equal pay essay PDF

Preview

Summary

dissertation ...

Description

Referring to the above statement, critically analyse the impact of the Equality Act 2010 on inequality between women and men in the workplace. Background of Equality Act 2010: What laws were there before? Why was there a need to enforce EQA? Before the Equality Act 2010 was enforced there were several legislations in existence to decrease the inequalities between men and woman in the workplace, such as the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Employment Equality (Religion & Belief, Sexual Orientation, and Age) Regulations 2003, Race Relations Act 1976, the Prohibition of Discrimination under Directive 2006/54 and the Article 157 The Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. Though despite this there was still a mandate to adopt a unitary/integrated perspective on equality law between men and women in the workplace to be enforced within a single document, thus the Labour Government enacting the Equality Act in 2010 which harmonized all existing equality laws1. The act also brought about transparent definitions of discrimination, harassment, and victimisation, that can be applied to the nine protected characteristics which are Age, Gender, Gender Reassignment. Sexual Orientational, Pregnancy and Maternity, Marriages and Civil Partnership, Race and Ethnicity and Disability 2 . The Equality Act 2010 covers a much wider range of equality laws between men and women in the workplace than ever before. As a result of this, it is critical to acknowledge that this essay will focus primarily on gender discrimination in the workplace between men and women, specifically concerning unequal pay. Law in place for equal pay before EQA: Equal Pay Act 1970 The right for women to receive the same amount of remuneration as men do for the same occupation has been notoriously fought for by trade unions and feminist groups. Thus, evident in the Ford Sewing Machinists Strike in 1968, where women fought to receive the same treatment in the workplace as their male colleagues, as well as retaliating against the skills grading restructure that downgraded the women’s role from a Grade C where they were considered skilled workers, to Grade B, unskilled workers. The women argued that their sewing capabilities- making seats for Ford- was sufficient enough for them to be on the same salary as the car spray painters, who were earning fifteen percent more than the women. 3 Thus, the primary issue being equal right for equal work between men and women, and as a consequence of the strike (that applied economic pressure on the British economy as major businesses and banks were concerned that the economy was declining) the coalition government passed the Equal Pay Act 1970 – came into force in 1975that aimed to prohibit inequality of treatment concerning pay and conditions of employment for the same type of work between men and women 4. 1 Bob hepple 2 BOB HEPPLE 3 https://www.marxist.com/the-dagenham-machinists-strike-and-the-struggle-for-equality.htm 4 S1 (1) Equal Pay Act (EPA) 1970.

The Equal Pay Act 1970, also gave women the right to bring proceedings against their employer if the contract of employment or implied terms of their contract breached the equal pay clause.5 Thus, for a claim to be successful three comparisons need to be satisfied, the work being conducted is considered as ‘like work’, or work-related as equal after a job evaluation, and lastly, the work is shown to be of equal value. A women’s work will be regarded the same as men for like work or broadly similar, based on the practicality and frequency of the work being conducted compared to their male colleagues, irrespective of this not being of practical importance (where it must be proven that as well as a duty being contractually obliged to be carried out, the relevant employees must physically carry the task out to a significant extent 6) about the terms and conditions of their employment7. Thus, evident in Shields v E Coomes (Holdings) Ltd [1978]8 where a female betting shop worker brought proceedings against her employers on the basis that she was being paid ninety-two pence but her male colleagues in a different store was being paid a pound and sixpence. Initially, the case was dismissed by the industrial tribunal because despite the work between the male and female colleagues being broadly similar 9, the male colleague’s position involved security duties which were not present within the female’s role, which was the primary reason for the female worker’s claim for unequal pay was dismissed. However, this was overruled by the Employment Tribunal who held that comparisons must be applied to the actual work being carried out by both sexes, and in this case despite the male’s role including security aspects, in reality, he did not carry out these duties, hence there being no genuine material factor (other than gender) to justify the female worker being paid less, her claim for equal pay was successful. Although, in Eaton Ltd v Nuttall [1977]10 for a women’s job to be considered equal value to men, in compliance with the Equal Pay Act 1970, the tribunal must not only assess the work that is being carried out by the relevant employees but also take into account the degree of responsibility involved in the work. Thus, in this case, Mrs. Nuttall’s male comparator (they were both production schedulers) handled items worth a significant amount more in value, then the items she managed, which meant that there was a greater risk/loss involved in the male’s work should anything go wrong than there is in Mrs. Nuttal. Therefore, her work did not fulfill the criteria of being considered as work compared to her male colleague, and as a result of this, the Employment Tribunal dismissed her claim for equal pay. Moreover, there are also instances when women’s work is rated equal to men but still not considered as having the same equal value as there male comparator. In Hovell v Ashford & St Peter’s Hospital NHS Trust [2009]11 the claimant, a social services administrator for the NHS, had been rated 274 points falling into the band 4 5 S2 (1) EPA 1970. 6 Electrolux Ltd v Hutchinson [1976] IRLR 410, [1977] ICR 252, EAT. 7 S1 (4) EPA 1970. 8 IRLR 263 CA. 9 Capper Pass Ltd v Lawton [1977] 2 All ER 11, [1977] QB 852, EAT. 10 3 All ER 1131. 11 EWCA Civ 670, CA

