News:

Welcome to V.L.H

Main Menu
Welcome to verylittlehelps. Please login or sign up.

28-03-24, 11:19AM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 38,115
  • Total Topics: 630
  • Online today: 316
  • Online ever: 1,436
  • (24-01-24, 01:01AM)
Users Online

Equal Pay/Leigh Day /Tom Hewitt/

Started by OpShunned, 22-03-17, 05:49PM

Previous topic - Next topic

BarryZola

#100
Hello Duracell.

You said this: "BarryZola.. only leavers stand any chance of benefit with that stance, if you are leaving good luck to you, if not.. your setting yourself up to fail."

I'm not looking for an argument or to be clever, but what do you mean exactly by that? How am I setting myself up to fail? Or did you mean Tesco workers generally? The way I see it, I survive on my current wages and any extra bonuses that may come around are, well.....bonuses. I'm guessing I've probably not got the gist of what you were on about....?


Welsh-Hugh

If Tesco can get the stores the same pay as distribution I would happily leave distribution and work in a store. No more 8 hour shifts working in a fridge. No windows. Howling refrigeration units.No arm mounted terminals monitoring me 24-7. Not worrying about getting pulled up for still time. Not worrying about getting run over by MHE equipment.Not having to worry about picking pallets of melons and oranges 7ft high. It must be bliss to work in a store for the same money. I cannot wait.

Welshie

I would like to know how a judge who has probably never set foot never mind worked in a dc or worked in a store has the right to decide if the jobs are comparable.  I don't believe they are and I work in a store .
I think to describe working in a store for the same wage as "blliss" is pushing the point a little though we still do have customers to deal with 😅😅

Hammer10

Welsh Hugh trouble is there are no full time jobs any more the most they give out now is 11 hours and that is flexi. You cannot live on that money even if they increase the hourly rate.

FatFraz

I work in stores and would prefer distribution if starting out today. Distribution is one of the only areas of the business which allows new starters to get a decent amount of guaranteed hours. Knowing I had this benefit alone which store colleagues cannot seem to get nowadays would make it a far easier shift.

Duracell

Quote from: BarryZola on 04-09-17, 10:25PM
Hello Duracell.

You said this: "BarryZola.. only leavers stand any chance of benefit with that stance, if you are leaving good luck to you, if not.. your setting yourself up to fail."

I'm not looking for an argument or to be clever, but what do you mean exactly by that? How am I setting myself up to fail? Or did you mean Tesco workers generally? The way I see it, I survive on my current wages and any extra bonuses that may come around are, well.....bonuses. I'm guessing I've probably not got the gist of what you were on about....?

Quite simple really.. the attitude to take what ever you can get dispite being undeserving of it would only benefit you if you left the company near the time of the windfall.
As for "setting yourself up to fail" or better worded "setting yourself up for a fall", that to is simple to understand.

Speculation should not be selective, those that think of possibilities should not be selective when they do ponder possibilities, especially as the history and approach of the company has shown time and time and time again that they will offset cost.
So realistically you are only going to gain in the manner you think if many many others do to, that will bring substantial costs to the company... as has been said before by many in many varying topics the company will not simply absorb that cost they will offset that cost.. essentially "Rob Peter to pay Paul" or worse still offset the cost with the same group where the cost falls. Recent Pay rises indicate such an approach restructures indicate the same.

Anyone that thinks that an award from this, that would have to be 'on mass' would be "free" absorbed by the company with no inherent loss, is frankly delusional in the extreme.

The legal team pushing it will walk away from the mess it will create.
I suspect some who support the continued propaganda to "Stick it to the Man" in anyway possible aren't even working for the company and won't feel the fallout.

Cost will be offset

Simples

At least with this company question what seems to be free, that you yourself have trouble justifying as credible, as with this company it will likely bite you on the arse.

My stance is and always will be we should all receive what we are entitled to. The entitlement in this case has yet to be shown... or even reasoned which is very worrying. Lambs to Slaughter springs to mind.

The Double time claim I support wholeheartedly that is simple to understand.
A gender discrimination claim across different devisions of the business based on pay when each devision pays equal pay to both genders is a stretch for our company.

Let's not forget the benchmark being used for the snowball effect is the ASDA case, which has unique evidence, which suggests that ASDA had active concerns and actions countering the use of retail workers in Distribution and visa Versa, which raises questions in the Asda case that are unique that wouldn't be a consideration in any other case.

The trouble with the snowball effect "the snowball"  it can very often be tainted with a lot of yellow snow.

