header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 May 2017 / Gemma Woodhouse , Hilary Aldred
Issue: 7746 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Bridging the gap

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7746_aldread

Hilary Aldred & Gemma Woodhouse deal with the requirement to report under the Gender Pay Gap Regulations
  • How to deal with ‘problem’ employees and ‘problem’ areas.
  • Considering how to report.

Most legal practitioners, HR directors, HR managers and employers are aware of their general obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/172) (the regulations). By now, employers will have ascertained whether or not the regulations apply to them, and some will also have been preparing draft calculations. There are, however, a number of significant issues for businesses who are not only looking to publish their pay gap data, but also seeking to minimise any potential fallout.

Problem areas—hours

The regulations are clear that the calculation of any average hourly rate should be based on the normal working hours within the contract of employment rather than on the hours actually worked by an individual. This may well lead to unsatisfactory results as it fails to take account of individuals who are working hours

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll