Equal pay discrimination tribunal outcome

A finance administrator whose male replacement was paid £3,500 more than her, while fulfilling an identical role was discriminated against under equal pay law according to an employment tribunal.

The issue arose when the employee resigned and her employer advertised her role. The role was offered to a male relative of a director and offered at £3,500 more than the claimant had been paid.

The female employee described this as a “kick in the teeth,” and submitted a formal grievance to the organisation during her notice period.

The employer, at tribunal, maintained that the replacement was recruited to a more senior and strategic role with the intention that he would be an eventual successor to the director and that this justified his higher salary.

However, the tribunal found that as this did not come into practical effect during the training period and that there was no evidence to suggest that the role description had been varied to reflect this.

The tribunal concluded that “this is indeed like work. It is broadly similar. In fact, to all intents and purposes it is the same job.”

This highlights the need to ensure that roles being advertised have a clear specification outlining the role and the qualifications required – particularly if it is expected that the new incumbent may be fulfilling a different role!