Another equal pay application which failed was the case of Ms Pitman of Birmingham. The peculiar logic used in defending the employers here was that there was no man employed by the company doing a comparable job; and a plea that a comparison should be made on the basis of what a man would be getting paid was turned down.
So while Ms Iliffe was denied equal Dav on the basis of what the male em ployee should be doing, Ms Pitman's case was rejectea despite ner plea compare her pay to that which a man would be getting. A case of heads they win, tails you lose.
The case of Ms Pitman has implications beyond the absurdities of the Equal Pay Act's legal norms. Low pay relative to men s is nor lust me broorem women working alongside men - it is also a feature of the many jobs where emplovers hire only women as a means of lowering the wages bill. And as far as mar is concerned. the Equal. Pav Act. Industrial Tribunals and the rest have shown neither the power nor the desire to intervene.
Even where they do intervene, it is usuaiy me women wno come ou worst Of all the applications to Industrial Tribunals which have been made, 72 per cent have been turned down. Such figures underline how right the Trico women are to boycott the whole process and in sist instead that the best way to set equal pay is through militant action.
And me more mirant acuon tere is. the less need there will be for posts as chairman of the Equal Oportunities was explained in a strike bulletin. reducing the male rate to that of women: With only three, votes for, the Trico strikers reject the managements latest offer. The basis for the rejection *The company must forget any ideas it has of avaioding equal pay by