Do I have a leg to stand on against making a complaint?

[Cosmos45]

I have a situation at work which I am finding very unfair and wonder from an HR perspective if I have a valid case for a complaint.

So basically there were 4 of us doing the same role (project manager's), we all earn't roughly the same. Person A had been in the company 10 years or so and Person B had been there for about 5 years. Me and the other person were relatively new. However, we are in a very small specialist industry and have all got the same qualifications and the same experience.

We were managed by a Director.

The Director decided he wanted a less hands on approach and advertised for a new manager for the 4 of us. This was a new role created within the Company. It was always going to go to Person B and to be honest I didn't even want to apply.

Around the same time I had my appraisal. We are a small company within a huge corporation (think household name utilities company) and they publish their salary bands on our company intranet. So lets say I am a grade 4 the banding goes 35k lowest, 50k middle and 65k highest. We are paid between the lowest and the middle bands.

Now, to repeat this is a very very specialist industry, all four of us have over 25+ years experience in this industry having done the job ourselves in the industry, you couldn't get any more qualified or experienced than either of the four of us. I queried then why we were paid between the lowest and the middle banding judging by the fact they couldn't get anyone more perfect for the job than either of us and was pretty told "that's how it is" and that we all got paid the same.

Fine.

The next day it is announced that Person B got the job of managing the other 3 of us. Great news, I am happy with that. But additionally Person A got promoted to be a "senior" project manager due to his longevity with the company. Note, not his experience but his longevity. I imagine a pay rise went with that as well.

Person A (The senior project manager) has never managed a project bigger than either of the 2 of us now just PM's, he has actually cut his workload down due to stress and they can visibly and viably work out the work loads and me and colleague who did not get a promotion are doing approximately 7 projects a piece and he is doing 4. The size of the projects are worked out by number of days sold etc. So it is not as if he is doing 4 large projects so our 7 small ones, and to be fair each project regardless of size takes the same management effort.

So my query is how on earth is this fair? There is no more experience I can gain or any other qualifications I can get to qualify being a "senior" project manager.

They gave him this job as a "sweetener" as he told them to "stick the job up their arse" (his words) when he found out his very close colleague was being promoted instead of him. He is effectively earning more than us simply by kicking up a fuss. Is this legal? Is it even worth me saying something? I feel it is really unjust.

It doesn't sound fair, but what law do you think they are breaking?

You didn't apply for the 1st promotion, so you wouldn't have been considered for it.

A lot of companies will add "Senior" onto a job title to show longevity, so not unfair/unlawful, unless you feel that the reason for this is because you were discriminated against due to a protected characteristic.

The salary you're employed on is simply demand and supply. If you're not happy with the salary you're being paid the advice would usually be to look for another job with a higher salary or ask your employer for a pay rise.

Why on earth didn't you apply for the promotion? That just makes it look like you are not interested in progressing

I don’t think any laws have been broken, you are clearly paid in the correct pay grade, just because it goes to 65k shouldn’t mean you get it
Do you all get annual pay reviews or appraisals?
I think it’s fair a colleague was rewarded senior for ten years plus service, you don’t know it was a ‘sweetener’ they could have reviewed all pay and grade once person b was promoted and they maybe realised person a was due some recognition
I do t think you have a case but can see why you are aggrieved

Thank you everyone. The reason for not applying for the promotion is I didn't want that job. That is not my gripe. My gripe is that a member of the existing team got "promoted" into a new role but is doing the same job as us (in fact a lesser job as he doesn't have the same workload) because he kicked up a fuss. He said that no-one else stood a chance, the job promotion was favouritism to the person that got it etc. So he kicked up a merry dance, told them to shove their job and got promoted as well. As I said in my OP I can not get any more qualified for the job so how can I be promoted to a "senior" PM and get the same pay as the guy doing the same job as me? Seems really unfair but yes, they obviously can just do this.. Ho hum

If the only justification for promoting him and giving him a pay increase is that he has been with the company a long time that is potentially age discrimination. There is also possible indirect sex discrimination here in that he has been rewarded for negotiating hard. So, contrary to the previous posters, I do think you have a leg to stand on and it is possible laws have been broken.

