Exploring equal value dispute procedures. Power and conflict under Labour
| Published date | 01 August 2004 |
| Pages | 392-403 |
| Date | 01 August 2004 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450410544498 |
| Author | Kay Gilbert |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Exploring equal value dispute
procedures
Power and conflict under Labour
Kay Gilbert
HRM Department, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
Keywords Equal pay, Conflict, United Kingdom
Abstract The paper seeks to draw attention to the complexity involved in developing fair
procedures for assessing equal value in employment. It first highlights different aspects of fairness
in relation to employment procedures and some of the problems associated with the use of
procedures in relation to job evaluation and sex bias. The paper then explores the nature of the
conflicts that are part of equal pay for work of equal value procedures within the UK before
examining the nature of power that some have who are involved in procedures both within the
workplace and in Employment Tribunal.
Background
Many, including the Equal Opportunities Commission, see the Equal Value
Amendment Regulations 1983 as complex and requiring amendment. The
Government has been trying to encourage internal dispute settlement[1] and
separately have considered a number of changes related to the Amendment
Regulations 1983 and the Equal Pay Act 1970 have been considered. In 2001 Tessa
Jowell, as Employment Minister, announced that the Government planned to close the
gender gap by making the equal pay laws simpler, faster and fairer. It was claimed that
the 5-48 months taken for an equal value case was “unjust and unfair”. The plan was to
simplify the paperwork and speed up the process. Consideration was given to groups
of workers making a single claim, introducing a questionnaire so that key information
from employers could be obtained at an early stage, appointment of an assessor to help
tribunals decide on a case rather than appoint an independent expert and where
necessary the use of partisan experts in tribunal was to be curtailed and detailed
procedural regulations would be “scrapped”. It was announced that the “no reasonable
grounds” defence would be removed, as would the two-year time limit on back pay.
Some changes with respect to the questionnaire and no reasonable grounds and the
extension of back pay, have already been made but much is still under consideration.
This paper seeks to explore the procedures of claiming equal pay in the hope of
elucidating some of the pertinent issues for making the process fairer.
Objectives
It is beyond the scope of one article to adequately cover all the proposed amendments
to the Act but this article seeks to explore the concept of fairness in the equal value
procedures. It is generally accepted that fairness and due process is important to any
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own based on experience in equal value cases
both as an independent expert and previously a partisan expert.
ER
26,4
392
Received March 2004
Revised March 2004
Accepted March 2004
Employee Relations
Vol. 26 No. 4, 2004
pp. 392-403
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/01425450410544498
To continue reading
Request your trial