirvine@compuserve.com
The council has made one-off 'buy out' offers to some manual workers - but excluded large groups of staff (such as clerical workers) with perfectly valid equal pay claims.
The 'buy outs' follow the usual pattern adopted by employers in other parts of the country:
- They are for much less than the true value of people's claims
- They don't deliver equal pay - no one's rate of pay has gone up
- The big pay differences between male and female jobs remains
- The groups that have been left out can still bring an equal pay claim
- Any manual worker who accepted a 'buy out' has a second claim - because the higher pay of the men is being protected for years into the future
Male and female jobs are still be treated very differently - and there are no prizes for guessing which group is still losing out.
If you need advice about how your own situation, contact Action 4 Equality London on 0845 300 3 800 or drop me a note at: markirvine@compuserve.com
Saturday, 10 May 2008
News from Slough
Slough played host to an enthusiastic meeting of Home Carers last week - which was arranged with the help of a few local people who had come across the Action 4 Equality blog site.
As usual, the carers had heard nothing about equal pay - from Slough Council or the local trade unions - empty promises about re-grading their jobs had come to nothing - and the pay gap between traditional male and female jobs had never been challenged.
Until Action 4 Equality arrived on the scene that is - now there is a flurry of activity as the employer and the unions desperately try to explain why they've sat on their backsides - and failed to implement their own equal pay (Single Status) agreement these past 10 years.
There is talk of the council now making a 'buy out' offer to some of the manual worker posts - but of course any such offers will be derisory - and will be for much less than the true value of people's claims.
The unions are suggesting the council may offer people 20% of what their claims are really worth - but why should low paid workers allow themselves to be cheated out of thousands of pounds?
The council won't explain how any 'buy out' offers are calculated - because to do that they would have to explain the size of the pay gap between male and female jobs - then people would be able to see just how badly they've been treated all these years.
The unions know the size of the pay gap - because they negotiated the bonus payments from the men - but kept the details hidden from their women members - all the while singing their own praises as champions of equal pay and equal opportunities.
Our advice to council workers in Slough is to get proper advice - find out what your claim is really worth - don't be taken in by a derisory 'buy out' offer - which doesn't even deliver equal pay.
As usual, the carers had heard nothing about equal pay - from Slough Council or the local trade unions - empty promises about re-grading their jobs had come to nothing - and the pay gap between traditional male and female jobs had never been challenged.
Until Action 4 Equality arrived on the scene that is - now there is a flurry of activity as the employer and the unions desperately try to explain why they've sat on their backsides - and failed to implement their own equal pay (Single Status) agreement these past 10 years.
There is talk of the council now making a 'buy out' offer to some of the manual worker posts - but of course any such offers will be derisory - and will be for much less than the true value of people's claims.
The unions are suggesting the council may offer people 20% of what their claims are really worth - but why should low paid workers allow themselves to be cheated out of thousands of pounds?
The council won't explain how any 'buy out' offers are calculated - because to do that they would have to explain the size of the pay gap between male and female jobs - then people would be able to see just how badly they've been treated all these years.
The unions know the size of the pay gap - because they negotiated the bonus payments from the men - but kept the details hidden from their women members - all the while singing their own praises as champions of equal pay and equal opportunities.
Our advice to council workers in Slough is to get proper advice - find out what your claim is really worth - don't be taken in by a derisory 'buy out' offer - which doesn't even deliver equal pay.
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
Equal Pay - What's the Hurry?
We've had a number of enquiries recently along the lines of: "What's the hurry about making an equal pay claim - why don't I just wait and see what happens with Single Status?"
Well the straight answer to that question is that people have been waiting for the past 10 years - and you are losing money hand over fist by just sitting tight and doing nothing.
You can claim up to 6 years in back pay with an equal pay claim - but the clock only starts once your claim has been registered with the employment tribunals - so every day you delay is a day that you can't claim back again.
Also, once your claim is registered - you start adding on time going forward - i.e. in addition to the 6 years back pay - so if it takes another 18 months to sort out, at least you have added that 18 months on to your claim.
Bottom line is that if you don't submit an equal pay claim - you're not at the races.
Well the straight answer to that question is that people have been waiting for the past 10 years - and you are losing money hand over fist by just sitting tight and doing nothing.
