NHS Update
In December we reported on a significant development regarding NHS equal pay claims – see post dated 20 December 2008. The Potter case is very important to all NHS claimants – and the background to this case is explained below.
Prior to the introduction of Agenda for Change in 2004, the NHS pay negotiating structure was divided along gender lines under the Whitley Council system.
Male dominated jobs were subject to one negotiating process - whereas the terms and conditions of female dominated professions (nurses, physiotherapist, medical secretaries etc) were regulated by a different process altogether. While the collective bargaining processes operated in parallel - no real attention being was being paid as to whether women and men were being treated fairly.
Unsurprisingly, huge differences in pay and pay practices evolved over the years – ending up in the crazy position whereby NHS tradesmen (painters and plumbers, for example) were being paid more than highly trained nurses.
In recent years, members of female dominated professions (nurses, admin and clerical staff and a wide range of support staff) have slowly become aware that they have been receiving a raw deal from the NHS in comparison with their male colleagues.
Many NHS employers have been trying to avoid liability for these claims by relying on technical legal arguments – while the the trade unions turned a blind eye to what was going on for years.
The recent Potter case is a good example. North Cumbria Acute NHS Trust tried to argue that it was in no way responsible for any pay differences that existed as between its own employees. This argument proceeded on the basis that any inequality was caused by a historical accident – happenstance, if you will – but was not the result of direct or indirect discrimination.
In effect, the employers were arguing that women in the NHS - performing female dominated jobs - would never be able to bring an equal pay claim.
But this bizarre argument was roundly rejected by the Employment Appeal Tribunal which found that the employer was certainly responsible and accountable for the pay of its own employees. In particular, the court placed emphasis on the fact that the Trust had paid out compensation to nurses, in a similar position to Ms Potter in the past, when equal pay claims had been lodged.
Earlier this year, female council workers (in the Bainbridge case – see post dated 2 August 2008), successfully persuaded the Court of Appeal that pay protection arrangements which benefited traditional male jobs were unlawful - a decision which allowed thousands of women to bring claims against their council employers.
Now that the Potter case has also been successful, women in the NHS have been given the green light to pursue claims so they too can receive the generous payments which their male colleagues have been receiving for decades.
Again thanks to Cloisters Chambers for providing some of the background information included in this post.
Prior to the introduction of Agenda for Change in 2004, the NHS pay negotiating structure was divided along gender lines under the Whitley Council system.
Male dominated jobs were subject to one negotiating process - whereas the terms and conditions of female dominated professions (nurses, physiotherapist, medical secretaries etc) were regulated by a different process altogether. While the collective bargaining processes operated in parallel - no real attention being was being paid as to whether women and men were being treated fairly.
Unsurprisingly, huge differences in pay and pay practices evolved over the years – ending up in the crazy position whereby NHS tradesmen (painters and plumbers, for example) were being paid more than highly trained nurses.
In recent years, members of female dominated professions (nurses, admin and clerical staff and a wide range of support staff) have slowly become aware that they have been receiving a raw deal from the NHS in comparison with their male colleagues.
Many NHS employers have been trying to avoid liability for these claims by relying on technical legal arguments – while the the trade unions turned a blind eye to what was going on for years.
The recent Potter case is a good example. North Cumbria Acute NHS Trust tried to argue that it was in no way responsible for any pay differences that existed as between its own employees. This argument proceeded on the basis that any inequality was caused by a historical accident – happenstance, if you will – but was not the result of direct or indirect discrimination.
In effect, the employers were arguing that women in the NHS - performing female dominated jobs - would never be able to bring an equal pay claim.
But this bizarre argument was roundly rejected by the Employment Appeal Tribunal which found that the employer was certainly responsible and accountable for the pay of its own employees. In particular, the court placed emphasis on the fact that the Trust had paid out compensation to nurses, in a similar position to Ms Potter in the past, when equal pay claims had been lodged.
Earlier this year, female council workers (in the Bainbridge case – see post dated 2 August 2008), successfully persuaded the Court of Appeal that pay protection arrangements which benefited traditional male jobs were unlawful - a decision which allowed thousands of women to bring claims against their council employers.
Now that the Potter case has also been successful, women in the NHS have been given the green light to pursue claims so they too can receive the generous payments which their male colleagues have been receiving for decades.
Again thanks to Cloisters Chambers for providing some of the background information included in this post.