It's not age discrimination to reward long service. And good luck arguing sex discrimination because he negotiated a pay increase. Not that either of these things are 'fair' but unfairness =/= illegal.

The company have shafted themselves though, because it is clear that the two of you who haven't had the promotions are going to be pissed off. I would be asking for a meeting with the director to ask what is required for you to reach 'senior' status. What is the market like for your job - do you think you are underpaid compared to people at other companies or not?

So they created a new role (senior project that A now has) and no one else was allowed to apply for it?

I would be asking what A is doing that makes his role senior as he is doing less project work than you, isn't managing you etc.

Nothing to loose by asking these questions...

Arguably they can say they promoted him due to his additional experience. They can also arguably say when you have this level of experience with them then you will also be eligible for promotion.

It's not a new role as such, as a pp is suggesting, simply he's been classified as senior due to his experience in the role

@RandomMess - that's what I intend to do. Interestingly A was supposed to be shadowing me on my first project (this was over 2 years ago). He came to one client meeting with me and when we finished said you are fine, you don;t need any help. I didn't and in fact due to a previous role within the company I knew more about a particular subject than he did. I also then went on to manage our arguably largest client and project we have ever had. In all my time there I have not had to lean on him or ask him anything due to his seniority or experience and don't envision a time when I will need to do so.

With regards to the PP asking if the salaries are in line with current salaries for the job etc - no they're not. They are about 10-20k less. Yes I could move but I don't want to, I love the company, love the job, the people etc but I am seriously aggrieved that someone on the same grade doing less work can get a "promotion" for basically internal politics reasons.

He doesn't have additional experience though, he has additional service with the company.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. I would take evidence of current specialist posts elsewhere and evidence that you do more work. All you can do is state at how under valued you feel that other colleagues get paid more for less work, no more responsibility and at some point moving elsewhere for an additional £20k plus is going to outweigh loyalty in light of the politics that appear to be going on.

It's not age discrimination to reward long service

Only if the service being rewarded is less than 5 years. If it is more than that the employer needs to demonstrate that rewarding service fulfils a genuine business need. If they are unable to do so it is age discrimination. Equality Act 2010 Schedule 9 para 10.

Sometimes I think people on here have either never heard of the concept of equal pay or for some reason don’t like it. Time after time we see women being paid less because a man kicked off and ‘negotiated’ harder, and here, on a female-dominated website, they get told it’s perfectly fine. Of course it isn’t.

If you don't ask you don't get. And it's perfectly reasonable for a company to reward long service.

Plenty of "unfair" things aren't illegal.

Only if the service being rewarded is less than 5 years.

It's if the person saying they are discriminated against has been there more than 5 years. The OP says they are relatively new, so presumably a fair bit less than the 5 years.

If you don't ask you don't get. And it's perfectly reasonable for a company to reward long service.

The law does not agree with you.

As Flowery says, rewarding someone because they negotiated harder is potentially indirect sex discrimination.

You can only safely reward someone for long service until they have reached 5 years service. Rewarding someone for 10 years service is age discrimination against anyone else with more than 5 years service, for example.

Reading the OP again, I see that she has been with the employer for less than 5 years, so there is no case for age discrimination. However, there is a potential case for indirect sex discrimination.

Funny how people interpret things. To me the law is clear that length of service is a factor against age discrimination, and even after the 5 years it's not necessarily discrimination if you can demonstrate a business need.

Everyone is saying that the OP should argue for an increase on the basis of the work they do.

But trying to argue the company has acted illegally is a stretch. If it came to say a constructive dismissal type case then yes, unequal treatment such as shown here would absolutely be part of it. But the OP wants to stay working here. So what would you advise they do? Go in guns blazing with employment lawyers, or try and their case?

