Hull council faces 1,300 equal pay claims
Hull's biggest employer is facing 1,300 equal pay claims, which could end up costing it millions of pounds.
The cases have been lodged by women who either still work for or who used to be employed by Hull City Council.
They are claiming they should have been paid the same as men who received extra bonuses and overtime payments.
Most of the additional payments were made to men in traditionally male-dominated council jobs such as refuse collection and street sweeping.
Women employed mainly in catering, care services and cleaning received only a fixed salary with no extra perks.
About 1,300 cases have been lodged with an employment tribunal in Hull.
A 20-day hearing involving about 1,000 claims has been scheduled for next May.
Solicitor Paul Doran is representing 300 women whose cases are expected to be heard at a further hearing next year. He said the claims stemmed from the introduction of a Single Status agreement aimed at removing wage differentials between men and women working for councils.
He said: "All local authorities signed up to Single Status and were obliged to bring in a new pay structure by 2000, but the vast majority failed to do so."
Mr Doran said bonuses and overtime pay meant workers in male-dominated jobs could earn four times as much as women on the same salary grade.
Last year, the council paid £22.5m to settle the cases of almost 2,000 women. It paid out another £2.5m earlier this year to avoid potentially costly tribunal rulings.
Paul Gordon, the council's head of shared services, said: "Equal pay is a major issue for the council and we are working with all parties involved in equal pay cases to come up with settlements that are fair and reasonable."
15 Comments
View all
by The Husband, Feet up in front of the TV
Friday, November 06 2009, 7:44PM
“Where's my dinner woman and bring me a beer while I'm waiting!”
by Sally, Hull
Friday, November 06 2009, 7:06PM
“Sir Laz, the majority of these equal pay claims were overseen by the union solicitors, who were
retained and paid for by the unions... and Ted wind your neck in, if the council had got it right in the first place none of these pay-outs would have happened.”
by Sir Richard, Richard
Friday, November 06 2009, 3:20PM
“Andy, where have you been for the last 12 months?
Its a case of your not getting it so why should they.
How all the other passions fleet to air,
As doubtful thoughts, and rash-embraced despair,
And shuddering fear, and green-eyed jealousy! O love,
Be moderate; allay thy ecstasy,
In measure rein thy joy; scant this excess.
I feel too much thy blessing: make it less,
For fear I surfeit.
W Shakespeare”
by Sir Richard, Richard
Friday, November 06 2009, 2:47PM
“Prop/Ted, Women have small feet so they can get near the sink (that was a joke mod)”
by Billy, Hull
Friday, November 06 2009, 2:21PM
“Thye should have never given them the vote!”
by andy, hull
Friday, November 06 2009, 1:21PM
“This actually a good news story since it will give the Council the ammunition it needs to follow in the footsteps of Leeds and Sheffield Councils in cutting the pay of many overpaid roles such as binmen. I don't fully subscribe to the equal pay methodology used but if it can be used to reduce some bloated salaried of public sector employees then great.”
by Pete, HULL
Friday, November 06 2009, 11:56AM
“Let me throw a little light to those who do not understand the principle of Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value.
You are not on your own, many employers found it hard, and convenient to misunderstand what they should have been doing.
A group of women, trimming fish, where rated in a job evaluation exercise as being more skilled than a labourer sweeping the floor.
The man got £15 per week more than the women.
That is what the principle of equal pay for work of equal VALUE is, not just the same work
The council paid a dustman extra money for working in rain, a home help who had to spend half her working day cycling in rain got nothing.
A male supervisor of a refuse gang got a bonus, no female supervisors where offered a bonus, and got less basic pay as well.
Unfortunately for women, the men attended the union branch meeting and women did not, pay scales where designed to favour males, and not females.
the law has caught up with the council.
The law of equal pay for work of equal skill has been around since January 1st 1984.
The council has had a good run at under paying women.
Purely as an after thought, why employ men at a much higher rate of pay if you can get women for less and doing a more skilled job.
Self preservation of the man's job should make him want women to be treat equal.
SIR LAZARUS, yes there are bin ladies and dinner men. They get paid the same because they are doing the same or similar work.
This argument is about women, with higher skills than men, but getting less wages.
You would not expect a dustman to be paid more than a teacher just because he works in a dirty job.”
by propforward08, Front Row
Friday, November 06 2009, 11:33AM
“Sunny, outside - The bells gone so off you go now, take off your mittens and duffle coat and go and drink your milk.”
by Sunny, outside
Friday, November 06 2009, 10:57AM
“BREAKING NEWS....SUN RISES AT 3am...CLICK ON, 5 DAY WEATHER FORECAST, ON THE HOME PAGE FOR THE FULL STORY..”
by Sir Lazarus, Tinseltown
Friday, November 06 2009, 10:44AM
“If I've understood this? This is not actually about equal pay for male & female workers doing the same job. It is about the equating of "similar" jobs. i.e. a dinnerlady with a binman. The grades may be the same for each job regardless of sex but the job is totally different (are there any Binladies or Dinnermen?) and the oportunities for overtime were different - well they would be wouldn't they? Utter nonesense which could only happen by such a daft agreement in public service and has provided a rich feeding ground for the no-win-no-fee brigade who are sucking from the neck of public funds to send these women (who presumably did not even realise they had been treated unequally?) on holiday to Benidorm with their windfall cash.”