header-logo header-logo

Mind the pay gap

06 April 2018
Categories: Legal News , Profession , LexisPSL
printer mail-detail

The publication of gender pay gap figures for UK companies in the past few weeks has been a ‘seminal moment’, lawyers say.

However, they have also warned that introducing sanctions against those companies that failed to report could actually make the situation worse for women.

The figures revealed that 78% of employers pay men more than women. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Committee is now calling for written submissions to the gender pay gap inquiry, with a view to examining whether sanctions for non-compliance would be effective and whether it needs to gather more information.

Speaking to LexisPSL Public Law, Lewis Silkin partner Michael Burd said the reporting would ‘undoubtedly be a driver for change’ but did ‘not tell the whole story’.

‘There is a danger that some employees may believe that a gender pay gap at an organisation means that men and women doing the same job are not being paid equally for equal work,’ he said.

‘It does not. A different analysis is needed to determine that. The simple fact is that there are more women in lower paying jobs than men, which is a different issue and no doubt requires different solutions.’

Joseph Lappin, solicitor at Stewarts, agreed, since ‘the figures do not focus on differences in gender pay for comparable jobs’.

‘However, never before has the issue of gender pay been reported as extensively in the media as it has been in the last few weeks. Therefore, in a sense, the reporting regime has achieved one of its key objectives and never before have companies in the private sector invested so much time in considering the issue of gender pay.’

More than 2,000 companies breached their obligation to report. One possible option to remedy this is to introduce sanctions for non-compliant companies.

However, Nick Hurley, partner at Charles Russell Speechlys, cautioned against this.

‘In the short term it may be little beyond naming and shaming,’ he said.

‘While the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) state they have powers to fine under the existing legislation, it is questionable whether the current regime actually extends this far. What seems likely however is that, in the current climate, an increase to the powers of the EHRC will come if required and those that have not yet done so, should take the opportunity to get their house in order.’

Hurley also warned that employers could do things to improve their gender pay statistics that would not be helpful to their female employees, for example, by reducing their flexible working schemes.

‘Many employers could probably improve their bonus gap percentage, which compares actual bonus amounts and does not adjust for part-time working, by simply clamping down on part-time arrangements,’ he said.

‘But that would not benefit women in the workforce and it would be unfortunate if the reporting requirement drove such behaviours.’

An extended version of this news update was first published on LexisPSL Public Law.

Categories: Legal News , Profession , LexisPSL
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll