Glasgow - More Equal Pay Updates

Here is the letter from Glasgow City Council to the local Unison branch which led to yesterday's statement and a great deal of excitement about whether Unison was:

a) Cosying up to the Council
b) Calling off the possibility of strike action
c) Saying that compensation payments would be made in January 2019

Now none of these things are true, by the way, but social media does tend to 'hype' things up beyond belief. 

So there's lots of things that could be said about Robert Andersson's letter, but I suspect it's better not to say too much as this stage and let the dust settle before the Claimants Side take stock of the situation at their next meeting on Tuesday 5th June. 

All I would say is the Council has still to respond in a serious and positive way to the detailed settlement proposals put forward by the Claimants Side (A4ES, GMB and Unison) which included suggested male 'comparators' for the various claimant jobs, for example. 

So it's rather early to say that the Glasgow 'leopard' really has changed its spots, though time will tell.

The only other point I would make is that the City Council brought in the WPBR pay scheme in little more than a year (from a standing start) in 2007, so the suggestion that a replacement scheme will take 3 years to implement sounds a little odd and disingenuous, if you ask me.

In my view, the Unison and GMB strike ballots certainly gave the Council a much needed 'wake-up' call and that's all to the good.

So let's take nothing for granted, keep piling on the pressure and keep the campaign going until we have detailed settlement proposals on the table and a clear timescale for brining this long-running dispute to an end.

  

Subject: Equal Pay

Dear Brian,

I understand that Unison have three issues regarding the progress being made in our Equal Pay settlement negotiations and that these issues have prompted Unison to organise a consultative ballot. I am able to provide the following clarification.

1. You have sought a commitment to timelines for the various stages of the exercise leading to a target date for the completion of the settlement negotiations. You have also sought reassurance that no interim payments would be unilaterally made.

In presenting an overall project plan, whose format was agreed at our last meeting, the Council was seeking to put in place a process that would provide clear timescales for the completion of the various stages of the exercise. I trust that this reflects the Council Leader’s commitment to completing this exercise and agreeing a settlement figure within the timescales that we originally envisioned.

We have, after all, committed to our fortnightly meetings until the end of the calendar year and continue to work towards being in a position to finalise, as far as possible, agreement by the end of the year and then begin the processing of any payments due after that.

To reach that goal, at our last meeting we began the process of agreeing dates to populate the action plan. We agreed dates in connection with the work of the Job Evaluation work stream, the setting up of a legal issues work stream, the completion of the methodology work and the date when we would present our position on agreed or not agreed pay elements. This should provide a degree of confidence that we can now proceed to jointly agree the dates for the completion of the various stages.

At no time did the Council seek to unilaterally make any payment. It was always the intention to proceed to interim payments only with the agreement of the group.

2. You have sought a commitment to the removal of WPBR and its replacement with an appropriate job evaluation derived pay and grading system.

At the last meeting of the Job Evaluation Work Stream it was agreed that a report would be prepared for the last meeting of CAC prior to the recess, that this report would seek authority to abandon the current scheme and start work on identifying a replacement scheme that would ensure equal pay going forward. It was further agreed that the group would work over the recess to identify such a new scheme that could be presented to CAC after the recess. I want to stress the Council’s commitment to agreeing the new scheme and the methodology of its implementation with the Joint Trade Unions.

3. You have sought reassurance that the Council recognises the importance of putting in place additional funds to support the introduction of a new pay and grading system.

While we might well have identified a new scheme by late summer considerable preparatory work will be required and then we would need 2 or three years to implement the scheme. It is extremely difficult to make any comment on the funding of a scheme whose identity is currently unknown and its impact on current grading unknowable for as much as three years.

However, as Head of Human Resources I am committed to implementing a fully funded, fair and just pay and grading scheme which pays equally for equal work and which our employees have confidence in. I know this commitment is echoed by the political leadership in the city.

I hope that the above clarifies the Council’s position. I have copied this letter to the Leader of the Council and the City Convener for Workforce.

Regards,



Robert


Robert Anderson
Head of Human Resources
Corporate Services
Glasgow City Council
Room G.20
40 John Street