You can claim up to 6 years in back pay with an equal pay claim - but the clock only starts once your claim has been registered with the employment tribunals - so every day you delay is a day that you can't claim back again.
Also, once your claim is registered - you start adding on time going forward - i.e. in addition to the 6 years back pay - so if it takes another 18 months to sort out, at least you have added that 18 months on to your claim.
Bottom line is that if you don't submit an equal pay claim - you're not at the races.
Saturday, 3 May 2008
Job Evaluation and Single Status
The introduction of a new Job Evaluation (JE) scheme was a vital part of the Single Status agreement signed by council employers and the trade unions in 1998.
Job evaluation is simply a way of assessing the worth or value of jobs - relative to one another - the more skill and responsibility a job has, the more it is worth - and the more it should be paid.
The Single Status agreement recognised that many female dominated jobs had been undervalued and underpaid for years - and job evaluation meant a fresh start - an opportunity to put things right and end years of pay discrimination.
But the employers and trade unions failed to deliver on their promises - the commitment to a new job evaluation scheme lay dormant - until Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross came along that is - and explained how badly women workers were being let down.
Now the employers are desperately trying to recover the lost ground - because without a new (non-discriminatory) job evaluation scheme that treats women and men both the same - the employers have no defence against equal pay claims from their employees.
But the difference between 1998 and 2008 - is that the employers are now trying to bring in job evaluation on the cheap - and the trade unions are letting them away with murder in many areas.
Job evaluation is intended to operate in an open and transparent manner - the results should make sense and been seen to be fair - yet that hasn't stopped the employers from trying to pull the wool over people eyes.
The tricks that employers get up to are to numerous to cover in detail here - but there's lots of examples on our Scotland blog site which you can read online at - www.action4equalityscotland.blogspot.com
If you want advice on what's happening in any of the London councils, drop me a note at - markirvine@compuserve.com
We intend to build up a similar bank of information about how job evaluation is being introduced in London councils - and to provide people with the knowledge they need to fight back against unscrupulous behaviour by the employers - and the trade unions.
Job evaluation is simply a way of assessing the worth or value of jobs - relative to one another - the more skill and responsibility a job has, the more it is worth - and the more it should be paid.
The Single Status agreement recognised that many female dominated jobs had been undervalued and underpaid for years - and job evaluation meant a fresh start - an opportunity to put things right and end years of pay discrimination.
But the employers and trade unions failed to deliver on their promises - the commitment to a new job evaluation scheme lay dormant - until Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross came along that is - and explained how badly women workers were being let down.
Now the employers are desperately trying to recover the lost ground - because without a new (non-discriminatory) job evaluation scheme that treats women and men both the same - the employers have no defence against equal pay claims from their employees.
But the difference between 1998 and 2008 - is that the employers are now trying to bring in job evaluation on the cheap - and the trade unions are letting them away with murder in many areas.
Job evaluation is intended to operate in an open and transparent manner - the results should make sense and been seen to be fair - yet that hasn't stopped the employers from trying to pull the wool over people eyes.
The tricks that employers get up to are to numerous to cover in detail here - but there's lots of examples on our Scotland blog site which you can read online at - www.action4equalityscotland.blogspot.com
If you want advice on what's happening in any of the London councils, drop me a note at - markirvine@compuserve.com
We intend to build up a similar bank of information about how job evaluation is being introduced in London councils - and to provide people with the knowledge they need to fight back against unscrupulous behaviour by the employers - and the trade unions.
Thursday, 1 May 2008
Can I have more than one claim?
Yes, of course you can.
You have a claim in every separate job you do - so long as each job qualifies in its own right as having an equal pay claim - but that's very likely to be the case for most part-time council jobs.
The record - so far at least - is a woman from Glasgow with five different part-time jobs - but it's very common for people to have two or even three - because all of these jobs are low paid, so people often work extra hours to make ends meet.
If the female dominated jobs were on the same rate of pay as the men - they would be able to work far fewer hours - or by working the extra hours they would be much better off than they are now!
So, if you're juggling two or three part-time jobs just to keep things going - don't hesitate to bang in a claim for each one - because they all count.
You have a claim in every separate job you do - so long as each job qualifies in its own right as having an equal pay claim - but that's very likely to be the case for most part-time council jobs.
