No pay rise

[garryb]

Hi all , looking for a bit of advice please. I work in a busy and noisy environment and a large part of my job involves taking orders over the phone. In the last few years I have really struggled with my hearing so decided it was time to look for a new job. I started training for my new job in June and went part time with my present job. I was honest with my employer and explained everything and that once fully qualified early in the new year they would get the required notice.My colleagues all got a decent pay rise in September as they wanted now to make sure everyone in the company doing the same job were on the same wage. I did not get a rise as they are saying because I have went part time to train i have really given them notice so am not entitled to a rise although i have to continue doing the same job. Just looking to see where I stand.
Thanks

[Scabutz]

Giving pay rises is completely at the discretion of the employer, they dont have to give one to anyone. Unless its specifically stated in your contract that you will get one.

So I am afraid its tough st. Its not nice for you at all.

[Muzzer79]

Scabutz said:

Giving pay rises is completely at the discretion of the employer, they dont have to give one to anyone. Unless its specifically stated in your contract that you will get one.

So I am afraid its tough st. Its not nice for you at all.

Well.....not quite

If (and it may be pretty thin) the OP can prove that he is doing the same job as a colleague with the same experience and same qualifications, he may be able to claim discrimination

However, this is easily rebuffed by the employer if there is a salary band, if the roles are slightly different or if experience level is different.

[garryb]

Hi, this has all came about because they changed our job titles and set a salary for that job title . The idea was that we would all be on the same wage to cut down on the ,"I'm not doing that , he gets more money than me " augments .j

[vaud]

garryb said:

Hi all , looking for a bit of advice please. I work in a busy and noisy environment and a large part of my job involves taking orders over the phone. In the last few years I have really struggled with my hearing so decided it was time to look for a new job. I started training for my new job in June and went part time with my present job. I was honest with my employer and explained everything and that once fully qualified early in the new year they would get the required notice.My colleagues all got a decent pay rise in September as they wanted now to make sure everyone in the company doing the same job were on the same wage. I did not get a rise as they are saying because I have went part time to train i have really given them notice so am not entitled to a rise although i have to continue doing the same job. Just looking to see where I stand.
Thanks

You are leaving and seem to have been very flexible to accommodate you to retrain... why would they also increase your pay? You have given them notice that you intend to leave, even if you haven't yet handed in your notice?

[Pooh]

Muzzer79 said:

If (and it may be pretty thin) the OP can prove that he is doing the same job as a colleague with the same experience and same qualifications, he may be able to claim discrimination

Slightly off-topic but no two people ever have the same qualifications, experience, attitude and ability so the idea that people should get the same pay because they do the same job is crazy.

[garryb]

vaud said:

You are leaving and seem to have been very flexible to accommodate you to retrain... why would they also increase your pay? You have given them notice that you intend to leave, even if you haven't yet handed in your notice?

So using this argument , if in February I complete my training I will not need to give them a months notice as I already have them notice in June.

[vaud]

garryb said:

So using this argument , if in February I complete my training I will not need to give them a months notice as I already have them notice in June.

I don't know what is in your contract.

Did you have a formal conversation followed up with an email/letter confirming the plan, or was it more "going part time, retraining and then will leave"?

My advice would be not to burn any bridges, especially for the sake of 4 weeks notice.

[speedyman]

Pooh said:

Muzzer79 said:

If (and it may be pretty thin) the OP can prove that he is doing the same job as a colleague with the same experience and same qualifications, he may be able to claim discrimination

Slightly off-topic but no two people ever have the same qualifications, experience, attitude and ability so the idea that people should get the same pay because they do the same job is crazy.

Works for M.P.s

[edc]

Muzzer79 said:

Scabutz said:

Giving pay rises is completely at the discretion of the employer, they dont have to give one to anyone. Unless its specifically stated in your contract that you will get one.

So I am afraid its tough st. Its not nice for you at all.

Well.....not quite

If (and it may be pretty thin) the OP can prove that he is doing the same job as a colleague with the same experience and same qualifications, he may be able to claim discrimination

However, this is easily rebuffed by the employer if there is a salary band, if the roles are slightly different or if experience level is different.

What grounds would this discrimination claim be based on?

[Scabutz]

edc said:

What grounds would this discrimination claim be based on?

