• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.
  • If you need direct help with your employment issue you can contact us at admin@legalbeaglesgroup.com for further assistance. This will give you access to “off-forum” support on a one-to- one basis from an experienced employment law expert for which we would welcome that you make a donation to help towards their time spent assisting on your matter. You can do this by clicking on the donate button in the box below.

Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006

    I was wondering if anyone can offer any advice. I work for a major UK employer and I have questioned the basis of our pay banding and it’s compliance under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.

    As it stands our paybands span circa £5,000 and it takes in excess of 5 years to progress from band minimum to maximum.

    Over the course of my 19 year service I have spent time in 3 grades, (7½ in band A, 9 in band B and 2½ in Band C).

    I first raised the issue with our pay policy team prior to my promotion to band C back in 2007, simply asking for details of the justification for rewarding staff based on length of service in excess of 5 years as after 7 years I was still over £2k below band maximum and according to the regulations employers would need to demonstrate that they are fulfilling a business needs in doing so. Examples given within the regulations where this might be justifiable are to:
    Reward Loyalty
    Encourage Motivation
    Recognise Experience

    In short their response was “In ***** employees with longer experience tend to have had more than one job role and have developed a broader range of skills, knowledge and experience in a wider variety of business situations. The Department values this experience and versatility/ flexibility in its employees. We expect that our more experienced employees will be able to take the lead on more difficult and/ or complex issues and we are therefore happy that individuals’ salaries reflect this additional expertise and breadth of knowledge.”

    At the time I accepted this as to be honest it seemed that it was a judgemental call even though it was a generalist statement without any statistical evidence. It is also highly questionable that someone with 9 years seniority is not as knowledgeable as someone with say 15 years seniority.

    So, after 9 years I was promoted to Band C but found that others, promoted at the same time, were paid more than me due to the fact that there is a guaranteed 10% pay increase on promotion (specifically the higher of band minimum or 10% increase). Basically there is a continuance of the reward for time served in the lower grade, irrespective of the 5 year rule.

    Once again I queried this as any Band B on the maximum of the Band B payscale who was promoted would get paid more than me – what are they rewarding? I quoted the criteria for defining length of service, i.e.

    ·the length of time the worker has been working for the employer doing work which the employer reasonably considers to be at or above a particular level (assessed by reference to the demands made on the worker, for example, in terms of effort, skills and decision making); This was the basis of the justification last time due to the value placed on skill, knowledge and experience.

    ·the length of time the worker has been working for the employer in total. This is an irrelevance as it plays no part in the current pay policy. E.g. 10 years as a Band A and 5 years as a Band B is not rewarded the same as someone with 10 years experience as a Band B.

    The justification this time, “Pay on promotion policy reflects that individuals who have gained experience from working in a previous grade will in general be able to get up to speed more quickly in their higher grade. The more service an individual has in the lower grade, the more likely they are to have gained experience, knowledge and skills which will help them to perform in the higher grade.”

    The reason provided is, in my opinion, completely unjustified. I would even go as far as saying that the opposite applies in that it has taken that person longer to demonstrate their capability for the next grade.

    The current economic climate has resulted in our pay being frozen until July 2012. The effect of this is that I am continuing to work with colleagues with less seniority than me who are getting paid more than me.

    Now I guess there will be a certain element that will say “just be thankful that you have a job”, well I am but this is not right. To be honest times are hard and I feel that the affordability of rectifying these pay anomalies is the driver, i.e. they cannot afford to correct it.

    Anyhow, that’s my issue. My question is whether any members have experience of actually challenging under these regulations? The practicalities aside I probably won’t take this further but as it stands my employers’ inability to allay my concerns that our pay breaches regulation is quite frankly appalling.

    Thanks in advance.
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006

    I had a similar experience in teaching when I first became a Deputy Head. The Head then fell ill for a while so I was Acting Head and discovered that the next most senior member of staff (the one below me) was actually being paid more.

    On the Head's return I amicably challenged this with her and she immediately addressed the issue with the Governing Body and my pay was duly increased. Had I not had the time as Acting Head I wonder, with hindsight, whether I would have ever have found out about this otherwise.

    As I say it wasn't formally challenged as such, but all done very amicably almost in the course of normal Head / Deputy discussions.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006

      Originally posted by Caspar View Post
      I had a similar experience in teaching when I first became a Deputy Head. The Head then fell ill for a while so I was Acting Head and discovered that the next most senior member of staff (the one below me) was actually being paid more.
      Was that because you didn't take the previous Deputy Head's brown ale allowance?

      Comment

      View our Terms and Conditions

      LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

      If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


      If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.

      Announcement

      Collapse

      Welcome to LegalBeagles


      Donate with PayPal button

      LegalBeagles is a free forum, founded in May 2007, providing legal guidance and support to consumers and SME's across a range of legal areas.

      See more
      See less

      Court Claim ?

      Guides and Letters
      Loading...



      Search and Compare fixed fee legal services and find a solicitor near you.

      Find a Law Firm


      Working...
      X