Glasgow - Equal Pay Update

Here's a great letter from a Glasgow claimant (a carer) who seems to agree with me that asking awkward questions is a good thing - not a bad thing - and if more people had behaved this way back in 2005/06/07, the City Council would not be in the mess it's in today. 

Dear GCC,

I would like to thank you and the Chief Executive Annemarie O'Donnell for your prompt reply following my correspondence dated 12/3/18. I take on board the comments made by the Chief Executive these negotiations are extremely complex and will take a while to resolve.

However, the outcome of the Court of Session ruling in December 2017, described the WPBR, as discriminatory and unfit for purpose, therefore, it must be concluded that it would be a gross breach of trust and continued mis-management, if this system of Job Evaluation were to continue in operation and be the basis of any future settlement.

We are now approaching the forth month of negotiations and I understand that A4E (Action for Equality) are still awaiting a reply from local authority officials since January 2018 with regard to proposals made then by A4E regarding protection payments and at no time has A4E advised or indicated that negotiations should take a year to resolve.

Lastly I understand that you would want to support your officers in the way they handled the implementation of the WPBR but quite frankly it was a flawed process from the start to finish and has been proved to be unworkable by the highest court in the land and therefore some one must take responsibility for that and accept that they were wrong in pursuing matters as they did.

It would also appear from the way that Glasgow City Council FOI (Freedom of Information) officials are treating requests for information about how the WPBR system was agreed and set up that the authorities have something to hide. They apparently have stated that records have been destroyed or are not available, which quite frankly is beyond belief especially as this process was one of the biggest changes to employment terms and conditions undertaken by Glasgow City Council since its formation in 1996.

Would it be to much to ask if the Chief Executive could look into this matter and give an answer as to why important information and legal documentation appears to have gone missing or been destroyed and by whom? I would be most grateful for her reply especially as she has already stated that she believe[d] "that acting in good faith, officers and the council sought to put in place arrangements which they believed removed discrimination from the councils pay arrangements" by implementing WPBR in the first place.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Thanking you respectfully

J

Glasgow City Council aims to become a 'world leader' in terms of its openness and transparency which is a good ambition if you ask me, but if the council can't be open and transparent about its old, discredited WPBR pay arrangements - why should anyone believe that a future GCC pay scheme will be any different?

If the City Council has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear, so I look forward to the response to my outstanding FOI request (see post below dated 26/03/18).   

  

Glasgow, FOI and Equal Pay (26/03/18)

I'm getting dizzy trying to keep up with the changing position of senior officials in Glasgow City Council over what information actually exists in relation to the council's controversial WPBR pay scheme.

Now senior officials commissioned the scheme back in 2005/06 and this was the biggest single employment-related in the City Council's history up until that time.

So the whole process must have been very well documented from Day One - starting with the original procurement exercise which means that Scotland's largest council must surely be able to answer the following simple questions:

• was the contract put out to competitive tender?
• what was the projected cost of the WPBR project?
• what were the agreed Terms of Reference for the WPBR?
• how were the external consultants (Hays HR Consulting) selected?
• what directions were given to the consultants by senior GCC officials?
• why did Glasgow ditch the recommended Scottish Joint Council (Gauge) scheme?  
• who signed off on the new 'rules' of the WPBR including the notorious and blatantly discriminatory 37 hour rule?

Up until recently, council officials have been claiming not to hold such information, but in response to my latest WPBR FOI request officials are suddenly saying that it would cost more than £600 to answer my questions - so they are refusing to do so.

If you ask me, this is completely outrageous - no less than a cynical effort to suppress the truth about what really happened - which is why I intend raising these issues with Glasgow's councillors, MSPs and MPs as well as continuing the fight through the FOI process.

If the City Council has nothing to hide over the WPBR, why are its senior officials fighting so desperately hard to avoid answering what must seem to most people like very reasonable, straightforward questions?

Here is my latest letter to Glasgow's FOI Team which was sent by email on Friday 23 March 2018.


Dear FOI Team

Glasgow's WPBR

Thank you for your letter dated 21 March 2018.

I am happy to provide the clarification asked for in response to my FOI request and would do so as follows:

1) The five specific points detailed in my letter of 20 February 2018 should be regarded as five individual FOI requests and, as such, this should avoid any issues regarding Section 12 (1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

2) In any event, taken separately or together, I fail to see how providing this information can come anywhere near £600 since all I am asking for is:

1. a list of the WPBR information held by Glasgow City Council
2. a list of the WPBR information destroyed by Glasgow City Council
3. an explanation as to why any WPBR information has been destroyed
4. the date or dates on which any relevant WPBR information was destroyed 
5. the identity of the council official/s who authorised the destruction of WPBR information

3) Furthermore, Section 12 (1) of FOISA is discretionary and Glasgow City Council is obviously free to ignore the £600 limit and should certainly do so in this case (in the unlikely event of the £600 limit coming into play) for the following reasons:

1. there is enormous public interest in the circumstances surrounding the introduction of the WPBR - the procurement process, costs etc.
2. senior officials in the City Council are on record as saying that important WPBR documents have been destroyed, without providing any details
3. the destruction of important WPBR documents would appear to be, at face value, a very serious breach of the City Council's Vital Records Policy
4. the WPBR was a unique event in Glasgow City Council's history; the biggest single employment-related issue since the council was established in 1996 
5. the unexplained destruction of WPBR records is disturbing and it is possible this may have been part of a deliberate attempt to conceal relevant information from the City Council's equal pay claimants 
6. the destruction of WPBR records goes to the heart of the City Council's governance and, for obvious reasons, it is important to establish that if important records and documents have been destroyed, that this has been done for valid reasons - and not to conceal embarrassing or damaging evidence relating to the City Council's WPBR pay arrangements.

So for all of the reasons set out in Paragraphs 1), 2) and 3) I would urge Glasgow City Council to do the right thing and answer my request in full - and without further delay.

I do not believe it is reasonable to go back to the beginning of the FOI process, not least because Glasgow's  FOI Team chose to ask for this further clarification so late in the day.

I will, therefore, send this response to Carole Forrest, Director of Governance and Solicitor to the Council, in support of my formal FOI Review Request which has already been lodged.

Kind regards

Mark Irvine