Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Equality, diversity and inclusionEqual pay

The equal pay challenge that refuses to disappear

by Personnel Today 17 May 2005
by Personnel Today 17 May 2005

When it comes to equal pay audits, it is no wonder employers prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. The Equal Pay Act allows up to six years of back pay to be awarded to a successful tribunal claimant (five years in Scotland) and, if for example a substantial group of women has been underpaid, it could be devastating for a business operating on tight margins.

You might argue that employers should not allow a situation of unequal pay for women to develop, but do employers deliberately set out to pay women less than they pay men? Higher pay for men is often the product of historical influences and occupational segregation, which employers may want to break down.

In general, employers simply try to pay more or less the market rate for the job. Individual employers that wish to remain competitive are unlikely to focus on the question of whether the market might undervalue women’s work.

Equal value cases present a particular problem for employers, where two quite different jobs can be found to be equal. In a tribunal case, if a woman (with the help of an independent expert) proves that she is doing work of equal value to that of a man, she is entitled to equal pay, unless the employer proves the pay difference is genuinely due to a material factor other than sex. For example, the employer might say that the rates for a higher-paid manual job are the result of collective bargaining, while the rates for a lower-paid clerical job are not.

However, pointing to this ostensibly gender-neutral factor is not likely to be enough. Where it results in ‘disparate impact’ (men tending to get higher pay and women tending to get lower pay), the employer will have the additional and more difficult task of justifying its reliance on that factor. To do that, it must show that there is, at the date of the tribunal claim, a legitimate objective behind the different pay rates, and that the means chosen to realise that objective are both appropriate and reasonably necessary to achieving it.

There is some controversy over where the burden of proof lies in relation to cases of disparate impact. Is it for the claimant to prove there is disparate impact, or for the employer to prove that there isn’t? For the moment, Nelson v Carillion Services [2003] IRLR 428, CA, says it is for the claimant to prove; but the recent Bailey v Home Office [2005] IRLR 369, CA, doubts that is correct (while accepting it may be binding).
Even if the claimant has the burden, proving disparate impact is not particularly difficult.

For example, they could show the employer applied a requirement or condition for obtaining the higher pay, eg willingness to work unsocial hours, and that the proportion of women who can comply is considerably smaller than the proportion of men. A claimant could also simply point to the fact that the lower-paid group was predominantly female, while the higher-paid group was predominantly male – although the statistics must be significant, and not merely fortuitous.

Bailey v Home Office goes further. Here, the higher-paid group (prison officers) was predominantly male, but the lower-paid group (administrative staff) was evenly split. However, looking at the combined groups, amounting to 2,400 employees, the men in the low pay group made up less than 10% of the total number of men, while the lower-paid women made up more than 50% of the total number of women. On these ‘plainly significant’ figures, the tribunal was entitled to find that the employer was required to justify the pay scheme.

The risk of having to explain and justify pay structures that have simply evolved makes employers reluctant to lift the lid on equal pay, but that is not necessarily the right course of action.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

A review conducted privately by the employer may indicate the areas where an equal pay claim might be successful, and the potential cost of rectifying the situation. And a plan to phase out unequal pay may be a preferable alternative to a successful tribunal claim, which could leave the employer exposed to a substantial award of pay arrears.

The law doesn’t allow it today, but perhaps the best solution to the equal pay challenge would be an amnesty from tribunal claims for employers who have adopted a plan to address the problem.

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Fire Brigades Union threatens strike over control room closures
next post
Government must defend UK’s working time opt-out

You may also like

It’s no secret – parity in the workplace...

10 Jul 2025

Living wage pushes up spring pay settlements

2 Jul 2025

Ethnicity and disability pay gaps: Ready to report?...

1 Jul 2025

One in eight senior NHS managers from black...

1 Jul 2025

Co-op equal pay claims move onto next stage

30 Jun 2025

Progressive DEI policy is a red line for...

27 Jun 2025

Graduate pay versus the living wage: an HR...

25 Jun 2025

BBC Breakfast bullying and misconduct allegations under investigation

20 Jun 2025

Finance professionals expect less emphasis on ESG and...

18 Jun 2025

Lack of role models a ‘barrier’ for people...

17 Jun 2025

  • Empower and engage for the future: A revolution in talent development (webinar) WEBINAR | As organisations strive...Read more
  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+