Glasgow and Equal Pay
Glasgow is right in the front line when it comes to equal pay.
Action 4 Equality Scotland and Stefan Cross solicitors are currently pursuing over 5,000 equal pay claims in Glasgow – the cases fall into various categories with some people having a claim in more than one category:
Work Rated as Equivalent (WRE) Claims
WRE claims are straightforward because the claims are based on any two jobs that have already been rated (or valued) under a common job evaluation (JE) scheme, e.g. the 1987/88 Manual Workers Scheme. Many female dominated jobs such as Home Carers were previously on grade MW 5 but earned much less than a male job such as a Refuse Driver on a lower grade MW 4 – because the male job was on a big bonus - which was kept hidden from the women workers.
Equal Value (EV) Claims
In EV cases, jobs have not been rated under a common JE scheme, but that’s no bar to bringing an equal pay claim. Employment Tribunals can appoint an independent expert to assess the content of different jobs along with their relative skill and responsibility levels. Many APT&C jobs have claims that are just as valid as their manual worker colleagues. For example, Classroom Assistants, School Secretaries and Catering Managers are often paid much less than refuse workers and gardeners.
Post 2006 Claims
Glasgow has settled some of its equal pay claims, but only up to 1 April 2006. After that date, the council continued to protect the higher (bonus related) pay of traditional male jobs. ‘Pay protection’ was part of the original single status negotiations and should have come into play soon after the original 1999 Single Status Agreement. In any event, following a recent judgment at the Court of Appeal, women workers in Glasgow, and elsewhere, can claim the higher rate paid to the men - for the length of the male workers ‘pay protection’ period.
Council Compromise Agreements
Glasgow City Council led the way in organising ‘acceptance’ meetings where employees were offered a cash lump sum – in return for signing a Compromise Agreement. But these agreements may not be valid under s77 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 because employees were directed to a solicitor and law firm chosen by the council. Employees had no role or choice in the process and it has since become clear that the lawyers restricted the scope of their advice - on terms laid down by the council.
Glasgow’s WPBR (Workforce Pay and Benefits Review)
Glasgow City Council has introduced a new concept of Core and Non-Core pay, as a result of its WPBR. In our view, various aspects of the WPBR are discriminatory because it awards additional grading points (and extra pay) to predominantly male jobs. For example, full-time workers get 7 extra points (£800 pa) – just for working full-time. Part-time workers get no such points and, of course, the vast majority of part-time workers are women.
New Glasgow Claims
Glasgow cases continue to come in all the time – and there’s likely to be a fresh wave of claims in connection with the WPBR. It’s not too late for Glasgow employees to make claims - even those who have transferred to Cordia. Our view is that Cordia is an associated employer for equal pay purposes – so transferring employees to a new arm’s length body doesn’t get the council off the hook. The transfer to Cordia affected around 8,000 staff – including cleaners, catering workers, carers, classroom assistants and a variety of admin and clerical workers.
Glasgow GMF Hearing
A key crucial test case involving Glasgow is currently underway – this is a defence hearing where the council has to explain and try to justify the big differences in pay between traditional male and female jobs. The hearing is due to resume in August – and the outcome will influence other similar cases that are in the pipeline.
Settlement Talks
We are always prepared to talk to the council about a negotiated settlement – we have put proposals to the council before - but they chose to take their chances at the employment tribunal. Now that decision doesn’t look so smart, but the ball is in the council’s court. If they want to talk business, we’re prepared to do so as well. If they don’t, then the current cases will proceed through the employment tribunals – and a further wave of WPBR related claims are likely to follow.
Action 4 Equality Scotland and Stefan Cross solicitors are currently pursuing over 5,000 equal pay claims in Glasgow – the cases fall into various categories with some people having a claim in more than one category:
Work Rated as Equivalent (WRE) Claims
WRE claims are straightforward because the claims are based on any two jobs that have already been rated (or valued) under a common job evaluation (JE) scheme, e.g. the 1987/88 Manual Workers Scheme. Many female dominated jobs such as Home Carers were previously on grade MW 5 but earned much less than a male job such as a Refuse Driver on a lower grade MW 4 – because the male job was on a big bonus - which was kept hidden from the women workers.
Equal Value (EV) Claims
In EV cases, jobs have not been rated under a common JE scheme, but that’s no bar to bringing an equal pay claim. Employment Tribunals can appoint an independent expert to assess the content of different jobs along with their relative skill and responsibility levels. Many APT&C jobs have claims that are just as valid as their manual worker colleagues. For example, Classroom Assistants, School Secretaries and Catering Managers are often paid much less than refuse workers and gardeners.
Post 2006 Claims
Glasgow has settled some of its equal pay claims, but only up to 1 April 2006. After that date, the council continued to protect the higher (bonus related) pay of traditional male jobs. ‘Pay protection’ was part of the original single status negotiations and should have come into play soon after the original 1999 Single Status Agreement. In any event, following a recent judgment at the Court of Appeal, women workers in Glasgow, and elsewhere, can claim the higher rate paid to the men - for the length of the male workers ‘pay protection’ period.
Council Compromise Agreements
Glasgow City Council led the way in organising ‘acceptance’ meetings where employees were offered a cash lump sum – in return for signing a Compromise Agreement. But these agreements may not be valid under s77 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 because employees were directed to a solicitor and law firm chosen by the council. Employees had no role or choice in the process and it has since become clear that the lawyers restricted the scope of their advice - on terms laid down by the council.
Glasgow’s WPBR (Workforce Pay and Benefits Review)
Glasgow City Council has introduced a new concept of Core and Non-Core pay, as a result of its WPBR. In our view, various aspects of the WPBR are discriminatory because it awards additional grading points (and extra pay) to predominantly male jobs. For example, full-time workers get 7 extra points (£800 pa) – just for working full-time. Part-time workers get no such points and, of course, the vast majority of part-time workers are women.
New Glasgow Claims
Glasgow cases continue to come in all the time – and there’s likely to be a fresh wave of claims in connection with the WPBR. It’s not too late for Glasgow employees to make claims - even those who have transferred to Cordia. Our view is that Cordia is an associated employer for equal pay purposes – so transferring employees to a new arm’s length body doesn’t get the council off the hook. The transfer to Cordia affected around 8,000 staff – including cleaners, catering workers, carers, classroom assistants and a variety of admin and clerical workers.
Glasgow GMF Hearing
A key crucial test case involving Glasgow is currently underway – this is a defence hearing where the council has to explain and try to justify the big differences in pay between traditional male and female jobs. The hearing is due to resume in August – and the outcome will influence other similar cases that are in the pipeline.
Settlement Talks
We are always prepared to talk to the council about a negotiated settlement – we have put proposals to the council before - but they chose to take their chances at the employment tribunal. Now that decision doesn’t look so smart, but the ball is in the council’s court. If they want to talk business, we’re prepared to do so as well. If they don’t, then the current cases will proceed through the employment tribunals – and a further wave of WPBR related claims are likely to follow.
