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.

@whatsthecomingoverthehill - thank you once again for your input.

Just recently I completed a project - the client was very complimentary about the whole project and thank me personally on LinkedIn, he went to the trouble to speak to our Sales Director who passed it on to senior management how well the project had gone considering they had been on a different system for years and were afraid of change couldn't be more pleased from start to finish. I got a £50 award recognition for it and apparently we have never had such positive and public response from a client before like this. It leaves a really bad taste in my mouth that even after that I am not being paid as much as someone else! Oh well, it's Friday and nearly wine time.

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.

Setting aside the 'reward for longevity' situation, why are you fine that role A was not an advertised role? You mentioned upthread they "just announced" it out of the blue, a day or so after role B was filled.

It was always going to go to Person B and to be honest I didn't even want to apply

Their process is systematically flawed. 2 roles, A and B, are awarded uncontested to two male employees. The fact nobody is taking issue with this, means it enables them to break with their own protocol when the mood takes them, it is unfairness and inequality to you and other female staff to cherry pick their favourite staff to just "give" roles to, when it should be an open competition - by their own stated policy!

I'm not in any way saying any of the above is your fault, and you shouldn't have to fight a one-woman crusade, but it would be in your best interests if you want to stay there for a few years, that you point out this anomaly as it could become a major barrier to your advancement.