Glasgow - 'You Can't Have It Both Ways'

Here's an update Stefan Cross posted on Facebook to summarise what happened at yesterday's Employment Tribunal hearing in Glasgow.

So the scene is now set - earlier this year the City Council promised serious negotiations to end this long-running dispute in response to an earlier threat of industrial action.

But the negotiations never happened and the important point to note is that not a single issue of real substance has been agreed after 9 months and 20 separate settlement meetings.  

The Council insists that a settlement offer will be made before the end of the year, but will it be a realistic offer - or will it only be as 'serious' as the non-existent negotiations promised earlier this year.  

Time will tell, as ever, but I can see no evidence to suggest that the Council 'leopard' has suddenly changed its spots and is acting in good faith since up until now all the talking has been in vain. 

Industrial action now seems unavoidable to me and if strikes do go ahead, this will be a very big deal indeed because Glasgow's equal pay strikes will be taking place in Scotland's largest council and they will be the first of their kind in the history of Scottish local government.

In other words the City Council can't have it both ways - the days of endless talks and sham 'negotiations' have finally come to an end.      

  

AND THE ROUTE IS SET - UPDATE FROM TRIBUNAL



First, thank you to all the women that turned up to the hearing. An amazing turnout. Very impressive. Now they’ll understand a bit more what boring lives we lawyers lead. Bodyguard it ain’t!

I won’t bore you with the gory details so this is just a summary. As with most court hearings there were good and bad bits, but overall I was pleased with the outcome. We didn’t get everything I wanted but we got a lot of it. The most important part was that we got a clear route map in tribunal if negotiations fail and the council do not produce an acceptable offer by the end of the year.

I need to stress that we still think negotiations are the best way forward. The problem with the tribunal is that you have no way of guaranteeing victory, some folk will do better than others (some might get nothing) and it takes forever.

What’s important is that we haven’t lost any more tribunal time allowing them the chance to properly negotiate. If we had no negotiations the timetable agreed today would probably be about the same.

However, we needed the tribunal as a backstop. It concentrates the mind knowing that no deal means back to tribunal ASAP.

So, if there is no deal we’ve agreed a 3 pronged attack. First, remedies for protection at least for ex manual workers. This will be sometime March to May. The tribunal will set dates in the next month. 

Second, starting the Equal Value process for everyone, but particularly for non manuals and new claims. This is a horribly long process but the first date will be in November this year. We hope even if we get no deal we will reduce the number of jobs that need to go through this process.

Third, a hearing to determine the rest of the major issues such as NSWP, ECD, Part time work and the treatment of Cordia staff. This will be listed in the period of June to August next year. Again dates to be fixed in the next month. I know a lot of those that attended today thought this was a long way but believe me this is a very tight timescale. It’s a very comprehensive route map.

It should also be said that the council remained committed to the December negotiations timetable they set. I’m not convinced but happy to let them prove me wrong. We are told that there will be important developments on this front this week. I shall report as soon anything is confirmed.

So not a champagne day, but a solid important day.

The claimant group will be meeting again to review where we are and no doubt the unions will report to their members too.

As always I shall follow your comments with interest



Stefan Cross

When is a negotiation not a negotiation? (23/08/18)

Q. When is a negotiation not a negotiation?

A. When one of the parties involved (i.e. GCC) refuses to engage with, or respond positively to, detailed settlement proposals put forward by the other side (i.e. the Claimants Group comprising A4ES, GMB and Unison).

The reality is that after 8 months and 18 settlement meetings, meaningful negotiations with Glasgow City Council have still not got off the ground. 

Which explains why all the outstanding claims are going back to the Glasgow Employment Tribunal in September and why the trade unions (GMB and Unison) are now balloting their members on industrial action.

The problem is that 'good faith' negotiations have not been taking place and the Council Side is refusing to discuss in detail (never mind agree) which traditional male jobs should be used as 'comparators' for the purpose of calculating compensation for 12,500 low paid claimants.

So the litigation has not ended, despite what some people say.

Instead the focus of the litigation is shifting from the UK Supreme Court to the Employment Tribunal, as a result of the Council moving at such a 'glacial speed' and its refusal to negotiate properly with the Claimants via their representatives.  