The record - so far at least - is a woman from Glasgow with five different part-time jobs - but it's very common for people to have two or even three - because all of these jobs are low paid, so people often work extra hours to make ends meet.
If the female dominated jobs were on the same rate of pay as the men - they would be able to work far fewer hours - or by working the extra hours they would be much better off than they are now!
So, if you're juggling two or three part-time jobs just to keep things going - don't hesitate to bang in a claim for each one - because they all count.
London meetings
Action 4 Equality is planning to hold regular meetings in London - the purpose of which will be to:
- spread the word about equal pay
- explain how the tribunal process works
- answer people's questions and any concerns
- gather feedback about what's happening in different areas
If you would like to help organise a small gathering in your area - contact Mark Irvine to discuss the arrangements at - markirvine@compuserve.com
Wednesday, 23 April 2008
Even More Panic
Earlier today, we told our London readers that the trade unions are in a terrible panic - what we've just learned is how badly rattled they are - as word reaches us about spoiler adverts appearing in local newspapers.
Unison and the GMB are placing rival adverts in some local papers - telling their members to steer clear of Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross.
Well we take that as a great compliment - it just goes to show how frightened they are of us - because we are simply doing what the unions should have been doing years ago.
The unions are the ones who have lost their low members thousands of pounds per person - the unions are the ones who have said next to nothing on equal pay for years - until we come along and let the cat out of the bag.
Unison and GMB should be ashamed that their women members only know about the big pay differences between traditional male and female jobs - because of Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross.
The unions speak with forked tongues on equal pay - they face different ways at the same time - they talk a good fight when it suits them - but the truth is they've sat on their backsides for the past 10 years.
They have let their lowest paid members down - and they don't speak for the many thousands of workers who are not even union members.
Unison and the GMB are placing rival adverts in some local papers - telling their members to steer clear of Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross.
Well we take that as a great compliment - it just goes to show how frightened they are of us - because we are simply doing what the unions should have been doing years ago.
The unions are the ones who have lost their low members thousands of pounds per person - the unions are the ones who have said next to nothing on equal pay for years - until we come along and let the cat out of the bag.
Unison and GMB should be ashamed that their women members only know about the big pay differences between traditional male and female jobs - because of Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross.
The unions speak with forked tongues on equal pay - they face different ways at the same time - they talk a good fight when it suits them - but the truth is they've sat on their backsides for the past 10 years.
They have let their lowest paid members down - and they don't speak for the many thousands of workers who are not even union members.
A Sign of Panic
Our clients in London tell us that the trade unions are up to their usual tricks.
Having sat on their backsides for years and kept people in the dark about equal pay - as soon as Action 4 Equality comes along - they start putting out scare stories about our fees.
The latest one is that anybody seeking to pursue a claim with Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross must pay £500 up front before we will take on their case - but this is a complete lie.
No one has to pay a single penny up front - and we only charge a fee if we deliver a successful outcome - whereas the unions have been taking their members contributions for years - and achieved precisely nothing. If anything, things have got worse!
The unions peddle the same nonsense all the time - to stop people making equal pay claims - not to help their members.
And what a cheek - coming from the same geniuses who have cost their members thousands of pounds over the past 10 years - by continuing to favour traditional male jobs within London councils.
So, don't believe the propaganda of desperate trade unions hacks - they are on the run because of Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross - and because they have little else to say, they make up lies and rumours which they know to be false.
What they should be asking their members (and non-union members) is:
"DO YOU REALISE THAT YOUR JOB IS PAID £3 OR £4 PER HOUR LESS THAN A COUNCIL REFUSE WORKER OR GARDENER - AND THAT YOU HAVE AN EQUAL PAY CLAIM WORTH THOUSANDS OF POUNDS?"
But rather than tell their members the truth - the unions would rather divert attention away from their own shameful track record.
The only people telling union members and non-union members what their rights are on equal pay - are Action 4 Equality London and Stefan Cross.
Having sat on their backsides for years and kept people in the dark about equal pay - as soon as Action 4 Equality comes along - they start putting out scare stories about our fees.
The latest one is that anybody seeking to pursue a claim with Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross must pay £500 up front before we will take on their case - but this is a complete lie.
No one has to pay a single penny up front - and we only charge a fee if we deliver a successful outcome - whereas the unions have been taking their members contributions for years - and achieved precisely nothing. If anything, things have got worse!
