Rate this!
Jim David
Member - 3 posts
We employ two men in their fifties in similar professional roles. One has 20 years service, is a member of our ‘old’ pension scheme and (following a motoring accident five years ago) is wheelchair bound, whilst the other has 4½ years service, is a member of our ‘new’ pension scheme and is able bodied.
The disabled staff member recently discovered by accident that his salary is 15% lower than his colleague. His department manager denies disability discrimination and says that he over compensated for the much greater pension contribution the company has to make under the old pension scheme.
Cleary we need to increase the disabled person’s salary but do we make both salaries the same or do we set a salary level such that the “sum of salary plus employer’s pension costs” are equal in each case?
Rate this!
sheena farenden
Member - 81 posts
The pension scheme is a red herring here.
Equal pay is equal pay. I do not see how you can possibly justify this and as you have got away for this for years I do not think it is reasonable to try and justify this in any way.
Just pay them the same and stop treating someone who has given 20years service to your company in such an unreasonable way. If you do not see reason I can assure you that a "woman scorned" is nothing to an employee who has given loyal long term service realising they are being treated as a number.
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 84 posts
I agree with Sheena.
The wheelchair is equally a red-herring with the pension - what has his disability got to do with the fact you are paying him less for doing the same job?
You are leaving yourself wide open to a discrimination claim both by your manager's actions in underpaying him, and your attitude in making your query.
Rate this!
Jim David
Member - 3 posts
Thankyou for your comments with which I agree wholeheartedly. Incidentally I am merely reporting the facts as I understand them - I am new to this situation and I am certainly not condoning them. The moral and common sense position is quite clear to me!
However, my ‘legal’ question remains. When we equalise the pay must we, legally speaking, match the headline salaries themselves or should we match the cost of employment?
Any ideas? Thanks
Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 84 posts
It has to be headline salaries. Otherwise 'cost of employment' could include things like cost of reasonable adjustments for disabled people, costs of training, any 'extra' cost - for example if you pay travel expenses you could pay someone less because they lived further away and cost more in travel.
I don't really know why you need to ask the question - pay is always quoted in pay terms, not employment costs. Equal pay is exactly what it says, equal pay. You should probably also come to an agreement on back pay too - including the extra pension contributions.
0 (0)
