By Joanne Stronach Head of Employment & HR
The Employment Tribunal has ruled that a female finance administrator was discriminated against when her male replacement was paid £3,500 more than her.
The case involved Mrs J Broom, who had been employed in various roles by Alternative Care Ltd for nearly two years.
At the time she resigned from the company, she was a finance administrator with a salary of £18,000.
The role was filled by Kieren Sartori, whose partner was the daughter of the company director, Gaynor Smith.
His official employment documentation stated that his role was finance administrator and his salary was £21,500.
Broom trained Sartori to replace her and was also put in charge of payroll during the transition period. She noticed that Sartori was being paid £3,500 more than she had been, which she described as a “kick in the teeth”.
She took the case to the Employment Tribunal and produced an itemised list of her duties, which Sartori said broadly corresponded to the duties that he now performed.
Alternative Care Ltd argued that Sartori was on a higher salary as he was in a more senior role and the company’s intention was for him to eventually take over from Smith, thereby keeping the business in the family.
The pay increase was necessary as Sartori would not have joined for the existing salary.
The tribunal ruled that this was not an acceptable reason to pay him more than Broom for performing the same task during the training period.
The documentation from when he was appointed stated his job title would be ‘finance administrator’ – indicating that he was to be a direct replacement.
Company documents only started to refer to Sartori as a ‘finance manager’ or ‘trainee financial director’ after Broom had filed a formal grievance.
Broom was awarded £390.40 compensation for the notice period she worked alongside Sartori.
If you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of employment law, please contact Joanne Stronach on 01228 516 666 or you can email her here.