header-logo header-logo

03 March 2017 / Stephen Levinson
Issue: 7736 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Red tape that misses the point on equal pay

Stephen Levinson lays bare the flaws & imperfections of the Gender Pay Gap Regulations

  • Inadequate enforcement & sanctions
  • The regulations exclude a “partner in a firm” and a member of an LLP

New rules under the Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017, which will apply to private sector organisations with 250 or more employees mean employers will be required to calculate on an annual basis the mean and median hourly pay gap between the sexes as at 5 April each year, a date to be called the “snapshot date”. This information must supplied to government and published on the organisation’s web site, where it must be retained for at least three years. There is a permitted time lag of one year so the first deadline for publication will be 4 April 2018.

In addition employers within scope have to publish the annual bonus gap between the sexes and state the proportion of men and women who received a bonus in the year. There is an additional requirement to break down the figures among the workforce

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll