I was recently promoted, which was a nice vote of confidence from my managers. Process is that your manager recommends you for promotion, decisions are made behind closed doors. The individual doesn't request the promotion, or even know it has happened until told in their annual review.
The promotion comes with increased responsibility, increased performance targets, more variable bonus payments and greater risk of redundancy. All of which seems reasonable and expected in return for the benefits that come with promotion. The issue is that the firm (used to have) has specific pay levels for each grade of seniority. Bonuses fluctuate with performance of the individual and the company, but base salaries were uniform - until this year. Those promoted this year were not given the salary increase associated with the change in role and so are paid 75% of others in the same firm doing the same job. My manager found out about the salary freeze an hour before the performance review where he told me I'd been promoted. He clearly felt sick that he'd put me up for a position of greater risk of redundancy without the associated salary increase to compensate for it.
I'm now in a position where I am doing the same role/responsibilities/risk of redundancy as others but on significantly less money. It feels wrong, but I assume the company took legal advice before doing it as they are generally pretty paranoid about being accused of discrimination. Is it legal to have people doing the same role for different base salaries when there has previously a set figure for everyone? Or is my company taking a punt that no-one will complain for fear of losing their jobs?
Thanks for any views.