The unions peddle the same nonsense all the time - to stop people making equal pay claims - not to help their members.
And what a cheek - coming from the same geniuses who have cost their members thousands of pounds over the past 10 years - by continuing to favour traditional male jobs within London councils.
So, don't believe the propaganda of desperate trade unions hacks - they are on the run because of Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross - and because they have little else to say, they make up lies and rumours which they know to be false.
What they should be asking their members (and non-union members) is:
"DO YOU REALISE THAT YOUR JOB IS PAID £3 OR £4 PER HOUR LESS THAN A COUNCIL REFUSE WORKER OR GARDENER - AND THAT YOU HAVE AN EQUAL PAY CLAIM WORTH THOUSANDS OF POUNDS?"
But rather than tell their members the truth - the unions would rather divert attention away from their own shameful track record.
The only people telling union members and non-union members what their rights are on equal pay - are Action 4 Equality London and Stefan Cross.
Tuesday, 22 April 2008
Union News
As always happens, when Action 4 Equality appears on the scene - we are contacted by local unions reps who have been starved of information and given bad advice for years.
London is just the same as everywhere else - most local unions reps are just trying to do their best for their members - but few of them are experts in equal pay or know the history of the Single Status agreement.
It's the union hierarchy that's responsible for keeping ordinary members in the dark - few local union reps are aware that traditional male groups (refuse workers, road workers and gardeners) have been paid big bonuses for many years.
And it comes as a big surprise for them to find this out from Action 4 Equality - but when you think about it the unions are hardly likely to tell their women members or local reps - because it's the same union people who have been favouring the male groups for years.
There would be a lynching party if the unions shouted this from the rooftops - because it's the female dominated jobs that should have benefited from Single Status - but in many areas it's the female dominated jobs that are losing out.
So, the unions are rightly embarrassed about how they've behaved - and how they've let their women members down.
But we don't mind whether you're a union member, a non-union member or a local union rep - we treat everyone in exactly the same way - and we're happy to take up your equal pay claim on that basis.
London is just the same as everywhere else - most local unions reps are just trying to do their best for their members - but few of them are experts in equal pay or know the history of the Single Status agreement.
It's the union hierarchy that's responsible for keeping ordinary members in the dark - few local union reps are aware that traditional male groups (refuse workers, road workers and gardeners) have been paid big bonuses for many years.
And it comes as a big surprise for them to find this out from Action 4 Equality - but when you think about it the unions are hardly likely to tell their women members or local reps - because it's the same union people who have been favouring the male groups for years.
There would be a lynching party if the unions shouted this from the rooftops - because it's the female dominated jobs that should have benefited from Single Status - but in many areas it's the female dominated jobs that are losing out.
So, the unions are rightly embarrassed about how they've behaved - and how they've let their women members down.
But we don't mind whether you're a union member, a non-union member or a local union rep - we treat everyone in exactly the same way - and we're happy to take up your equal pay claim on that basis.
Friday, 18 April 2008
Redbridge News
According to our clients in Redbridge, the council is putting it about that there's no money set aside to pay for implementing Single Status.
So, the less than subtle message to the workforce is: "Don't get your hopes up!"
Now this is exactly why people should bang in an equal pay claim - because the employers and the trade unions are now trying to introduce Single Status on the cheap.
In many parts of the country, the employers and trade unions have gone to the workforce with an agreed Single Status package - only for union members to reject what's on offer - when they realise they're being invited to buy a pig in a poke.
In North Lanarkshire and Fife councils - to name but two councils in Scotland - the trade unions did the employers dirty work by recommending their members to accept lousy Single Status deals.
But the workforce saw through what was happening and voted against the their union leaders advice.
The employers always say the cupboard is bare - and that they don't have enough money to pay up. Don't believe what they say - they've had 10 long years to plan for Single Status and how to end their discriminatory pay and grading structures.
If they introduce new arrangements that are just as bad as the old ones - the employers are open to challenge. And so are the unions - if they're foolish enough agree to such proposals.
Our advice is not to trust people who have failed to keep their promises for all these years - they'll just try and cheat you out of what you're really due.
So, don't delay - demand equal pay today!
So, the less than subtle message to the workforce is: "Don't get your hopes up!"