Equality act allows for claim via tribunal for equal pay. Same experience and qualifications should = same pay. But that's rarely the case. For example, and I'm not saying this is the case, but maybe the OP hasn't met targets, should he get the same pay rise as the rest if they did perform? How do you measure experience. Years of work? What if someone achieved little for years and was carried by a team, are they worth someone with the same period of experience which has worked hard and achieved more?

I think if you had broadly similar back ground to someone else and they were paid significantly more that you then there is possibly some discrimination. But not getting a pay rise one year isnt.

I should get my bonus in November. But I'm serving my notice period and have been told I'm not eligible because I'm leaving. It should be a bonus based on previous years performance. Do I think I'm being unfairly treated or discriminated against. No I dont. Its fking annoying but that's all.

[alabbasi]

Not to sound harsh, but pay rises are an investment in the employees, to make sure that they don't get lost to competition. As you've already indicated that you're leaving, they have no reason to secure you with more money. I appreciate that you were honest, but consider that this is not the ideal situation for them either. They're paying you on your terms when they should be investing in your replacement.

[edc]

Scabutz said:

edc said:

What grounds would this discrimination claim be based on?

Equality act allows for claim via tribunal for equal pay. Same experience and qualifications should = same pay. But that's rarely the case. For example, and I'm not saying this is the case, but maybe the OP hasn't met targets, should he get the same pay rise as the rest if they did perform? How do you measure experience. Years of work? What if someone achieved little for years and was carried by a team, are they worth someone with the same period of experience which has worked hard and achieved more?

I think if you had broadly similar back ground to someone else and they were paid significantly more that you then there is possibly some discrimination. But not getting a pay rise one year isnt.

I should get my bonus in November. But I'm serving my notice period and have been told I'm not eligible because I'm leaving. It should be a bonus based on previous years performance. Do I think I'm being unfairly treated or discriminated against. No I dont. Its fking annoying but that's all.

What in the OP makes you think there is a protected characteristic which gives rise to a claim?

[Scabutz]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The primary purpose of the equality act is to ensure protected classes are treated fairly but its not limited to them, it applies equally to all.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-...

I agree though that the OP has no case and had to lump it. But my original quote was challenged and I went away and read up.

[edc]

That's the point. It may appear unfair or unjust but that does not mean it is unlawful or discriminatory.

[anonymous-user]

Scabutz said:

The primary purpose of the equality act is to ensure protected classes are treated fairly but its not limited to them, it applies equally to all.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-...

I agree though that the OP has no case and had to lump it. But my original quote was challenged and I went away and read up.

You were challenged because you were wrong. You are still wrong. You may have read up, but you appear to have misunderstood what you read.

The OP would have to show that the difference in pay related to sex. There is no rule that requires two men doing the same job to be paid the same as one another or two women doing the same job to be paid the same as one another. If an employer pays a man more or less than a woman, and the difference in pay is attributable to the difference in sex, then the lower paid employee has a claim.

As for the OP's position, no meaningful advice on that can be given without details of the OP's contract of employment.

IAAL but IANYL.

[Scabutz]

Breadvan72 said:

Scabutz said:

The primary purpose of the equality act is to ensure protected classes are treated fairly but its not limited to them, it applies equally to all.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-...

I agree though that the OP has no case and had to lump it. But my original quote was challenged and I went away and read up.

You were challenged because you were wrong. You are still wrong. You may have read up, but you appear to have misunderstood what you read.

The OP would have to show that the difference in pay related to sex. There is no rule that requires two men doing the same job to be paid the same as one another or two women doing the same job to be paid the same as one another. If an employer pays a man more or less than a woman, and the difference in pay is attributable to the difference in sex, then the lower paid employee has a claim.

As for the OP's position, no meaningful advice on that can be given without details of the OP's contract of employment.

IAAL but IANYL.

My first Bredvan72 telling off

I have misunderstood. I read this paragraph in that link "The equal pay provisions in the Act apply to men and women. However, to avoid repetition and for clarity this is written as though the claimant is a woman comparing her work and pay with those of a man." and took that to mean that it worked both ways and every way in between.

[anonymous-user]

It does work both ways, but there has to be a difference in sex between the comparators.

[NorthDave]

I dont mean this to sound patronising but this is why you should never give any one any more information than you need to.

What happens if you start your retraining and then hate it? You have already burnt your bridges with the old company. Much better to keep your cards to your chest in future. I can see why they haven't given you a pay rise - it would literally be giving money away for nothing (from their perspective).