The Equal Pay Act made it unlawful to pay a women less than a man for doing 'like work' in 1970. Almost 50 years on and we've clearly still got a long way to go until that requirement is actually either complied with or supported by the people it was designed to benefit.

It may be indirect discrimination if there is a pay system that disproportionately benefits men. However this is likely to be a straight equal pay claim between two individuals based on the OP's description of the work.

The employer may claim a material factor defence, however arguing that it is due to length of service isn't particularly credible in circumstances where it is obvious the actual reason is he kicked up a fuss after losing a promotion.

If the company routinely gave additional pay rises on reaching x years' service, that would add credibility to the claim that it was because of long service.

In terms of what I would advise the OP to do - there is a world of difference between sucking it up and going in "guns blazing with employment lawyers".

But no one who doesn't bother to challenge unfairness, particularly unlawful unfairness, gets anywhere.

Can't imagine a man sitting still for what the OP is expected to put up with. And that is exactly why it keeps happening.

I would also say that you should clarify whether this role that A has been promoted to is a new role, and if so why wasn't it advertised? They don't have to advertise new roles, but it doesn't look good if they haven't. If it is a role based on length of service, then there is a clear expectation that you would be promoted to the same position by the time you have been there 5 years.

What do you advise they do flowery?

Challenge it. Raise it politely but firmly with her line manager as a first port of call, as with any employment concern.

It’s crap when someone is the favourite and the interview process is simply a tick box.
It’s crap when others call this out and are given an extra status or jobs created for them.
I left and with the exiting interview I made it clear this was one of the reasons. A new role created for someone who didn’t possess the qualifications or experience. That the interview process was a sham when they already have their favs, and their second will be promoted anyway.

It happened on three separate occasions and then they gave up interviewing and just asked who was interested in a certain role.

Salaries will always depend on what the company thinks your worth/afford not industry standard. Teaching assistants for example get paid anything from minimum wage to over £10 an hour.

Thank you all for your input - most helpful and I am glad i asked now because I have been brewing on it a fair few weeks and was not sure it was just bitterness. It genuinely isn't. I am most aggrieved that the person doing EXACTLY the same job as me (or actually less) is being paid more. To answer a few questions, every role that is available is posted online (on our website) and posted internally via HR. A lot of the roles get filled internally or by recommendation. This "new" role (if we can call it that) that A was promoted to was not an advertised position. It coincided with the promotion of person B which was an advertised job. Albeit only for a few days - a week max I think.

With regards to our salaries - within the sector locally for my role (PM) the pay is roughly in the £60's - £70's however we are not getting anywhere near that despite the online pay banding showing that as the highest level that job is "worth". When I say you couldn't get anymore experienced than the 4 of us I genuinely believe that. It is a very niche industry with few people hanging around with that industry experience, although they may be an experienced PM (it's hard to explain). Basically let's say it was for being a PM for putting in a new software system for a hospital and you have worked at hospitals putting in new systems for years, that is my best description without outing the role. We all have the same track record with very similar experience albeit for different companies. I will also confirm that me and my colleague who did not get promoted are being paid exactly the same.

If Person A was genuinely contributing more, was a mentor perhaps or had more responsibility I would be happy with that. Totally. But it literally is like having two tube drivers doing the same job and driving the same train for the same amount of hours with the same experience and paying one more because you have labelled them "senior".

Also, to clarify yes I have been there less than 3 years but greater than 2.

Oh it's definitely worth asking! I think some of the different responses are due to regarding it as a legal question rather than a question of how you should approach it. If your director is reasonable and actually wants to keep hold of you and the other person then going in and giving them the facts, including evidence of industry salaries (not just the issue with A getting the 'promotion'), you'd hope you'd get a positive response. It would definitely make me question wanting to stay there if they brushed it off.