Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is that equal pay needs to be for the same job. In this case the argument seems to be that the jobs are not the same, but that they are similar, it seems to be a grey area.
The article states that just over half the warehouse staff were male and that over a quarter of shop front staff were male, so it doesn’t appear to be a case of “they’re getting paid more because they’re men”.
Presumably any of the women in the shop front could have asked for a transfer to the warehouse?
It’s very similar to the asda equal pay case, which has already gone through the supreme court so the precedent has been set.
The Birmingham dinner lady case started all this off, which was a disgraceful cash grab. Their representation successfully equated that dinner ladies who work a few hours a day term time only had an equal job to bin men who work all hours (they do gritting as well) with refuge. It’s a large part of why the council went bust as it meant selling off revenue generating assets such as the nec.
The care worker equality case for Birmingham I agree with btw, that’s very similar conditions and hours.
“The Equal Pay Act requires that men and women in the same workplace receive equal pay for work that is substantially equal, even if the jobs are not identical. The job content, not the job title, determines if the jobs are substantially equal” - this is the problem right here, the legislation needs refining.
Interesting. I think it’s also worth noting that in this case that the warehouse job roles were not male dominated as bin men are. Usually equal pay is to ensure that men and women are paid equally for equal work but the warehouse employees were close to 50/50 men and women.
Would be interesting to see the arguments made, as I suspect the staffs’ council pushed that the number of men at the warehouse skewed the wages? Seems really off to me either way.
Yh, I feel like there’s more to this case than the article is letting on.
