Month: September 2017

The recent furore regarding the gender pay gap at the BBC has highlighted that, even in the biggest and most reputable organisations, there is still a way to go. It was notable that the best paid male BBC star earned 5 times what the best paid female star earned and that two thirds of the on-air high earners were men.

There has now been a review launched into the pay gap at the BBC. This specific situation is unique in that, as a publicly funded organisation, it has been complied to release this information. With the vast majority of employers the information is not for public consumption in the same way.

The pay gap at the BBC is suggested to be around 10%, as opposed to 18% for the UK as a whole.

The position under the law is that it will be discriminatory for male and female employees to not be paid the same for ‘like’ work. An Employer will have a defence to an equal pay claim if it can be shown that there are differences/factors such as market forces, administrative reasons, geographical differences or shift pattern arguments that can justify the difference in pay.

If you have any questions relating to Employment Law please contact our expert team – Vaishali Thakerar and Sejal Patel on 0116 212 1000 or Carrie-Ann Randall and Ashley Hunt on 01858 445 480.

The newspapers have been filled with stories about Ryanair’s cancellation of over 2,000 flights affecting over 400,000 travellers. And, quite rightly, the emphasis of these stories is on the poor people who have had their flights cancelled or those who are stranded in their holiday destinations and are struggling to arrange flights home.

A Which? spokesman commented that Ryanair should compensate the disrupted passengers automatically without them having to make a claim.

The reason behind this major problem is reportedly a mix up with pilots holiday rotas meaning there are more on leave than there should be.

In the news today it has been revealed that there have been bonuses of up to £12,000 offered for the pilots to work extra shifts in order to combat the backlog. 

Interestingly the majority have turned down this offer and have instead insisted that their working conditions are reviewed. It seems that an improved working environment is worth more to them than money.

They claim that Ryanair management conduct themselves in a manner described as ‘threatening’ and say there is a worrying lack of internal communication – concerning considering the amount of responsibility they hold.

Head of Lawson West’s Employment department, Vaishali Thakerar, comments: “There is an assumption that money can fix the majority of problems therefore it’s incredibly interesting that in this case it simply does not, and that the Ryanair employees (the pilots) are seeking better working conditions.

It’s a terrible shame it has taken a huge event such as this for their voices to be heard.

Employers have a responsibility for the wellbeing of their staff, if you feel your employment needs are not being met please contact myself or a member of my team on 0116 212 1000 / 01858 445 480.

We offer a number of drop-in sessions and there are a number of funding options available.”

After proving a case of maternity discrimination, Lawson West obtained an award of £10,000 for the Claimant’s injury to feelings award, which then increased by more than 50% to £15,332.19 because of uplifts and interest.

In Naraine v. Smart Medical Clinics Ltd the Respondent had denied it had dismissed the Claimant i) because of the Claimant’s pregnancy; ii) because of the Claimant’s pregnancy-related illness; and iii) because she was seeking to exercise her right to maternity leave.

The barrister instructed for the Claimant, Nicholas Bidnell-Edwards, proved that the dismissal of the Claimant was for all three reasons.

At the remedies’ hearing in August, Mr Bidnell-Edwards sought a middle level Vento award, an uplift for breach of the ACAS Code, together with interest applied to the whole of the uplifted sum.

Employment Judge Elliott awarded a middle Vento band award of £10,000.00 before granting the full 25% uplift for breach of the ACAS Code, and accepting that interest at the rate of 8% applied to the entire, uplifted sum from the date of discrimination.

This led to a more than 50% increase of the original award for injury to feelings amounting to £15,332.19. The Claimant also recovered loss of earnings with interest so that the final total awarded was £29,821.36.