Court of Appeal (3)
The recent decision from the Court of Appeal - see posts dated 2 and 4 August - continues to arouse a huge amount of interest.
We've had lots of enquiries this week - seeking clarification about that part of the judgment dealing with 'blue' and 'white' collar claims.
Essentially, some employers have been trying to argue that equal pay claims are only valid if they restrict themselves to jobs within the same bargaining group - e.g. manual worker to manual worker.
This would be great news for the employer - if it were true - because female dominated jobs such as classroom assistants or clerical workers - would be prevented from comparing their earnings to those of traditional male jobs that are much better paid - e.g refuse workers, gravediggers and gardeners.
So, despite the fact that these female jobs require more skill and carry greater responsibility - the employers were trying to get away with arguing that the difference in pay is not caused by blatant sex discrimination - but by pure happenstance and the historical pay differences between the different bargaining groups.
But the good news is that the Court of Appeal has given this nonsense short shrift - which means that many female jobs on 'white' collar or APT&C pay scales - have just as valid claims as their colleagues in manual worker jobs.
Why should a classroom assistant or clerical worker be paid much less than a refuse worker, gardener or gravedigger?
Action 4 Equality Scotland and Stefan Cross have said so from day one - it's been the employers and trade unions who've kept 'white' collar or APT&C workers in the dark - and discouraged them from making equal pay claims.
So, yet another genie is out of the bottle - knowledge is power, as they say - and as word spreads we expect another avalanche of new claims.
We've had lots of enquiries this week - seeking clarification about that part of the judgment dealing with 'blue' and 'white' collar claims.
Essentially, some employers have been trying to argue that equal pay claims are only valid if they restrict themselves to jobs within the same bargaining group - e.g. manual worker to manual worker.
This would be great news for the employer - if it were true - because female dominated jobs such as classroom assistants or clerical workers - would be prevented from comparing their earnings to those of traditional male jobs that are much better paid - e.g refuse workers, gravediggers and gardeners.
So, despite the fact that these female jobs require more skill and carry greater responsibility - the employers were trying to get away with arguing that the difference in pay is not caused by blatant sex discrimination - but by pure happenstance and the historical pay differences between the different bargaining groups.
But the good news is that the Court of Appeal has given this nonsense short shrift - which means that many female jobs on 'white' collar or APT&C pay scales - have just as valid claims as their colleagues in manual worker jobs.
Why should a classroom assistant or clerical worker be paid much less than a refuse worker, gardener or gravedigger?
Action 4 Equality Scotland and Stefan Cross have said so from day one - it's been the employers and trade unions who've kept 'white' collar or APT&C workers in the dark - and discouraged them from making equal pay claims.
So, yet another genie is out of the bottle - knowledge is power, as they say - and as word spreads we expect another avalanche of new claims.