"Where there is blame there is a claim" yet the cost is always offset.



My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

grim up north

There's been a few similar threads to this one, and I for one find some of the language and spite directed at others shocking. One similar thread, when it wasn't going the way the op wanted, begged the moderators to delete the entire thread. On this one, if people have disagreed with a certain member, have been belittled and, in my honest opinion bullied. Just because people see things in a different way, I don't think some of the name calling etc has been warranted. If some think stores should receive the same pay as DC staff then fair enough. If it happens, Dc staff will, I think, just have wages frozen until stores catch up. As a DC worker, we have some staff who have transferred from stores and 100% would return to store if the money was the same. I've asked on other threads, why don't these staff who are pushing for equal pay, apply to work in distribution as my, and probably most, DC's are recruiting. Yet these store staff never answer. Having worked in both stores and DC's, as far as I'm concerned, there is no comparison. My local store has had their staff visit our Dc to see what goes on, and store staff with 30+ years experience couldn't believe what they saw. They had no idea how it works and it was a real eye opener for them.

redders

Having worked in a dc and store, working in a dc is more hard work then a store and picking can be monotonous plus shift of 6-2 2-10 or nights. In a store I think night shift and back door tipping come close to it, a store is a lot more relaxed and calmer place then a dc.

OpShunned

Whichever angle your'e looking at it from this much is true:

It's for the courts to decide whether the claim against ASDA and SAINSBURY fails or whether those companies are forced to pay 6 years worth of back pay. It matters not a jot what 'we' think is right, wrong or different. Pandora's box has been prised open and there's no shutting the lid unless the tribunals judges do it behalf of the retailer.

Let's watch it run its course, not get into battles about its validity, not bitch about who has the toughest, least thankful role eh

Big love, hugs and kisses  :-* :-* :-* :-*

Welsh-Hugh

#109
Whatever the outcome I'm reading DC's take pay freeze until stores catch up, that will never happen.  The company will have to match the DCs from day one.  Remember DC's can and will strike, stores can but won't strike that is the difference.  Yes courts can rule the pay should be the same, if that's the case company can pay difference from day 1.

Equalizer87

USDAW (instore) would never strike against Tesco, and as far as I'm aware they gave up this right at the time the Partnership agreement was created.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

Duracell

#111
@grim up north, some have similar observations and possibly frustratrations.
Yet OpShunned is partly correct, the tribunal will decide based on the evidence of casess presented.

I disagree with "it matters not a jot what we think is right, wrong or different".
It absolutely matters because any stance or belief plays a big part in whether you get on what is being turned into a propaganda train, several carriages , each carriage holding stereo typical claimants and their claims.

Also it matters to those that could ultimately pay a price in response to any costs incurred. Will they just sit back and take the hit.
If this years paytalks in Distribution and how they started is anything to go by then, the principle of one group paying or losing out to fund the reward of another group isn't going to work and won't be accepted.

Any loss reward or freeze in Distribution has to be Accepted by the democratic vote, I do not speak for anyone in this anonymous format other than myself, unless there is some substantial long term benefit or Guarantee to the Distribution consultative groups I will NEVER accept a pay cut or pay freeze.

I have to say I welcome this
Quote from: OpShunned on 06-09-17, 08:00PM
Whichever angle your'e looking at it from this much is true:

It's for the courts to decide whether the claim against ASDA and SAINSBURY fails or whether those companies are forced to pay 6 years worth of back pay. It matters not a jot what 'we' think is right, wrong or different. Pandora's box has been prised open and there's no shutting the lid unless the tribunals judges do it behalf of the retailer.

Let's watch it run its course, not get into battles about its validity, not bitch about who has the toughest, least thankful role eh

Big love, hugs and kisses  :-* :-* :-* :-*

Although it appears a little ironic but I'm glad to see my point of view is being heard, as a point of interest though the term "Pandora's Box" isn't received well on here in the context of this topic and others like it, or at least it wasn't when I used the Term.

It is a rather apt term though, I'm glad you now seem understand the point I was making when I oringinally used the term.  :thumbup:


My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

grim up north

Quote from: Duracell on 10-09-17, 11:16AM
Any loss reward or freeze in Distribution has to be Accepted by the democratic vote, I do not speak for anyone in this anonymous format other than myself, unless there is some substantial long term benefit or Guarantee to the Distribution consultative groups I will NEVER accept a pay cut or pay freeze.

