SLC Update (23/09/15)

Wonders will never cease it seems!

Because a kind person from South Lanarkshire has sent me a copy of the written witness statement prepared by Stephen Smellie, the local Unison branch secretary, for the long-running employment tribunal hearing against South Lanarkshire Council.

Now I haven't had time to study the document as yet, but I imagine it will make very interesting reading and when I get the chance to do so I will share my thoughts on the blog site.

In the meantime, here's my own witness statement to the South Lanarkshire employment tribunal from which readers will be able to tell that my evidence was 100% behind the case being made on behalf of the women claimants.   

South Lanarkshire Update (19/08/15)

I mentioned the long-running employment tribunal hearing involving South Lanarkshire Council recently and the fact that the local Unison branch secretary gave evidence in support of the Council's position.

Well I also gave evidence at that tribunal hearing although what I had to say was firmly in support of the equal pay claimants.

The conclusion of my (second) witness statement was that South Lanarkshire actions were completely contrary to the 1999 Single Status (Equal Pay) Agreement which was firmly aimed at eliminating pay discrimination in Scotland's 32 local councils, as opposed to preserving the much higher pay of traditional male council jobs.

The tribunal finally ruled that the Council's job evaluation scheme was 'unfit for purpose', of course, so it's well seen whose evidence the tribunal members preferred, if you ask me.

But if anyone has a details of other evidence and/or witness statements presented to the Employment Tribunal, I'd be happy to share this information on the blog site.    

MARK IRVINE - WITNESS STATEMENT

I, Mark Irvine, will say as follows:

1. I refer to my witness statement dated April 2013.  That statement was prepared for the hearing in this matter listed to start on 22 April 2013 which was subsequently abandoned following a concession by South Lanarkshire Council (‘the Council’).  It contains many matters relevant to the hearing listed to start on September 2013 and I rely upon its contents, which I shall not repeat here.  This statement is by way of a supplemental statement, having read the documents disclosed by the Council on 3 May 2013.

General

1. The documents disclosed are patchy and incomplete.  Some of them are significantly redacted without any obvious explanation.  The 1999 Single Status Agreement was by far the most important industrial relations matter in Scotland in a generation and the paucity of the disclosed documents is astonishing.  For example, one minute from the Community Resources Central JCC is from a single meeting held on 15 December 2003.  There must have been a whole series of regular meetings possibly on a monthly basis.  Similarly, a minute of a Community Resources Land Services meeting on 13 February 2002 refers to numerous management proposals, none of which have been disclosed.
2. As set out in my earlier statement of April 2013, the job evaluation process for manual workers was governed by collective agreement and, from1 July 1999, by the Red Book.  Whatever steps were taken in relation to the pay of certain job groups, this could not amount to a change to their job ratings or gradings unless the proper agreed process was complied with. 

Specific Documents

1. In a Report to the Corporate Resources Committee following a meeting on 19 March 2003, there is reference (para. 2.1) to the implementation of Single Status taking place by 1 April 2004.  There is then further reference (para. 3.3.4) to trying to avoid a reduction in contractual earnings.  This was a plain breach of the Red Book Collective Agreement, which was incorporated into individual contracts of employment.   Para. 19 of the Implementation Agreement provides that ‘protection at assimilation on to the new spinal column for all employees including bonus earners will be for three years on a cash conserved basis’.  Therefore what the Council was proposing was contrary to the collective agreement.
2. I have read all of the documents in Tab 2 of the Respondent’s disclosure.  These include

1. Minutes of a Community Resources meeting dated 15 December 2003;
2. Minutes of a Competence Initiative Link/Liaison Officers Meeting dated 24 January 2002; and 
3. Minutes of various trade union meetings between August 1998 and November 2001. 

1. It is clear from these minutes that the focus was on male-dominated groups of workers and preservation of existing pay.  At para. 3 of the Minute of 24 January 2002, it is minuted that ‘Tom Wakefield advised most gradings in this area have been done through single status agreements but not through formal grading scheme’.  New ratings or gradings for jobs could only be through the mechanisms set out in the relevant collective agreement and these had not been applied.  
2. On the second page of the minute dated 28 April 1999, the following is noted:

‘It was recorded that all current employees as of October 1998 had preserved conditions based on their previous contracted earnings, bonus and contractual overtime.  The grade that they were placed upon may not be the grade for the post but they were preserved on a personal basis on their current salary scale’.

This plainly evidences the Council’s process of matching individual salaries, including bonus and overtime, to a salary scale which bore no relation to the actual post or its evaluation under the Green Book.  This is pay-matching and not Job Evaluation.  The rating of a particular job can only be changed I believe by a proper and lawful job evaluation. 

1. Both the Green Book and the Blue Book Job Evaluation Schemes involve comparative exercises.  The aim is to ensure consistency and fairness and to avoid discrimination.  I can see no evidence in the documents disclosed by the Council for the September hearing that any such exercises were carried out in relation to any of the potential comparator groups which might have displaced the existing evaluations and consequent job ratings.
2. I have seen a Memorandum of Agreement dated 19 April 2002 headed Fleet Services – Passenger Services Single Status Proposal.  In this document it is stated that ‘an annual salary will be paid inclusive of pay, bonus and contractual overtime (where applicable) based on the APT&C scale…’.  Again this just evidences pay matching.  In order to be properly graded under the Blue Book Job Evaluation Scheme, duties and responsibilities would have to be objectively assessed and jobs would have to be correctly placed within the ‘hierarchy’ or rank order of Blue Book APT&C posts.  I can see nothing in the documents to show that there was any job evaluation process involved in determining the salaries for these Fleet Services employees.  A letter of 17 May 2002 demonstrates a similar lack of process and an allocation of pay scales based purely on historical earnings and nothing else; as does a Personnnel Services Committee document, applying to Refuse Collection and Street Cleansing, dated 20 October 1998 (see in particular paras 3.10 and 3.11).   
3. In relation to those working in Refuse Collection and Street Cleansing, there is a further document dated 10 August 1998 which refers to a new standard working week of 37 hours.  In other words, employees were to be paid according to their existing earnings including overtime which they would no longer be working.
4. This same process of assimilating manual workers in male-dominated groups onto the APT&C SCP (equivalent point plus one) also applied to Roads and Transportation Services (see the agreement signed on 13 March 2001).  The provision for new entrants was, in contrast, linked (para. 4) to the ‘job evaluation process currently ongoing’.
5. In relation to the Land Services Operatives, in a letter dated 26 November 2002, the Council describes these employees as ‘now APT&C and not manual workers’.  That is, in my view, completely wrong and contrary to the provisions of the Red Book (see para. 22 of my statement signed on April 2013).
6. In other documents relating to the Land Services Operatives (Grounds Maintenance), there is reference to another pay matching exercise with an apparent intended implementation date of 31 March 2002 (minutes of meeting of 13 February 2002).  The bonus levels for all these jobs is 50% (see table).  In a document headed Commercial Operations – Grounds Maintenance Managerial Action, there is reference to introduction of ‘fixed bonus rate’ of 50% for core staff.  In my experience, the term ‘fixed’ bonus is used to describe a bonus scheme which does not fluctuate or vary from day to day or week to week.  Plainly this is not a bonus linked to individual productivity.

Conclusion

1. Overall, having considered the documents, they appear to demonstrate a practice of moving male-dominated groups of employees who are plainly manual workers onto the APT&C spinal column without any proper job evaluation process and by rolling up their pay, including overtime and bonus.  This is totally contrary to the purpose of the single status agreement which was aimed at eliminating pay discrimination.