header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 May 2017 / Gemma Woodhouse , Hilary Aldred
Issue: 7746 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Bridging the gap

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7746_aldread

Hilary Aldred & Gemma Woodhouse deal with the requirement to report under the Gender Pay Gap Regulations
  • How to deal with ‘problem’ employees and ‘problem’ areas.
  • Considering how to report.

Most legal practitioners, HR directors, HR managers and employers are aware of their general obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/172) (the regulations). By now, employers will have ascertained whether or not the regulations apply to them, and some will also have been preparing draft calculations. There are, however, a number of significant issues for businesses who are not only looking to publish their pay gap data, but also seeking to minimise any potential fallout.

Problem areas—hours

The regulations are clear that the calculation of any average hourly rate should be based on the normal working hours within the contract of employment rather than on the hours actually worked by an individual. This may well lead to unsatisfactory results as it fails to take account of individuals who are working hours

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll