[Metrobeans]

B430 - Fair Pay Bill 2012, JPKC, TSR Labour, TSR Liberal Democrat, TSR Socialist

Fair Pay through Litigation Act 2012

An Act to further prevent the unfair application of prejudicial biases in the determination of employee remuneration.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

Part I: Practical and Legal Facilitation

1 Disclosure
(1) For the purpose of this Act:
(a) "Remuneration" includes any salary received (including overtime pay), though excludes both work expenses and performance-related bonuses.
(2) An employee may request in writing that their employer disclose the per hour remuneration paid to one (or more) fellow employee(s) in the same job if they are in wage employment, or that their employer disclose the per year remuneration paid to one (or more) fellow employee(s) in the same job if they are in salaried employment.
(a) Their employer must comply within 28 days following reception of such a request.
(3) The employee is advised to keep this information confidential if that is the preferred policy of their employing organisation; their employer may penalise them for not doing so.
(4) Equally, the employers are expected to keep the fact of the investigation and the identity of the employee seeking the information confidential. Failure to prevent workplace bullying gives the employee in question grounds to prosecute under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

2 Litigation
(1) An employee may prosecute their employer if it is suspected that a wage difference between themselves and one (or more) fellow employee(s) is the result of any of the following:
(a) The gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or presence of any disability, of themselves or their colleague(s) in the same job.
(2) If an employment tribunal rules that any of the above factored into the amount of remuneration received, it may order that an employer adjust the amount it pays to the plaintiff(s).
(a) The new remunerative sum should reflect the removal of any prejudicial factors cited in (1)(a).
(b) Provided that none of the (1)(a) factors directly affect the ability of the individual to perform the role for which they are employed.
(3) The tribunal may access information regarding the employing organisation's payroll so as to inform all judgements made.
(4) In the event that the tribunal judge rules in favour of the plaintiff, the employer must pay a monetary sum in compensation. This figure should incorporate:
(a) The total amount of pay missed in the previous one year due to the presence of factors in (1)(a).
(b)The total cost of the plaintiff's legal fees, and any pay lost due to the employment tribunal.
(c) The equivalent of one month's pay or 160 hour's pay for salaried or waged workers respectively, unless (4)(a) exceeds this figure.
(5) In each adjudication where a case of discriminatory inequalities in pay is found, the tribunal will review the payroll of the organization with the aim to find any other such incidences.
(a) If said incidences are found, the employee(s) facing the potential discrimination shall be notified of the legal options they have by the Tribunals Service.

3 Statute of Limitations
(1) The person making the claim must have received the discriminatory pay within the last 365 days.
(2) The person making the claim must remain employed in the same job as the one in which they received the discriminatory pay.
(a) Unless they were illegally dismissed from it, as determined by a separate employment tribunal.

Part II: Miscellaneous
4 Short Title
(1) This Act may be cited as the Fair Pay Act 2012.

5 Commencement
(1) This Act comes into law 2 years following Royal Assent.

Notes

The purpose of the Fair Pay Bill 2012 is to firmly encourage workplaces where only work matters when it comes to deciding the amount people are paid. This builds on the preceding Equal Pay Act 1970, Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Race Relations Act 1976, and the Equality Act 2010 - each of which go part of the way to achieving this objective. However, there is a large body of evidence suggesting that more is needed, and sooner, particularly when it comes to the amount women are paid. (Articles here, here and here provide a glimpse of the current problem.) This Bill is no attempt to change the current situation with intrusive top-down directives, it is instead a way of incentivising businesses to iron out improper discrimination or face the litigatory wrath of employees that want pay to be about work, merit and nothing else.

Section 1 (Disclosure) of the legislation is about transparency within organisations; it allows employees to take the initiative with fixing the problem, enabling them to hold unfair employers to account in an employment tribunal (with the provisions in Section 2). Clause (2)(a) ensures that if a company wishes, they can try to keep any sensitive pay information within the company, though obviously greater risk of this not happening is a by-product of this Bill. The element of disclosure is very important to the successful implentation of equal pay legislation:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
A worker knows immediately if she is denied a promotion or transfer, if she is fired or refused employment. And promotions, transfers, hirings, and firings are generally public events, known to co-workers. When an employer makes a decision of such open and definitive character, an employee can immediately seek out an explanation and evaluate it for pretext. Compensation disparities, in contrast, are often hidden from sight.