bracket (which covers those who scored between 271 and 325 points) equivalent to her male comparators (who scored 296, 298 and 305 points) after a job evaluation study (implemented in 2004), meaning that moving forward she would be entitled to the same pay as her comparators. Despite this, the claimant brought proceedings seeking arrears in pay for the period before the job evaluations being enforced, claiming that due to the outcome of the job evaluation it is clear that her work is of equal value, therefore, she should be compensated. However, her case was dismissed twice by the Employment Tribunal and by the Court of Appeal on the basis that just because she was in the same level band as her comparators, the difference in point reflect how their job do not necessarily hold equal value. The Court of Appeal also stated that it is not sufficient to simply rely on the job evaluation as evidence for her equal value claim and that she needed to explain why the difference in points must be ignored for her claim to be successful. Evidently, despite the positive impact the Equal Pay Act 1970 has made on minimizing inequalities in wages for men and women (such as full-time women’s average earnings compared to men’s raised by five percent, from seventy-two percent to seventy-seven over five years), there was still a numerous amount of employers who have found ways around the statue, by raising women’s rates to the lowest male rate, even when the female's job is more demanding than the males or by giving women a completely different job title despite the work being predominately the same12. Hence, the significance of the Equality Act 2010 being enforced, as it not only includes the clearer definitions on what is considered equal work 13, like work14 and the gender inequality clause 15but it has also introduced a new provision under Section 78 (1)16 where employers have a duty of publishing any information relating to pay to the public, which increases transparency over pay and as a result of this more women have discovered that they have been paid significantly lower than their male comparators and have sought to bring proceeding against their employees. The case of Ahmed v BBC 17 where Samira Ahmed brought a proceeding against her employers after discovering that for many years, she had been paid significantly lower than her male colleagues. The Employment Tribunal held that both the claimant and male comparator Jeremy Vine presenting their radio shows were deemed as like work, and the minor difference between the two had no real impact on the work that was carried out. Thus, it was up to BBC to provide evidence that the difference in pay was for other reasons aside from gender, which they did by claiming that the two radio shows were different; the public profile of the two presenters and their broadcasting range and experience. However, the employment tribunal held that the BBC failed to provide evidence that any of those factors explained the difference in pay at any stage that Samira was employed, between May 2012 and September 2018, thus her claim for equal pay succeeded.

12 https://neu.org.uk/advice/equal-pay-and-equal-pay-act-1970 13 Section 65 (1) Equality Act 2010 14 Section 65 (2) EA 2010 15 Section 66 (2) EA 2010 16 EA 2010 17 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e27051940f0b62c46060d97/Ms_S_Ahmed_-v-_BBC__Case_Number_2206858_2018_-_full.pdf...