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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
