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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
