Equal Rights Law
Discussion
First time posting in here, hopefully some one can help me! We are currently trying negotiate a wage deal, with some employees contract being changed.
Current contracts are -
Employee A is on a 5 from 6 contract, with a requirement to work 13 Saturday's per year.
Employee B is on a 5 from 7 contract, with a requirement to work every Saturday, and is paid an extra 7% per week
Our employer wants all Employee A's on a 5 over 7 contract working 13 Saturday's and 13 Sunday's, and has offered a circa 3% pay rise, they want Employee B to work the same 13 Saturday's and 13 Sunday's as employee A and has offered a circa 1% pay rise.
What are the legalities of expecting anyone who is changing from the 5 from 6 contract to a 5 from 7 to do the same exact job for less money than employee B would be receiving?
Our company is saying the cannot afford to give employees A the 7% difference, and obviously I don't think they can reduce employees B wage inline with ours.
I would appreciate if anyone could shed any light on where we can go with this, thanks!
Current contracts are -
Employee A is on a 5 from 6 contract, with a requirement to work 13 Saturday's per year.
Employee B is on a 5 from 7 contract, with a requirement to work every Saturday, and is paid an extra 7% per week
Our employer wants all Employee A's on a 5 over 7 contract working 13 Saturday's and 13 Sunday's, and has offered a circa 3% pay rise, they want Employee B to work the same 13 Saturday's and 13 Sunday's as employee A and has offered a circa 1% pay rise.
What are the legalities of expecting anyone who is changing from the 5 from 6 contract to a 5 from 7 to do the same exact job for less money than employee B would be receiving?
Our company is saying the cannot afford to give employees A the 7% difference, and obviously I don't think they can reduce employees B wage inline with ours.
I would appreciate if anyone could shed any light on where we can go with this, thanks!
In summary, if A is employed on work which is the same work as that done by B, or the work is of equal value, and A and B are of different sexes, then there could be a claim for equal pay. The employer would have to show that the pay differential was not based on sex. Similarly, if the pay differential was based on some other characteristic such as ethnicity, disability etc (I am abbreviating here, not providing a full list of protected characteristics), there might be a claim of unlawful discrimination, but absent such factors, and subject to minimum wage rules, freedom of contract prevails.
This is, BTW, the sort of problem that unions were made for. Low paid workers are vulnerable to exploitation by employers. The workers should join a union and seek to use collective bargaining to improve their situation.
This is, BTW, the sort of problem that unions were made for. Low paid workers are vulnerable to exploitation by employers. The workers should join a union and seek to use collective bargaining to improve their situation.
Breadvan72 said:
In summary, if A is employed on work which is the same work as that done by B, or the work is of equal value, and A and B are of different sexes, then there could be a claim for equal pay. The employer would have to show that the pay differential was not based on sex. Similarly, if the pay differential was based on some other characteristic such as ethnicity, disability etc (I am abbreviating here, not providing a full list of protected characteristics), there might be a claim of unlawful discrimination, but absent such factors, and subject to minimum wage rules, freedom of contract prevails.
This is, BTW, the sort of problem that unions were made for. Low paid workers are vulnerable to exploitation by employers. The workers should join a union and seek to use collective bargaining to improve their situation.
The only differences between a and b in my situation is that b are already on the 5 from 7 contract, all staff are now expected to do the same shift patterns, with the 13-15 employees on 5 from 7 currently getting 7% extra per week, and now we are expected to sign the same contract but for 7% less, all work carried out by the staff expected to go onto this new contract is exactly the same, I can't figure out how they can legally pay myself 7% less than someone I work next too...This is, BTW, the sort of problem that unions were made for. Low paid workers are vulnerable to exploitation by employers. The workers should join a union and seek to use collective bargaining to improve their situation.
We have a union, but I wanted to get some information myself, I plan to speak with ACAS, CAB and my Union office to get a better idea around the whole situation.
Thanks for your help!
Breadvan72 said:
You are wrong, perhaps because you misunderstand what the equality legislation is for. The legislation does not compel pay equality absent (broadly) the presence of a differential based on a protected characteristic.
It's similar to the way people believe they are a victim of discrimination but have no real understanding of what that means in law. How people feel by their moral compass is not the same as what may or may not be lawful.Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff