Equal pay between colleagues

[Anna Goldsmith]

So this is a long one.

Basically I work as a supervisor (female), with two other male supervisors. Two weeks ago i found out that both of those other supervisors are earning 30p more per hour than me for the exact same job.

I raised it with my manager, who spoke to her boss and has come back as offering a 15p increase. Generous, but a bit of a slap in the face at the same time.

So i've done some digging.

Male Supervisor 1: has been on he higher wage for some time, predating the time he came to our store, but has been with us since Jan 17.

Male Supervisor 2: Received a pay rise to take him up to this higher wage at some point in the last 3 years. Most likely this happened in 2015 (while i was on maternity leave) but he's helpfully agreed to look into this for me.

Former Female Supervisor: I spoke to a female supervisor who used to work with me and was told she found out about the different tiers of wage (this is never spoken about within the team) while i was on maternity leave and requested a raise.

So i guess what i'm saying is, have i been discriminated against?
I know that they will say that everyone who got an increase, got it because of performance and of course being out of the business i could not be rated on performance, however surely now i am being treated in an unequal way because I have been offered less than what the male members of staff are getting for the same job, isn't that gender discrimination?

I'm not and have not been on any kind of performance management during my employment with the company.
However when i returned from maternity leave i did experience the need to battle for my flexible working as my manager accepted it and then told me that it was 'an informal' agreement despite it being on HR forms. I do think these two things added together suggest she has discriminated against me because of my pregnancy/maternity leave/ returning on part time hours, but i appreciate proving that it very difficult.

Also yes this is the same manager who was aware that all of the other supervisors were receiving higher pay for the same job. In addition I had been in the supervisor role longer than both Male Supervisor 2 and Former Female supervisor.

Which frankly stinks.
Any advice would be much appreciated.

Anna

 

[Newchodge]

Talk to acas NOW. This appears to be blatant sex discrimination. Either you didn't get an increase because you were on maternity leave and your performance could not be monitored (illegal) or you are getting less because the men shouted more about it (illegal).

 

[obscure]

Former Female Supervisor: I spoke to a female supervisor who used to work with me and was told she found out about the different tiers of wage (this is never spoken about within the team) while i was on maternity leave and requested a raise.

Did this Female former Supervisor get the raise? If so, was it to the same level as her male colleagues? Are there any other female supervisors who are on the higher wage? If the answer is yes then you aren't being discriminated against.

 

[Nord20]

or you are getting less because the men shouted more about it (illegal)

Is that really true? So if I have an employee who demands a pay rise or they'll walk and I decide they are worth it, I'm now obliged to give everyone else in the same/similar role the same payrise? That really doesn't ring true to me.

 

[Newchodge]

Is that really true? So if I have an employee who demands a pay rise or they'll walk and I decide they are worth it, I'm now obliged to give everyone else in the same/similar role the same payrise? That really doesn't ring true to me.

The law expects that men and womed doing the same job get the same pay. If the reason they don't get the same pay is because they are men or are women, the employer has a problem. It is for the employer to demonstrate to a tribunal that the reason for the difference is unrelated to sex or pregnancy, or any other protected characteristic, for that matter.

 

[Nord20]

Yes, of course. I was referring to explicit statement that if someone gets a payrise because they shouted about it more, you could be guilty of discriminating against another employee because they didn't shout about it as much. If the employee(s) doing the shouting all happen to be men (or women), does it really follow that you're discriminating against the others just because it happens that it was the men that did the shouting? You have no control over who asks for a payrise....

 

[Newchodge]

Yes, of course. I was referring to explicit statement that if someone gets a payrise because they shouted about it more, you could be guilty of discriminating against another employee because they didn't shout about it as much. If the employee(s) doing the shouting all happen to be men (or women), does it really follow that you're discriminating against the others just because it happens that it was the men that did the shouting? You have no control over who asks for a payrise....

It could be indirect discrimination. That happens when an employer does something which, without the untention of the employer, tends to discriminate against a particular characteristic. A classic was the police service which used to require that male constables be a certain height. It was shown that Asian men tend to be of shorter stature than white men, so a height requirement indirectly discriminated against Asians.

If it is accepted (and it is probably true) that men tend to argue their case much more forcefully than women, having a pay structure based on how loud people demand a pay rise is indirect discrimination.

Your case, when an employee demanded a payrise or they would leave, may be different, if the payrise was then based on employee value to the company. If his female colleague made the same demand and was not paid more, there would be a problem.

 

[DontAsk]

Your case, when an employee demanded a payrise or they would leave, may be different, if the payrise was then based on employee value to the company. If his female colleague made the same demand and was not paid more, there would be a problem.

Only if she had the same value to the company.

She might even end up being paid more than the males if she's deemed to be more valuable.

 

[Markus Brundisteg]

Same job has to be paid equally. No discrimination should happen in job.

 

[HomesWarehouse]

people get offered different pay rates when signing the contract, sometimes due to experience ect, you was happy when u didn't know they were paid more so whats the problem now??

its going to hard to prove they are paid more due to sex not something else to be honest

 

[Mr D]

Most places I have worked length of time in job and skills determine pay. Have started on higher pay than existing staff in some places, have started on lower in others.
Never come across an employer who discriminated on sex - the males who took a couple of years off the job were paid the same as the females who took a couple of years off the job if skills were equivilant.

 

[MikeJ]

OP hasn't been back since making the post.

 

[DontAsk]

OP hasn't been back since making the post.

Threads often develop to the benefit of all, not just the OP.

 

[menetworkjadaltd]

I do think these two things added together suggest she has discriminated against me because of my pregnancy/maternity leave/ returning on part time hours, but i appreciate proving that it very difficult.

Do the other two supervisors also work part time?

 

[Newchodge]

Do the other two supervisors also work part time?

It doesn't matter. You cannot legally pay someone at a lower rate just because they are part time.

 

[menetworkjadaltd]

It doesn't matter. You cannot legally pay someone at a lower rate just because they are part time.

It does matter

 

[Newchodge]

It does matter

Could you explain that, please?

 

[menetworkjadaltd]

Could you explain that, please?

Because it allows us to get a clearer picture of the situation

 

[STDFR33]

Because it allows us to get a clearer picture of the situation

I don’t see how it would impact on the responses?

 

[menetworkjadaltd]

I don’t see how it would impact on the responses?

Doesn't surprise me