Charles Taylor UK gender pay-gap report 2017

Charles Taylor UK, the day-to-day administrative managers of Standard Club, and part of Charles Taylor Management Services, administering Strike Club, Signal Mutual, Canada’s SCALA and The Offshore Pollution Liability Association (OPOL) reported in UK Gender Pay Gap Report 2017 that it was working to close the gender pay gap

The UK Government introduced new rules in 2017 which required all UK businesses employing more than 250 staff to report on their gender pay gap. There were six reporting criteria:

  • Difference between the mean pay of men and women
  • Difference between the median pay of men and women
  • Proportion of men and women in each salary quartile
  • Difference between the mean bonus pay of men and women
  • Difference between the median bonus pay of men and women
  • Proportion of men and women who receive bonus pay

The Charles Taylor report showed the gender pay gap for all UK staff employed by Charles Taylor in the 12 months leading up to April 5th 2017. On that date Charles Taylor employed 634 staff in the UK, of whom 38.5% were female.

Charles Taylor Group CEO David Marock said that Charles Taylor was a people business that recruited, retained and developed “a broad range of highly skilled, technically excellent and highly motivated staff”.

However, he noted that the company’s gender pay gap was “wider than we would like”. He said that this was largely due to the high proportion of men historically employed in the insurance sector and the other industrial sectors from which Charles Taylor had typically recruited.

Marock said that the company believed that the transparency offered by publishing the gender pay gap was good. “It informs our efforts to deliver our diversity and inclusion agenda.  Further, it supports our efforts to recruit, develop and retain the most talented staff, irrespective of age, gender, race or sexual orientation”.

Group Human Resources Director Suzanne Deery, said that when she started her career in the insurance industry as a graduate trainee at a major insurer, “there were virtually no women at a senior level”.

Deery said that she was one of very few women to complete the professional fellowship exams. Deery said that she had some very supportive male mentors but there was also “no doubt I experienced some challenging behaviours”.

On her return to the insurance industry she said that she was “really pleased to see that there were more women in Charles Taylor and in the industry more generally at all levels”.

However, Deery observed that the “historical lack of recruitment and outmoded practices that had deterred some women from joining the industry” had resulted in fewer women progressing through to the very senior levels.

While at Charles Taylor, there were now “some really great female role models”, the company would still like to see many more women and other underrepresented groups coming through.

“We know this will take time, but we are determined to make progress. It is important to understand that the gender pay gap is a serious business issue rather than a women’s issue”, wrote Deery.

Charles Taylor’s male staff earned more than our female staff in the period under analysis, simply because there were more men in senior roles in the company. Charles Taylor noted that it was not alone in this position as the gender pay gap in the UK financial and insurance sectors was anticipated to be wider than in many other sectors. “We are not happy with our gender pay gap and are working to close it”.

Charles Taylor said that, in the past, insurance (and the other sectors from which Charles Taylor typically recruited) had attracted fewer women than men and it had been difficult to attract and recruit sufficient women into certain roles. “We have, therefore, had a smaller pool of female talent from whom to recruit and develop.”

In addition, at present, a higher number of women than men work part-time, often in support functions, which were typically lower paid roles. In the past there had been a lack of flexibility in working hours, which had made roles less attractive to some women with family and caring responsibilities. The company accepted that “old attitudes, behaviours and assumptions could also have played their part”.

Charles Taylor said that it had taken a number of actions to close the gender pay gap.

Bias training: An introduction of bias awareness training for members of the Group’s Executive Committee. An introduction of diversity and inclusion training for the senior leadership teams of divisions.

Delivering equal opportunities: The company’s global reward strategy was designed to deliver equal opportunities and reward for women and men. The company has introduced job families which set out pay scales, irrespective of gender, and offer target bonus and career development opportunities equally to all our staff.

Supporting learning and development: The establishment of a Core Learning and Development curriculum which is open to all Charles Taylor UK staff. The curriculum encourages career development and supports learning. Career development plans for all key talent has been put in place.

Providing diversity and inclusion training: A new management development programme that includes training on diversity and inclusion, particularly for staff involved in recruitment.

Combining work with family responsibilities: Flexible working arrangements have been improved, introducing a policy encouraging formal and informal practices which help staff to combine their work with their family and caring responsibilities. Maternity pay has been enhanced.

A diversity and inclusion forum: “We monitor carefully our progress in improving diversity and inclusion in our annual engagement survey. We also established a global Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) Forum in 2016 to engage staff, while further improving our practices”.

Future plans included:

Eliminating bias when attracting and recruiting new staff: Bias awareness training for all managers involved in recruitment. This would include removing gender biased language in our advertising and job descriptions. Charles Taylor was also planning to run events promoting careers in the industry to women and underrepresented groups.

Reviewing performance management processes: The company was reviewing its performance ratings, promotion and bonus decisions for any signs of potential bias or other areas of concern.

Assessing exit data: The company was gathering more information from exit data to monitor why people leave and analyzing it to identify whether there were issues around inclusion and equality.

Supporting career development: Key talent would be offered access to senior mentors to support their career development, irrespective of age, gender, race or sexual orientation.

Build further awareness: Diversity and inclusion e-learning modules would be introduced.

Engaging with diversity and inclusion organisations: The Club said that it had recently joined ‘Working Families’ and ‘Stonewall’ – organizations dedicated to diversity, inclusion and work-life balance – to identify other best practices across the diversity and inclusion agenda.

When they are made available, IMN would be happy to publish the gender pay gap reports of other Club managers.