More Belly Laughs

Here are some more 'words of wisdom' from the Stewards Briefing issued by the Unison South Lanarkshire Branch - eight years ago on 25 August 2013.

"Who are these "No Win No Fee" lawyers?"  

"Action 4 Equality are led by a lawyer called Stefan Cross who has made a name for himself, and lots of money, cherry picking cases in the North of England. The "No win no fee" lawyers identify where employers have been slow to address equal pay. They pick a few easy cases where they can demonstrate a woman doing similar work valued work is paid less than a man. If they win at tribunal they cream off up to 30% of the settlement for themselves. Workers going with them are obliged to sign a contract that gives them the right to drop the case whenever they choose, usually when they deem that they can't make enough profit." 

Now there are so many things wrong with this ridiculous statement it's difficult to choose where to start, but here are a few obvious points to correct.

South Lanarkshire Council was not 'slow' to deal with equal pay and single status - in fact the Council claims to have been the first in Scotland to apply the 1999 Agreement (in 2004) - so South Lanarkshire has not been targeted for being at the back of the pack.

Instead South Lanarkshire is in a terrible mess because it deliberately ignored advice from COSLA (the employers' body) on job evaluation - having helped to draw up that advice - and instead went its own arrogant way with an in-house job evaluation scheme which has since been declared as 'unfit for purpose' by the Employment Tribunals.

The trade unions at Scottish level gave the same advice to their local branches, but the local union reps in South Lanarkshire seem to have become far too close to the Council - because why else would they fail to heed the advice of their national union leaders? 

Readers can draw their own conclusions, but in my experience this is a classic case of   trade unions at a local level becoming far to cosy and chummy with the Council - to the detriment of their lowest paid members.

Action 4 Equality Scotland has not picked up a 'few easy cases' which is a laughable thing to say - especially as A4ES has been fighting for equal pay in South Lanarkshire for the past 8 years while the trade unions, including Unison, were doing their level best to discourage members from raising equal pay claims.

A4ES charges a success fee of 10% on clients' settlements and that figure has always been the same - which seems like a great deal to me when you think that all the costs of fighting these cases since 2005 has not cost our clients a single penny.

The trade unions on the other and have been taking their members' union contributions - week in week out since 1999 - yet all the while they have been making a complete dog's dinner of equal pay. 

Tickety Boo! (26 August 2013)

I promised to return to the 'Stewards Briefing' from  the Unison South Lanarkshire Branch  which was passed on to me recently - so here are a few extracts of what it has to say. 

The document is dated 26 August 2005 - exactly eight years ago today.

"EQUAL PAY CLAIMS - WHY SOUTH LANARKSHIRE IS DIFFERENT"

"Stewards will have seen the press coverage of a firm of English lawyers who are offering to run equal pay claims in Scotland. You may also have seen leaflets from this firm in the name of Action 4 Equality Scotland, promising thousands of pounds in compensation. Mark Irvine, who was formerly a UNISON official, is fronting this firm. 

The situation in South Lanarkshire is different from the other 31 local authorities in Scotland. Here the Council has negotiated and agreed a settlement with UNISON, TGWU and GMB that deals with equal pay and the overall issues of Single Status.

Most, though not all, other Councils have adopted the Job Evaluation Scheme recommended by the Scottish Joint Council (SJC - COSLA and the 3 unions at Scottish level). South Lanarkshire Council has instead used the Competence Initiative to assess and grade jobs within the Council. At the same time they negotiated with the 3 unions to introduce common terms and conditions."

Now I think a fair summary of what this briefing document is saying is that everything in South Lanarkshire is just 'tickety boo' - that Single Status is a done deal and union members don't need to be concerned about equal pay or any need to pursue equal pay claims with their Council employer.

But this is the same South Lanarkshire Council whose 'in-house' Job Evaluation Scheme (JES) was declared 'unfit for purpose' by a Glasgow Employment Tribunal last year - because it fails to comply with Equal Pay legislation.

What the document doesn't say is that after the Job Evaluation exercise the Council's female dominated jobs - carers, cooks, catering staff, cleaners, classroom assistants, clerical workers - all stayed firmly at the bottom of the Council's pay ladder.

Yet the purpose of the 1999 Single Status (Equal Pay) Agreement in Scotland was to sweep away years of historical pay discrimination facing these traditionally female dominated jobs - and give them a much better deal in future.

The argument then, as now, was not that traditional male jobs were paid too much - but that the women's jobs were paid far too little - how could a gardener's or a refuse worker's job be worth £9 or £10 an hour and a carer's or cook's job, for example, be worth only £6 an hour?  

And as everyone in South Lanarkshire knows now - thanks to the UK Supreme Court - the Council tried to keep these pay details secret for years instead of coming clean and explaining the true nature of the 'deal' that had been struck with the unions.  

So these chickens are now coming home to roost, but I was struck by the language directed towards Stefan Cross as an 'English lawyer' - as if his nationality was in any way relevant to the fight for Equal Pay.

Not surprisingly, ordinary union members in South Lanarkshire didn't listen to this drivel and voted with their feet by pursuing equal pay claims with Action 4 Equality Scotland - in their thousands.

In my view, the unions became far too close and cosy with the Council - because they failed to stand up for the interests of their lowest paid members when it mattered most - and they're paying a high price for that craven behaviour now.