Incredibly, when the cases do go back to the Employment Tribunal the current SNP led Council will be in the crazy position of defending the discriminatory practices of a 2007 WPBR pay scheme (including the notorious 37 hour rule) which has already been judged as 'unfit for purpose' by the highest civil court in Scotland, the Court of Session.     

  

When is a negotiation not a negotiation? (21/08/18)

Glasgow City Council leader, Susan Aitken, is attending today's settlement meeting with A4ES, GMB and Unison after the last meeting (Number 17) with council officials descended into farce.

Now, as Council leader and as leader of the SNP in opposition, Susan Aitken is 'on record' as saying that she believes GCC has been underpaying its female dominated workforce for years.

But senior officials do not agree with the Council leader which is why there have been no meaningful negotiations on the size of the pay gap between traditional male and female council jobs.

In effect, council officials are still defending the WPBR and the blatantly discriminatory aspects the scheme such as the notorious 37 hour 'rule' which was introduced in 2007 even though the WPBR has been judged to be 'unfit for purpose' by the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court.

So the reality is that the litigation in Glasgow has not ended and all of the issues still in dispute are heading back to the Employment Tribunals in September - because of the lack of progress in 'negotiations' which have been underway since the start of 2018.

The trade unions (GMB and Unison) are also now recommending strike action, not because they are being unreasonable or looking for a fight, but because council officials are far more interested in defending their advice and behaviour in respect of the 'unfit for purpose' WPBR - instead of putting their hands up and accepting that they got things terribly wrong back in 2007. 

  

When Is a negotiation not a negotiation? (13/08/18)

Q. When is a negotiation not a negotiation?

A. When one of the parties involved (i.e. Glasgow City Council) goes back on its word and arrogantly tries to impose its will on everyone else. 

Now I was a professional negotiator for many years, latterly as Head of Local Government for Unison (Scotland), and I think the following words fairly describe what a proper 'negotiation' is all about: 

"A give and take bargaining process between two or more parties (each with their own aims and objectives) which sets out to find common ground and reach  agreement - to settle a dispute or other matters of mutual concern."

In other words it takes two (sometimes more) to tango and only months ago Glasgow City Council was keen to tell the world that a 'new dawn had broken' and that under new leadership Scotland's largest council would finally bring the country's longest running equal pay dispute to an end - by negotiation.

Sadly this has proved not to be the case because last Tuesday (7th August), senior council officials abruptly announced there was no point in having further settlement meetings and that they would be working on their own proposals which would be 'presented' to the Claimants Side (A4ES, GMB and Unison) in November 2018. 

So after all the talk about the need for a step-by-step, detailed and agreed process Glasgow City Council tears up its own 'rule book' and decides it will draw up its own solution to Equal Pay - just as the Council did previously with its WPBR (Workforce Pay and Benefits Review) which the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court, judged to be 'unfit for purpose' in August 2017. 

Why does this matter so much?

Because the Council is trying to decide unilaterally which male comparators to use in putting forward offers of compensation to thousands of equal pay claimants across Glasgow, but behind closed doors and without the agreement of the Claimants' representatives - A4ES, GMB and Unison

Up until now I would have said that senior council officials are responsible for these 'wrecking ball' tactics because this is effectively the same group of officials who have been defending the WPBR for years and urged the City Council to appeal the Court of Session's landmark 'unfit for purpose' judgment to the UK Supreme Court in London.

In the following comments for The Herald newspaper the Council leader, Susan Aitken, insists:

“I’ve always been clear that I don’t believe the council has been paying men and women equally for the work they do. We need to compensate women for years of underpaying them, and we need a new pay and grading system that rewards everyone fairly."

But if there is no agreement on the 'pay gap' between male and female jobs which has been operating under the WPBR (for 12 years and counting) - there can obviously be no agreement on how to compensate claimants, fairly at least, for all the years they have been cheated and robbed of what they were due by the WPBR pay scheme which is underpinned by blatantly discriminatory practices including its cockamamy 37 hour 'rule'.

So while Susan Aitken talks about 'good faith' the reality is that the SNP led administration is behaving no differently to the Labour run Council in 2005 which set out to bully thousands of low paid Glasgow claimants into accepting scandalously low offers of settlement of their equal pay claims.