We recently have had pay talks and a vote on pay in my DC. Practically everyone I spoke to said they voted no, yet when the result was announced 66% voted yes to accept. So although nor you or I would ever accept a cut or freeze on pay, we aren't the only ones voting. So if the courts do vote in favour for stores receiving the same pay, who knows where it will lead.

Duracell

Absolutely right who knows indeed.
My point was our fate is in our own hands. We might be lucky even! The company may look upon us favourably accepting the last two pay offers without complaint or action, they might just seek to offset cost within the group to which the cost was incurred.

I am comfortable with the fact that what ever cost cutting pay cuts that come our way, they  still require a democratic consent from the majority.

Even if I say no and the majority say yes then that is the process that I accept. The point is it must come to us.

I am not in agreement that this years pay award is a comparison though, a rate applied award without any concession is hardly a comparison or an example of a pay cut or pay freeze. So yes we can unanimously accept by the democratic vote but we can't imply that the last vote would in anyway be mirrored when heavy cuts with no award are to be voted on.

That will be something completely different that will create a different mentality altogether.
My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

OpShunned

#114
Asda granted permission to appeal to Court of Appeal in equal pay case

In Asda Stores Ltd v Brierley and others (UKEAT/0011/17/DM), the Employment Appeal Tribunal has granted Asda permission to appeal a decision in which store workers claiming equal pay were judged to be entitled to compare themselves to employees based in the company's distribution centres.

Employment tribunal decision

Asda applied for 7,000+ equal pay claims to be struck out on the grounds that a comparison between employees based in Asda stores and those based in distribution centres is not legally permissible. The judge in the employment tribunal (ET) found in favour of the claimants and held that the comparison is legally permissible so the claims could proceed to the next stage of the equal value process.

There are two legal tests that apply to an equal pay comparison between employees who work for the same employer (or associated employers) in different locations:

The UK "same employment" test, now contained in the Equality Act 2010, requires there to be common terms and conditions either generally or as between A (the claimant) and B (the comparator).
The EU "single source" test requires there to be a 'single source' of terms and conditions of employment in the form of a 'single body responsible for any inequality and capable of restoring equal treatment'.
The Equal Pay Act test, which applied before 1 October 2010, required there to be common terms and conditions 'either generally or for employees of the relevant classes', which was found to be satisfied where the claimants form a class of employees who enjoy common terms, and the comparators form a separate class of employees who enjoy common terms.

The ET found that the UK test had not changed, despite the Equality Act appearing to require there to be a comparison between the claimant and the comparator.

The financial oversight of both parts of the business by the Asda board of directors and related sub-committees was considered to be sufficient to satisfy the 'single source' test, which the ET found to be directly applicable in the UK. Asda appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

Employment Appeal Tribunal decision

The EAT also found in favour of the claimants, approving the ET decision.

The judge however granted permission for Asda to appeal to the Court of Appeal, recognising that there were strong arguments in favour of both parties that would need to be considered at a higher level, and potentially referred to Europe (if this route continues to be available at the relevant time).


Comment

UK employers deserve clear guidance from the courts on the question of what is an appropriate comparison for an equal pay claim.

Neither UK nor EU law permits a hypothetical comparator yet the UK courts continue to apply EU law to a situation in which UK law is interpreted as allowing a comparison with a hypothetical comparator where the actual comparator is based at a different location from the claimant.

This additionally involves treating the test in the Equality Act as saying something different from what it actually says. The requirement is to compare the claimant with the comparator. According to the courts, this includes an assessment of whether a hypothetical person assumed to be based at the claimant's place of work would be employed on common terms, as compared with the actual comparator who is based elsewhere.

Clarity is urgently required in relation to the UK legal position first and foremost, although interestingly this may be one of the first cases in which the senior courts in the UK have to decide how the law in this country should be interpreted post Brexit.




https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=367a58d1-bd2e-483b-ba74-a7dc3b1e3d0b

OpShunned

#115
bumped in the light of Adamlad's reply from Leigh DAY regarding the 'unlawful deduction of wages'.... Hopefully, colleagues can win something elsewhere?

In the meantime, we are likely to be in touch very soon indeed about a very different legal issue we have mentioned before to you, namely an equal pay claim against Tesco, similar to the claims we are currently pursuing against Asda and Sainsbury's for many thousands of their staff. As you know, this a claim which you and all hourly paid staff in the stores can potentially pursue.