Section 2 (Litigation) is the meat of the Bill: it enables people to pursue fair pay for themselves if they don't believe that they are currently getting it. 4(a)(b)(c) is a reasonable reward for employers that challenge unfair pay, while also being a suitable penalty for those companies that fail to change in line with the times - a two year grace period allows companies all the time in the world to sort things out and apply balance to their payrolls for employees doing the same work. This Bill strengthens and clarifies rules that already exist primitively.

[JPKC]

Aye!

[toronto353]

I've abstained because I would support the Bill for executives only, but this perhaps goes too far for my liking. It's well written though so great work.

[jesusandtequila]

Absolutely not. An unworkable Bill that solves a problem which doesn't exist in entirely the wrong way.

[cambo211]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Absolutely not. An unworkable Bill that solves a problem which doesn't exist in entirely the wrong way.

An apt description of all parties involved tbh.

[internetguru]

It is impossible to prove what impacts on a worker's pay as these details aren't documented and it is easy to lie about. This will ultimately lead to mistakes and false claims being made therefore I do not support this bill.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Metrobeans)
qfa

There's a typo in Socialist at the top of the Bill. Just thought I'd let you know.

[Metrobeans]

(Original post by toronto353)
There's a typo in Socialist at the top of the Bill. Just thought I'd let you know.

Fixed, cheers!

[JPKC]

I'm sorry that I've not been able to respond to some posts in the bill discussion - I've been far busier than ideal this week.

(Original post by D.R.E)
QFA

The video I just watched was interesting and correct, though, unfortunately, it posed no relevance to this Bill which aims to prevent discrimination between employees doing the same level of work in the same jobs - the academic in your clip was discussing general differences between the 'work capital' of employees and how women often end up with less of it than men. This is a problem outlined here:

(Original post by Barriers to Success, the Davis Report)
Many consultation respondents told us that women with corporate experience were frequently overlooked for development opportunities and that there were differences in the way that men and women were mentored and sponsored, which gave men the edge over their female peers. Others cited gender behavioural traits as a key issue, whereby women tend to undervalue their own skills, achievements and experiences. Also, the relatively low number of successful female role models often compounds stereotypes and reinforces perceived difficulties in rising up the corporate ladder. Meanwhile, there is a perception that the many women in leadership positions in academia, the arts, the media, the civil service or professional services are often overlooked because they do not have specific corporate experience and Chairmen fear that they will not understand corporate issues or corporate board governance.

[MacDaddi]

I will keep trying to repeal this bill till sense prevails.

[D.R.E]

(Original post by JPKC)
The video I just watched was interesting and correct, though, unfortunately, it posed no relevance to this Bill which aims to prevent discrimination between employees doing the same level of work in the same jobs - the academic in your clip was discussing general differences between the 'work capital' of employees and how women often end up with less of it than men. This is a problem outlined here:

While I accept the report highlights a 'problem' of sorts (or at least the part you cited), I don't see how this bill is supposed to remedy it. The study is more targeted at the perception and treatment of women in the workplace, and how this [at times] hinders their progress. This isn't something you can legislate against in the first place, in the same way that you can't legislate against the discrimination that short and 'ugly' people face in the workplace, but your bill goes in a completely separate direction. Not only does it do this, but it also fails in doing anything about the purported problem it is attempting to fix, it only moves it into the bonuses.

This bill is not only misguided, but it is also pointless.

[RoryS]

Aye.

[Keckers]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
I will keep trying to repeal this bill till sense prevails.

This.

What a damn travesty.

[CLS94]

Aye Aye Aye! Delighted we can finally legislate to help fix this travesty.

[Rakas21]

I can't say that i support this.

[Lipvig]

I'm in favor of people being treated equally, but my main issue with this bill is that if a small company (ie - a small independent shop) is found guilty, it could potentially squeeze a very small profit margin, do I would have liked the possibility for the employer to pay them back over time, to ensure it doesn't do to much damage to the business in question.

[JPKC]

(Original post by Lipvig)
I'm in favor of people being treated equally, but my main issue with this bill is that if a small company (ie - a small independent shop) is found guilty, it could potentially squeeze a very small profit margin, do I would have liked the possibility for the employer to pay them back over time, to ensure it doesn't do to much damage to the business in question.

If passed the Act would enter law after two years - this would provide employers with a handy amount of time to sort out any discrepancies they may have.

[MacDaddi]

Like repealing the act

[JPKC]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
Like repealing the act

That's your prerogative. (Oh, except you need like 25 MPs as well.)

[Morgsie]

(Original post by JPKC)
That's your prerogative. (Oh, except you need like 25 MPs as well.)

26 for a majority