A former operations assistant has been awarded £17,568.70 after finding that she was paid unfairly in comparison with male colleagues, and faced sex discrimination.
Nicola James, partner at law firm Littler, told HR magazine: “There are some clear and important lessons to learn; firstly around transparency and clarity. The judge struggled to understand why the claimant’s male comparators were being paid the applied overtime rate (not helped by the respondent failing to provide evidence in this regard). This will have been detrimental to their defence.”
“Secondly, the claimant didn’t need to show these male comparators were doing exactly the same work as her, just that they were doing broadly similar work, and that the differences in their work had no practical importance. It was a question of substance for the tribunal to understand what the work involved, rather than relying on small variations in duties or different labels.”
HR can prepare for such cases by understanding why employees in their organisation are paid what they are, James added, saying: “This is the first fundamental step to understand if there are any unexplainable pay gaps which need to be investigated and addressed.”
“Having a job architecture, with a pay structure matched to it, can help manage this risk by bringing clarity and transparency to your pay practices.”