Please let me know if you have any queries



[Background]

Another victory for workers in their fight for equal pay against Asda

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled today that Asda has been unsuccessful in another attempt to stop over 10,000 equal pay claims against them from proceeding.
https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/News-2017/August-2017/Another-victory-for-workers-in-their-fight-for-equ

Tom Hewitt, Solicitor, Employment
Leigh Day Priory House, 25 St John's Lane, London EC1M 4LB
Tel: 020 7650 1200 Fax: 020 7253 4433 DX 53326 Clerkenwell

OpShunned

#116
[Message from Leigh Day regarding the Equal Pay Claim]

we are likely to be in touch very soon indeed about a very different legal issue we have mentioned before to you, namely an equal pay claim against Tesco, similar to the claims we are currently pursuing against Asda and Sainsbury's for many thousands of their staff. As you know, this a claim which you and all hourly paid staff in the stores can potentially pursue.[/color]
===================================================

If you're interested in joining the Equal Pay Claim get in touch with Leigh Day solicitors. This is now a real issue for Tesco and despite some negativity it has gained traction. There is nothing to lose and much to gain for THOSE within who raise their head above the parapet.


Tom Hewitt, Solicitor, Employment
Leigh Day Priory House, 25 St John's Lane, London EC1M 4LB
Tel: 020 7650 1200 Fax: 020 7253 4433 DX 53326 Clerkenwell

https://www.change.org/p/tesco-s-women-retail-workers-deserve-equal-pay-for-equal-work-tesco-s-women-retail-workers-deserve-equal-pay-for-equal-work?recruiter=718013063&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=share_twitter_responsive

Nomad

[admin]Several posts have been deleted from this topic for being OFF topic.[/admin]
Nomad ( Forum Admin )
It's better to be up in arms than down on your knees.

adamlad

Just a word of warning, Leigh Day are not the most ethical and efficient solicitors. Any one who wants to sign up to this treat them like you would do T***o keep copies of everything and read all the terms and conditions. This is from personal experience of the current case. Im trying to prewarn rather than deter here 

claden

Why what's happened with the current case?

cosmosmallpiece

If you read further up the post there is a letter

his scots tie

Quote from: claden on 01-12-17, 12:47PM
Why what's happened with the current case?
Looks like judgement will favour Tesco, we won't find out till New Year.  At least we gave it a go and high lighted the fact of how unfairly staff have been treated.

adamlad

I cant say too much as if I explain the exact problem that Leigh Day caused through incompetence and mismanagement it would identify me to them and also to people I work with who know about this. What I can say is that they dont reply to emails, they tell you tasks have been done that have not and dont communicate amongst themselves. If you imagine Tesco running a solicitors this is what they have been like to deal with. If I had been paying them privately as opposed to a no win no fee I would have not stood for their levels of service.

Without elaborating further in the event we the staff win my damages would be severely reduced because of a basic clerical error they made. I made the solicitor in charge aware of this and I have been told continuously that an admin person had done this. I can say through external confirmation this is not the case. If we win and I get any damages I will be reporting them to the Solicitors Regulatory Society the ombudsman. Another point regarding leigh Day and the ethics they lack try googling them and see what they did to some of our soldiers in Iraq. Im not saying any more on that point as I dont have the facts to hand on this.

Im just warning anyone who wants to get involve with a further claim to keep copies of everything and record dates and what you have said to them

I apologise if this is drifting off topic.

OpShunned

#123
Better to have fought your corner than to have done nothing.

Where was USDAW apart from signing off the theft of loyal colleagues'premiums?

Tesco can afford high-powered legal teams; at least Leigh Day fought it on  no win no fee basis. John Hannett and his pay negotiating Star Chamber won't stand in the way of the robber barons that's for sure.

The Iraq episode is irrelevant to be honest. They weren't admonished for it?

Good luck and I hope you do win your case despite your reservations an concerns  :thumbup:

It was always the case that proving unlawful deduction of wages and discrimination (of long term staff) was troublesome. The acceptance of a cushion payment for starters? The unholy alliance of the partnership's pay negotiation was another hurdle.

I fear there will be many that hailed Lewis and Stewart as saviours will regret the day  they turned up at Welwyn Towers  :(

Duracell

I agree it's better to have tried and failed than to not have tried at all.

I feel the pay review/Sunday premium case was a stronger case than a potential equal pay claim.

Leigh Day, do they now have to pay 'T's costs? As the loosing side usually does.

If I were a conspiracy theorist I may be a bit sceptical about the chain of events.

adamlad talks of pratices, behaviour and errors not befitting of a company at that operational level, Could some kind of arrangement have been made to reduce Leigh Day's costs.
My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk