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
Thursday, 14 August 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
