Does experience always count?? ?Landmark case takes another step towards eradicating gender inequality in the workplace
Is it right to reward employees every year simply for staying power?? Does extra time in the job always mean improved performance year on year?? This difficult issue has been considered by the Court of Appeal this month in a ground-breaking equal pay decision which marks a positive step towards removing the gender pay gap.
In the UK women are paid on average 17% less than men. The Equality and Human Rights Commission ?believes that length of service pay schemes are a key factor in this continuing gender pay gap.
What are length of pay schemes and how do they disadvantage women?
Length of service pay schemes are pay schemes where your level of pay is determined by the number of years you have been in the job.? They are used by many employers in both the public and private sectors, perhaps as many as a third of UK employers. ?The schemes generally disadvantage women, because across the UK, and indeed across Europe as a whole, men tend to work for one employer for longer than women do.? Women are more likely to change employers or leave the workforce entirely, when they have children or bring up their families.? They might also be more recent joiners than men in industries which have been regarded as traditionally male.
The case which changes everything…
Christine Wilson, a health and safety inspector who worked for the (Health and Safety Executive) HSE, brought a claim against them seven years ago for equal pay with her male colleagues.? They did the same job as her, but were paid more because they had been doing the job for longer.
The employment tribunal hearing Christine Wilson’s case in 2003 agreed that once an inspector had been doing the job for about 5 years, they had gained sufficient experience to do the job as well as someone who had been doing it for 10 years.? Yet HSE’s pay scale was rewarding inspectors every year for up to 10 years.
Since 2003, the case (and another challenge against the HSE) have been subject to reviews and appeals, culminating in the hearing by the Court of Appeal this month. Thankfully, the judges decided that an employer should not be able to pay men more than women purely on the grounds of longer service, where that does not lead to greater skills or better performance in the job.
What this means for you:
The case marks a huge turnaround for challenges to pay schemes – it means that employers will have to justify using these pay schemes if they are having an unfair impact on women.? This means employers need to assess each job to decide whether increased years in the job really do lead to better performance, and for how long.
Paul Noon, the general secretary of Prospect, the union which has supported Christine Wilson throughout her case, welcomed the decision: “This hard-fought but ground-breaking case should make it easier for justified claims based on length of service to succeed with any employer.”
Editor’s note: If UK tennis can give equal pay, why can’t others see sense?
By Emma Hawksworth, Russell Jones & Walker solicitors, www.rjw.co.uk
