Scottish Parliament - Evidence (5)
Ongoing Issues and Concerns (continued)
Job Evaluation – Local Implementation
30) South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) has introduced a JE scheme that prevents council employees from understanding and comparing the relative worth of their jobs. Up until now, SLC has been unable or unwilling to explain how all the different jobs have been valued under its ‘in-house’ scheme. SLC is the only council in Scotland in this position and it has still to explain clearly how employees moved across from the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ pay structures.
31) Glasgow City Council has introduced a new concept of Core and Non-Core pay. In our view the non-core pay element is discriminatory and unlawful because it awards additional grading points (and extra pay) to predominantly male jobs, e.g. full-time workers get 7 extra points (£800 pa) - which penalises part-time workers, the vast majority of whom are women.
32) North Lanarkshire Council has introduced new incremental scales for jobs which previously had no increments, with many existing employees being placed at the bottom of the new pay scales. Yet, the standard of work required from employees and standard of service delivered to clients has remained exactly the same. In our view, these experience-related increments cannot be justified as they discriminate on the grounds of age.
Council Compromise Agreements
33) Glasgow City Council led the way in organising local ‘acceptance’ meetings where employees were offered a cash lump sum – in return for which they were required to sign away their legal rights under a Compromise Agreement.
34) But these agreements may not be valid under s77 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 because employees in Glasgow were directed to a solicitor or law firm chosen by the council. Employees had no role or choice in selecting the individual lawyers and it has since become clear that the law firms involved agreed to restrict the scope of their advice on terms laid down by the city council. This may affect other councils as well.
35) Employees were unaware of the relationship between the city council and various law firms providing ‘independent’ advice. Specifically, they were not made aware that the council was working closely with these law firms, had already agreed to pay their fees and directly influenced what their solicitors could or could not say to council employees.
Trade Unions and the Allen v GMB Case
36) The big three public sector unions (GMB, Unison and Unite) are all affected by a landmark decision from August 2008 in the Court of Appeal. The case, known as Allen v GMB, found that the GMB had discriminated against their own low-paid women members. The women sought equal pay with the men and alleged they were represented inadequately by the union, complaining the GMB was guilty of sex discrimination.
37) The Employment Tribunal decided unanimously that their employer (Middlesborough Council) should have eradicated unequal pay years earlier. The tribunal found that the GMB then collaborated with the employer by manipulating members, who had back pay claims, into unwittingly sacrificing their rights - to the benefit of the employer. In doing so, the tribunal agreed that the union had unjustifiably discriminated against their low-paid women members.
The Court of Appeal held that the GMB misrepresented the 'deal' that was on offer from the council and the case has been referred back to the Employment Tribunal to consider compensation.
Retired Employees (1999 Onwards)
38) Since 1999 over 25,000 council employees have retired and many of those individuals stood to benefit from the 1999 Single Status Agreement. The employers and unions were responsible for advising employees of their right to register a ‘protective’ claim within 6 months of the date of their retirement.
39) But neither party took the issue of equal pay sufficiently seriously to protect the interest of employees whose jobs had been undervalued for years, but who were due to retire in the period following the 1999 Single Status Agreement. Employees who retired and made no claim within 6 months are now out of time because of the time limits in the Employment Tribunals. The outcome is extremely unfair on thousands of female employees whose pension and retirement benefits are much lower than they should be. Many of these women spent a lifetime in the service of their local communities.
Ends
Job Evaluation – Local Implementation
30) South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) has introduced a JE scheme that prevents council employees from understanding and comparing the relative worth of their jobs. Up until now, SLC has been unable or unwilling to explain how all the different jobs have been valued under its ‘in-house’ scheme. SLC is the only council in Scotland in this position and it has still to explain clearly how employees moved across from the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ pay structures.
31) Glasgow City Council has introduced a new concept of Core and Non-Core pay. In our view the non-core pay element is discriminatory and unlawful because it awards additional grading points (and extra pay) to predominantly male jobs, e.g. full-time workers get 7 extra points (£800 pa) - which penalises part-time workers, the vast majority of whom are women.
32) North Lanarkshire Council has introduced new incremental scales for jobs which previously had no increments, with many existing employees being placed at the bottom of the new pay scales. Yet, the standard of work required from employees and standard of service delivered to clients has remained exactly the same. In our view, these experience-related increments cannot be justified as they discriminate on the grounds of age.
Council Compromise Agreements
33) Glasgow City Council led the way in organising local ‘acceptance’ meetings where employees were offered a cash lump sum – in return for which they were required to sign away their legal rights under a Compromise Agreement.
34) But these agreements may not be valid under s77 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 because employees in Glasgow were directed to a solicitor or law firm chosen by the council. Employees had no role or choice in selecting the individual lawyers and it has since become clear that the law firms involved agreed to restrict the scope of their advice on terms laid down by the city council. This may affect other councils as well.
35) Employees were unaware of the relationship between the city council and various law firms providing ‘independent’ advice. Specifically, they were not made aware that the council was working closely with these law firms, had already agreed to pay their fees and directly influenced what their solicitors could or could not say to council employees.
Trade Unions and the Allen v GMB Case
36) The big three public sector unions (GMB, Unison and Unite) are all affected by a landmark decision from August 2008 in the Court of Appeal. The case, known as Allen v GMB, found that the GMB had discriminated against their own low-paid women members. The women sought equal pay with the men and alleged they were represented inadequately by the union, complaining the GMB was guilty of sex discrimination.
37) The Employment Tribunal decided unanimously that their employer (Middlesborough Council) should have eradicated unequal pay years earlier. The tribunal found that the GMB then collaborated with the employer by manipulating members, who had back pay claims, into unwittingly sacrificing their rights - to the benefit of the employer. In doing so, the tribunal agreed that the union had unjustifiably discriminated against their low-paid women members.
The Court of Appeal held that the GMB misrepresented the 'deal' that was on offer from the council and the case has been referred back to the Employment Tribunal to consider compensation.
Retired Employees (1999 Onwards)
38) Since 1999 over 25,000 council employees have retired and many of those individuals stood to benefit from the 1999 Single Status Agreement. The employers and unions were responsible for advising employees of their right to register a ‘protective’ claim within 6 months of the date of their retirement.
39) But neither party took the issue of equal pay sufficiently seriously to protect the interest of employees whose jobs had been undervalued for years, but who were due to retire in the period following the 1999 Single Status Agreement. Employees who retired and made no claim within 6 months are now out of time because of the time limits in the Employment Tribunals. The outcome is extremely unfair on thousands of female employees whose pension and retirement benefits are much lower than they should be. Many of these women spent a lifetime in the service of their local communities.
Ends
