Skip to main content

Glasgow - Equal Pay Update



The Herald reported yesterday on the demand from Glasgow's equal pay claimants that the City Council replace its discredited WPBR pay scheme with one that is 'fair and fit for purpose'.

Now this row has been dragging on for months, ever since August 2017 in fact, when the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court, unanimously decided that Glasgow's WPBR pay arrangements are 'unfit for purpose'.

Yet for all this time the senior officials have been fighting to keep a scheme, in full or in part, which they have been defending for years in the courts including the WPBR's 37 hour 'rule' which plainly discriminates against the City Council's largely female workforce.

In The Herald report, a spokesperson for the Council claimed that 'progress' has been made on making an 'interim payment' even though the claimant organisations (A4ES, GMB and Unison) have made it crystal clear that the claimants are not interested in a piecemeal settlement.

Earlier this year, senior officials threatened to impose an interim payment and despite being told such a move is completely unacceptable a 'spokesperson' for the council announces in the press that the plan is back on the table again. 

Now I can confirm there have been no negotiations about an interim settlement, not least  because the sums suggested by the council previously were insultingly low and divisive - and were not worth discussing seriously.

An interim payment is a non-starter because the claimants have been down this route before - and won't be fooled again!

For example, back in 2005 when the City Council imposed a 'non-negotiable' settlement of First Wave equal pay claims which were 'capped' at just £9,000 - thousands of employees were cheated out of what their claims were really worth, others were left out altogether and important issues like overtime working deliberately ignored by council bosses.

But the problems don't end there, of course, because if council officials were to get away with bullying the claimants into submission over an interim settlement, what would stop them from doing the self-same thing by imposing a 'final settlement'? 

So there's a lot at stake and if Glasgow's senior officials think they can throw their weight around at the next meeting on 17 April 2018, I suspect they will find that they have bitten off a lot more than they can chew.

  


http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16133032.Glasgow_City_Council_accused_of_perpetuating_equal_pay_discrimination/

Glasgow City Council accused of perpetuating equal-pay 

discrimination

By Margaret Taylor @MagsTaylorHT - The Herald


Unions and lawyers representing Glasgow equal-pay claimants are demanding that th current pay scheme be replaced as part of any settlement.

GLASGOW City Council has been warned it faces a rash of new equal-pay claims despite recently agreeing to settle legal challenges with thousands of women over unfair wages

The local authority is facing a bill of between £500 million and £1 billion after agreeing to negotiate settlements with up to 11,500 women who have historically been paid less than men for doing work of equal value.

But because councillors have failed to overhaul the salary structure, fresh claims would still be valid, union leaders have claimed.

Last year, the Court of Session ruled that a Workforce Pay and Benefits Review (WPBR) conducted over a decade ago favoured men by protecting bonuses they previously received and deeming their work to be of higher value than that carried out by female colleagues.

READ MORE: Glasgow City Council pension claims see equal pay bill soar to £1bn

The council has agreed to compensate any female employees affected by the disparity and a spokesman said the local authority is willing to look at the pay system as part of that.

“The future pay and grading structure will be a matter for discussion and a workstream has already been set up to explore this,” he said.

However, Hazel Nolan of GMB Scotland, which is representing 2,000 claimants, accused the council of trying to “salvage the broken WPBR scheme by tinkering around the edges of the scheme” rather than looking at replacing it in its entirety.

“The council needs to accept the reality about WPBR – accept the system is broken as the Court of Session ruled it to be and bring everyone together to introduce a system that is fair and fit for purpose,” she said.

“If equal pay is settled without the total replacement of the WPBR scheme then we will immediately move to bring in [more] claims because until the scheme is replaced, discrimination will continue.”

According to Peter Hunter of fellow union Unison, which is also acting for 2,000 affected women, the council’s “indecision” on whether to “retain, revise or replace” the pay scheme suggests it “lacks the knowledge and confidence about what needs to be done on this issue”.

READ MORE: Glasgow City Council pension claims see equal pay bill soar to £1bn

“They currently have a scheme that was not quality tested on implementation - it’s a bad scheme and we have a Court of Session ruling that says it’s a bad scheme,” Mr Hunter said.

“It would be reckless to leave it in place as it is but if you have a reckless pay system and the financial risk attached to that is big, is it wise to try to repair it?”

Stefan Cross QC of Action 4 Equality Scotland, which is acting for 7,500 women making a claim against Glasgow, said the failure to reach agreement on whether the pay scheme should be replaced is holding up negotiations on the actual settlements.

Mr Cross said that while the sides have met eight times since December “we’ve not got down to a single issue other than procedure”.

“We are making concessions on procedure to get to talks,” he said. “One of the biggest is that we believe the result of the Court of Session action is that the current pay structure is untenable and the council should replace it.

“At the moment it’s a frustrating process where we’re not discussing details, just process.

“They said they won’t commit to replacing WBPR. Our view is that these discussions are less likely to succeed because we’re starting from the wrong position.”

READ MORE: Glasgow City Council pension claims see equal pay bill soar to £1bn

The spokesman for the local authority said: “The council and the claimants’ representatives have always been clear that this process will take time. That said, we have made progress on agreeing a terms of reference and moving towards interim payments in respect of pay protection.”

The next meeting between the sides is scheduled for April 17. Mr Cross said the hope is to “try to move things forward and get down to brass tacks” at that meeting.







Popular posts from this blog

SNP - Conspiracy of Silence

LGB Rights - Hijacked By Intolerant Zealots!