Now this is exactly why people should bang in an equal pay claim - because the employers and the trade unions are now trying to introduce Single Status on the cheap.
In many parts of the country, the employers and trade unions have gone to the workforce with an agreed Single Status package - only for union members to reject what's on offer - when they realise they're being invited to buy a pig in a poke.
In North Lanarkshire and Fife councils - to name but two councils in Scotland - the trade unions did the employers dirty work by recommending their members to accept lousy Single Status deals.
But the workforce saw through what was happening and voted against the their union leaders advice.
The employers always say the cupboard is bare - and that they don't have enough money to pay up. Don't believe what they say - they've had 10 long years to plan for Single Status and how to end their discriminatory pay and grading structures.
If they introduce new arrangements that are just as bad as the old ones - the employers are open to challenge. And so are the unions - if they're foolish enough agree to such proposals.
Our advice is not to trust people who have failed to keep their promises for all these years - they'll just try and cheat you out of what you're really due.
So, don't delay - demand equal pay today!
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
How do I start a claim?
All we need to get your equal pay claim started is some basic information - to get things moving all we require is your:
1 Full name
2 Address
We will then send you further information in the post - to explain how your case will be handled - and a separate (About You) form to gather additional information about your job/employer.
You can set the ball rolling by phoning Action 4 Equality London on 0845 300 3 800 or by e-mailing your (1, 2 and 3) details to: markirvine@compuserve.com
1 Full name
2 Address
3 Post Code
A contact phone number and/or e-mail address are useful - but not essential at this stage.We will then send you further information in the post - to explain how your case will be handled - and a separate (About You) form to gather additional information about your job/employer.
You can set the ball rolling by phoning Action 4 Equality London on 0845 300 3 800 or by e-mailing your (1, 2 and 3) details to: markirvine@compuserve.com
Why only 6 years back pay?
One of the most frequent questions people ask is: "If Single Status goes back to 1998, why do I have a claim for only 6 instead of 10 years back pay?"
The answer is that the law of the land - The Statute of Limitations - prevents people from going back in time more than 6 years in a dispute over financial matters.
So, people's claims are limited to a maximum of 6 years in terms of back pay - when common sense and fairness suggests that 10 years should apply.
In Scotland, the position is even worse - the Statute of Limitations runs to only 5 years north of the border - because Scotland has its own legal system and rules.
However, this statutory restriction normally just serves to make people even angrier - because it's the combined failure of the employers and the trade unions - that's cost so many women workers the additional 4 years.
And to add insult to injury - the unions and the employers are still trying to pull the wool over people's eyes:
But 6 years is a hell of a lot better than nothing at all - and that's exactly what was on offer - until Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross came along.
The answer is that the law of the land - The Statute of Limitations - prevents people from going back in time more than 6 years in a dispute over financial matters.
So, people's claims are limited to a maximum of 6 years in terms of back pay - when common sense and fairness suggests that 10 years should apply.
In Scotland, the position is even worse - the Statute of Limitations runs to only 5 years north of the border - because Scotland has its own legal system and rules.
However, this statutory restriction normally just serves to make people even angrier - because it's the combined failure of the employers and the trade unions - that's cost so many women workers the additional 4 years.
And to add insult to injury - the unions and the employers are still trying to pull the wool over people's eyes:
- by failing to explain the true value of their claims
- by encouraging their members not to rock the boat
- by allowing their members to accept poor 'one-off ' settlements
- by continuing to favour the male workers on issues like protection - so the women lose out again
But 6 years is a hell of a lot better than nothing at all - and that's exactly what was on offer - until Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross came along.
Monday, 14 April 2008
Secondary Claims (2)
No sooner do we post some information about Secondary Claims than people get in touch to ask: What is my claim worth?
Well the answer is it depends on the size of the pay gap with your comparator - i.e. the male job that you can compare your job to - and, if necessary, persuade an employment tribunal that your job deserves to be paid the same - certainly not thousands of pounds less.
In a previous post (dated 11 April) we used the example of a Home Carer to illustrate the likely size of a full-time employee's claim: £3.00 per hour x 37 hours = £111.00 per week x 52 weeks = £5,772 + interest.
So, if councils are protecting the higher pay of the male workers for 3 years your claim is worth: £5,772 x 3 = £17,316 + interest
If your own council protects the higher pay of the male workers for 4 years your claim is worth: £5,772 x 4 = £23,088 + interest.
