The issue of equal pay between the genders is not a new one. David Cameron has been campaigning about it for some time, championing women on the boards as having multiple benefits for businesses. Cameron is calling for better transparency of pay and greater accountability but will these things really lead to equality of the sexes within the workplace?

The UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) issued a report in February entitled 'Women on Boards'. It reported that “in 2010 women made up only 12.5% of the members of the corporate boards of FTSE 100 companies. This was up from 9.4% in 2004. But the rate of increase is too slow.” They claimed that at the current rate of change it would take another 70 years to achieve gender balanced board rooms.

When performing the legal test as to whether or not pay is discriminate there are two possible methods. The first method involves like work, that is a man and female who undertake the same role. Clearly this is quite an easy judgement to make. The difficulty arises with the second test when it has to be asked whether or not the differing roles carried out by a male and female employee respectively, are of equal value. This first involves being able to objectively attach a value to certain tasks. It is easier to do so where the employer actually runs a job evaluation scheme. This is where the problem of inequality manifests.

In order to adequately assess the value of a role experts are often called in, which can be both timely and costly. ACAS offer a service which can help. Once this part of the task is done, if it is considered that the two are of equal value and yet there is a differing wage, could there be a defence available to the employer? The answer lies in whether or not the employer can provide a good enough reason as to why they are paid differently. The employer needs to show that there is a material factor as to why the pay differs other than simply gender and that reason must be in the pursuit of a legitimate aim. Furthermore, the measure employed to attain this aim must be proportionate to that aim. If the employer can not do this they could face a claim for sex discrimination.

With regard to transparency, the Equality Act gives the government power from 2013 to require all companies with more than 250 employees to publish pay details. However, whether that provision will be brought into force seems unlikely in the current climate. Female directors overall earn salaries 14% lower than those of men, rising to 20% for executive directors. There is a £19,000 gap according to the Institute of Directors and Croner Reward. Other studies also suggested men get higher bonuses. The transparency would be beneficial as it would help to clarify these facts so that further action could be taken.

At the moment it looks unlikely that we will be improving on that 70 year figure quoted above. If the recent leaks and proposed changes to employment legislation are to take place they could actually further inhibit the number of women on boards and equality in the workplace on the whole. If, for example, there is a reduction in maternity and paternity rights, it might make it even more difficult for women to be able to work since the costs of childcare are so high. Whilst flexible working has at times been heralded as a saving grace, it should be remembered that it is not actually a right, rather there is a right to request it. An employer can quite easily supply business reasons as to why it would not be appropriate and that would be that. Add to this the fact that court proceedings for these matters are notoriously expensive and it really does seem unlikely that anything is to change in the short term.