Female manager ‘got £7.5k less than man in same job’
A FEMALE manager was paid £7,500 a year less than a male colleague doing the same job, an employment tribunal heard yesterday.
Michelle Smith, 40, quit after her boss told her that although she was best suited to the post, her colleague John Tucker would receive higher pay, the hearing was told.
Miss Smith is suing Neilson Financial Services under the Equal Pay Act and for sexual discrimination. She claimed it would take her eight years of pay rises to reach the same level as Mr Tucker.
Miss Smith joined the firm in Slough, Berkshire, as a sales manager in March 2013 and had held the same position as Mr Tucker since summer 2014 after she was promoted to sales coaching manager.
Less than a year later in January 2015 she was earning £36,267 a year, almost 20 per cent less than Mr Tucker’s £43,947, the tribunal heard. Once his salary passed £45,000, which it was likely to do following annual pay increases, he would also have access to private healthcare, Miss Smith said. She told the hearing in Reading: ‘It was clear that there was nothing I could do to prove to Neilson Financial Services that I was worthy of the same salary and benefits as my male counterpart, even though I felt it was unfair.
‘Our hiring manager, Tara Stewart, confirmed that my basic salary would increase to £34,000 per annum and apologised that this increase was not as high as the salary Mr Tucker would be receiving as he was already on a higher salary because he was previously a senior sales manager.
‘Tara explained that she was annoyed that she had to take on Mr Tucker, who was the weakest applicant, and having to pay him the highest salary.
‘Based on the benefits matrix at Neilson, private healthcare was provided to salaries above £45,000 and life insurance was provided dependent on level. I would have to receive the standard 3 per cent pay rise for eight more years to reach the threshold and receive the same benefits as Mr Tucker.’
Christopher Dawson, head of sales and operations at the firm, said Mr Tucker was being paid more because he had effectively been demoted from his previous senior sales manager position and it was feared he would leave if he was given a lower wage.
Mr Dawson said: ‘I accept that Miss Smith and Mr Tucker were doing the same job from July 2014. However, Mr Tucker was paid more because his senior sales manager salary was ring-fenced. Mr Tucker was not paid more because of his gender.’
He said he discussed the salary disparity with Miss Smith in November 2015 and four days later she acknowledged in an email that ‘it had all made sense’. The hearing continues.