And if your council has decided to protect the higher pay of the male workers indefinitely (as some have done) your claim is worth: £5,772 a year for many years to come!
The same is true of part-time workers - who have exactly the same rights as full-time workers - so just pro-rata your hours over the working year - and that explains the basis of your Secondary Claim.
Well the answer is it depends on the size of the pay gap with your comparator - i.e. the male job that you can compare your job to - and, if necessary, persuade an employment tribunal that your job deserves to be paid the same - certainly not thousands of pounds less.
In a previous post (dated 11 April) we used the example of a Home Carer to illustrate the likely size of a full-time employee's claim: £3.00 per hour x 37 hours = £111.00 per week x 52 weeks = £5,772 + interest.
So, if councils are protecting the higher pay of the male workers for 3 years your claim is worth: £5,772 x 3 = £17,316 + interest
If your own council protects the higher pay of the male workers for 4 years your claim is worth: £5,772 x 4 = £23,088 + interest.
And if your council has decided to protect the higher pay of the male workers indefinitely (as some have done) your claim is worth: £5,772 a year for many years to come!
The same is true of part-time workers - who have exactly the same rights as full-time workers - so just pro-rata your hours over the working year - and that explains the basis of your Secondary Claim.
Secondary Claims
Councils around the country follow the same predictable pattern in dealing with equal pay - after years of sitting on their backsides.
First, they try and 'buy out' key groups of staff (normally just some of the manual workers) - with very poor offers of settlement - which they bully and pressurise people into accepting without the benefit of proper advice.
Second, they don't explain that the higher pay of the traditional male groups is being protected for years into the future - because continuing to favour the men is itself discriminatory and simply leads to further claims.
Some councils are protecting the men's higher rates of pay for 3 or 4 years - others indefinitely!
But while the pay gap between male and female jobs continues to exist - people can still raise an equal pay claim - even if they have already accepted an offer of settlement.
The employers' don't want their employees to understand what's going on - after all they've kept them in the dark for the past 10 years - why would they change now?
The unions should be advising their members that they have perfectly good claims - so long as there is a pay gap between male and female jobs. But the unions are completely compromised because they have agreed the protection arrangements which favour the traditional male jobs.
So, our advice is that - even if you have accepted an offer of settlement - don't accept second best - don't accept being paid less than the male dominated jobs for years into the future.
First, they try and 'buy out' key groups of staff (normally just some of the manual workers) - with very poor offers of settlement - which they bully and pressurise people into accepting without the benefit of proper advice.
Second, they don't explain that the higher pay of the traditional male groups is being protected for years into the future - because continuing to favour the men is itself discriminatory and simply leads to further claims.
Some councils are protecting the men's higher rates of pay for 3 or 4 years - others indefinitely!
But while the pay gap between male and female jobs continues to exist - people can still raise an equal pay claim - even if they have already accepted an offer of settlement.
The employers' don't want their employees to understand what's going on - after all they've kept them in the dark for the past 10 years - why would they change now?
The unions should be advising their members that they have perfectly good claims - so long as there is a pay gap between male and female jobs. But the unions are completely compromised because they have agreed the protection arrangements which favour the traditional male jobs.
So, our advice is that - even if you have accepted an offer of settlement - don't accept second best - don't accept being paid less than the male dominated jobs for years into the future.
Saturday, 12 April 2008
Job Evaluation - Friend or Foe?
Job evaluation - in theory at least - is about establishing a fair and sensible 'rank order' of jobs -based on an objective assessment of their relative skill and responsibilities.
So, the jobs with most skill and responsibility are at the top on the pay and grading structure - and those with less skill and responsibility end up lower down the pay ladder.
Job evaluation was a fundamental part of the 1998 Single Status agreement - which required UK councils to assess all their jobs under a new, modern and non-discriminatory job evaluation scheme (JES).
The agreement recognised that many female dominated jobs had been undervalued for years - and so they were expected to be the big winners from Single Status.
But things didn't work out the way they were intended - the employers and the unions lost their nerve because this meant tackling the vested interests inside their respective organisations.
Everyone expected that Single Status would lead to big pay increases for many female dominated jobs - but this also meant that the traditionally better paid male jobs would have to 'mark time' or stand still - while women workers caught in the pay stakes.
