I know that they are thinking of way to get out of the sexual discrimination as they are going to say that he "isn't as valued" as the other staff. Considering they all started off training, yet the females were started off training at a higher rate than him, surely this doesn't make any sense. Obviously they can say they don't value him as much as his colleagues (although they'd always said he was well-regarded and an asset to the company before he raised the issue of him being paid less), but how could they possibly say this before he'd even started training...? The grievance procedure states that he should complain (which he's done), then he should be offered a meeting (which he was offered in December, but he was also told the matter would be looked into so he didn't feel a meeting was necessary as it is such a straightforward matter, so he declined on the proviso the matter would be sorted). He attended the 'meeting' in the pub last week where he was informed that they'd done nothing. Supposing they don't come back to him? Or they come back with a load of nonsense? They do note that he can appeal if he's not happy with their answers but given that it is them he is complaining about and them who conduct the meetings and them that listen to the appeal, how is this fair? When would a judge find it acceptable for him to opt out of their grievance procedure?
So once he's exhausted their grievance procedure, he can go to a tribunal without the help of an employment specialist? How does he do this?
Thanks very much for your help. It was most useful.