Stands To Reason

An eagle-eyed reader has contacted me about the potential significance of comments on equal pay made by the Leader of South Lanarkshire Council - Eddie McAvoy - to the Hamilton Advertiser, a local newspaper. 

For easy reference Eddie's quote is reproduced below - from a previous post to the blog site dated 2 May 2013 'Famous Last Words'. 

"Council Leader Eddie McAvoy estimated that if they lose the case they will probably have to pay about the same required by North Lanarkshire to settle their cases.

He added, however: “The council’s position is that the deal struck by the council with the union took care of all the (pay inequalities).

"The lawyers, including counsel, hired by the council to represent them in these cases are very confident that the council have no case to answer.”

Now the point being raised by the reader is that if the Leader of the Council accepts that real pay inequalities existed in 2004/05, i.e. prior to the introduction of the Council's in-house (555) job evaluation scheme (JES) - then any equal pay claims before that date must be valid and sound.

Now that seems like a perfectly fair and reasonable statement - if you ask me. 

Furthermore, since the Council's in-house JES has since been declared as 'unfit for purpose' by the Employment Tribunals - then the onus is clearly on the Council to show how the pre-existing pay inequalities were actually eliminated by the introduction of new pay arrangements in 2004/05.

But as everyone in South Lanarkshire knows - the lower paid women's jobs (carers, cooks cleaner, classroom assistants and clerical workers) all remained stuck very firmly at the bottom of the Council's pay ladder - while the traditional male jobs (refuse workers, gardeners and gravediggers etc) continued to be paid very much more.   

So, I think the Council Leader should now be asked to explain his comments to the Hamilton Advertiser - preferably under oath on a witness stand.