The unions and employers simply failed to implement this crucial part of Single Status - and the significance of what was happening was kept hidden from a largely female workforce.
Until Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross arrived on the scene and let the cat out the bag - by explaining to women workers how badly they had been let down.
Now the employers are in a panic - across the UK they're trying to introduce job evaluation in a great rush and on the cheap - and often at the expense of female employees whom Single Status was supposed to help.
Many of the new JE schemes now being introduced are producing some decidedly odd results - many female jobs are faring badly compared to the traditional male jobs - which is the exact opposite of what you would expect.
The reality is that pay discrimination is still widespread - despite what the employers and unions say. So, if job evaluation is being bulldozed through by your council, get some proper advice and help - from Action 4 Equality London.
So, the jobs with most skill and responsibility are at the top on the pay and grading structure - and those with less skill and responsibility end up lower down the pay ladder.
Job evaluation was a fundamental part of the 1998 Single Status agreement - which required UK councils to assess all their jobs under a new, modern and non-discriminatory job evaluation scheme (JES).
The agreement recognised that many female dominated jobs had been undervalued for years - and so they were expected to be the big winners from Single Status.
But things didn't work out the way they were intended - the employers and the unions lost their nerve because this meant tackling the vested interests inside their respective organisations.
Everyone expected that Single Status would lead to big pay increases for many female dominated jobs - but this also meant that the traditionally better paid male jobs would have to 'mark time' or stand still - while women workers caught in the pay stakes.
The unions and employers simply failed to implement this crucial part of Single Status - and the significance of what was happening was kept hidden from a largely female workforce.
Until Action 4 Equality and Stefan Cross arrived on the scene and let the cat out the bag - by explaining to women workers how badly they had been let down.
Now the employers are in a panic - across the UK they're trying to introduce job evaluation in a great rush and on the cheap - and often at the expense of female employees whom Single Status was supposed to help.
Many of the new JE schemes now being introduced are producing some decidedly odd results - many female jobs are faring badly compared to the traditional male jobs - which is the exact opposite of what you would expect.
The reality is that pay discrimination is still widespread - despite what the employers and unions say. So, if job evaluation is being bulldozed through by your council, get some proper advice and help - from Action 4 Equality London.
Friday, 11 April 2008
Home Carers
We've had a lot of calls this week from Home Carers - asking for an explanation about the basis of their equal pay claims.
Home Carers last had their jobs evaluated and graded back in 1988 - at that time they were placed on Manual Worker Grade 5 - a relatively high grade - certainly higher than many traditional male jobs such as Refuse Driver (Grade 4), Refuse Collector (Grade 2) or a Road Sweeper (Grade 1).
Yet, these male jobs were all paid big bonuses on top of their basic pay - which were never paid to the female dominated jobs.
So, despite being on a higher grade, Home Carers were actually being paid much less in terms of take home pay - with the men earning an extra 50% or so routinely every week - a practice which the unions, of course, kept hidden from their women members.
In financial terms, a Home Carer has been working for about £6 an hour - for the past 6 years - while these traditional male jobs have been earning £9 + an hour - even though they do lower graded work.
A full-time Home Carer with 6 years service has a claim worth well over £30,000 - £3.00 per hour x 37 (hours per week) = £111.00 x 52 (weeks of the year) = £5,772 x 6 (years back pay claim) = £34,632 + interest on top.
That's how much more the traditional male jobs have been paid over the past 6 years - and that's why Home Carers and so many other groups have such sizeable claims.
The employers and the unions said they would sort this out 10 years ago - and didn't keep their word - they are now trying to clear up a mess of their own making - but in doing so they're still trying to avoid paying the female dominated jobs what they're really worth.
Home Carers last had their jobs evaluated and graded back in 1988 - at that time they were placed on Manual Worker Grade 5 - a relatively high grade - certainly higher than many traditional male jobs such as Refuse Driver (Grade 4), Refuse Collector (Grade 2) or a Road Sweeper (Grade 1).
Yet, these male jobs were all paid big bonuses on top of their basic pay - which were never paid to the female dominated jobs.
So, despite being on a higher grade, Home Carers were actually being paid much less in terms of take home pay - with the men earning an extra 50% or so routinely every week - a practice which the unions, of course, kept hidden from their women members.
In financial terms, a Home Carer has been working for about £6 an hour - for the past 6 years - while these traditional male jobs have been earning £9 + an hour - even though they do lower graded work.
A full-time Home Carer with 6 years service has a claim worth well over £30,000 - £3.00 per hour x 37 (hours per week) = £111.00 x 52 (weeks of the year) = £5,772 x 6 (years back pay claim) = £34,632 + interest on top.
That's how much more the traditional male jobs have been paid over the past 6 years - and that's why Home Carers and so many other groups have such sizeable claims.
The employers and the unions said they would sort this out 10 years ago - and didn't keep their word - they are now trying to clear up a mess of their own making - but in doing so they're still trying to avoid paying the female dominated jobs what they're really worth.
Wednesday, 9 April 2008
Action 4 Equality
For anyone who wants to know more about the background to equal pay - there's a wealth of information on our Scotland web site which can be found at -
www.action4equalityscotland.blogspot.com
The Scotland site has been up and running for more than a year - so a considerable archive of material has built up over the past fifteen months - there's lots to read about including:
www.action4equalityscotland.blogspot.com
The Scotland site has been up and running for more than a year - so a considerable archive of material has built up over the past fifteen months - there's lots to read about including:
- individual case studies
- questions and issues raised by clients
- examples of bad behaviour from both employers and trade unions
If you have a query about equal pay in London, e-mail the details to Mark Irvine who will be happy to respond: markirvine@compuserve.com
Saturday, 5 April 2008
Pensions and Equal Pay
Female dominated council jobs experience a 'double whammy' when it comes to equal pay - not only have they been paid less for many years, but this blatant discrimination continues when people reach retirement age.
Take a Home Carer and Refuse Driver, for example. Assume both jobs are full-time and that the female carer is paid £12,000 a year - while the refuse worker gets £18,000 a year - which gives a typical pay gap of around £6,000 per annum (or £3.00 per hour) based on our experience in other parts of the UK.
So, the woman's equal pay claim is to close the gap of £3.00 per hour and to recover the £6,000 a year - although this can only go back 6 years in total - so the back pay claim is for £36,000 plus interest.
But people's retirement benefits are based on their final salary - so again the women lose out. The maximum benefits under the pension scheme are for half of your final salary and three times your annual pension as a lump sum.
So, the refuse worker (on maximum benefits) would get £9,000 a year as a pension plus £27,000 (3 x £9,000) by way of a lump sum.
The home carer, on the other hand, would get only £6,000 a year as a pension plus £18,000 (3 x £6,000) by way of a lump sum. So, if she lives for 20 years after retiring, the carer loses out again - by a whopping £69,000 (20 x £3,000 = £60,000 + £9,000 difference in the lump sums)
That's the reason why so many people are waking up to the fact that they have an equal pay claim - and understanding the difference a successful claim could make to their lives.
The employers and unions, by the way, should be ashamed of themselves - for keeping this information hidden from a largely female council workforce.
Take a Home Carer and Refuse Driver, for example. Assume both jobs are full-time and that the female carer is paid £12,000 a year - while the refuse worker gets £18,000 a year - which gives a typical pay gap of around £6,000 per annum (or £3.00 per hour) based on our experience in other parts of the UK.
So, the woman's equal pay claim is to close the gap of £3.00 per hour and to recover the £6,000 a year - although this can only go back 6 years in total - so the back pay claim is for £36,000 plus interest.
But people's retirement benefits are based on their final salary - so again the women lose out. The maximum benefits under the pension scheme are for half of your final salary and three times your annual pension as a lump sum.
So, the refuse worker (on maximum benefits) would get £9,000 a year as a pension plus £27,000 (3 x £9,000) by way of a lump sum.
The home carer, on the other hand, would get only £6,000 a year as a pension plus £18,000 (3 x £6,000) by way of a lump sum. So, if she lives for 20 years after retiring, the carer loses out again - by a whopping £69,000 (20 x £3,000 = £60,000 + £9,000 difference in the lump sums)
That's the reason why so many people are waking up to the fact that they have an equal pay claim - and understanding the difference a successful claim could make to their lives.
The employers and unions, by the way, should be ashamed of themselves - for keeping this information hidden from a largely female council workforce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
