Friday, 1 June 2018

Glasgow - Sham Settlement Negotiations (17/05/18)


Stefan Cross posted an update on Facebook yesterday evening with his immediate reaction to Glasgow City Council's 'response' to details settlement proposals put forward by the Claimants representatives (A4ES, GMB and Unison).

The key part of Stefan's update is that the Council have, apparently:

"...agreed to nothing. Not a single issue. Nor have they proposed anything in response." 

Now I was Unison's Head of Local Government and chief negotiator in Scotland for years and I can honestly say that if the Council has not responded to the Claimants with a detailed counter-proposal, then these settlement negotiations are a complete sham.

Which is perhaps not surprising because the same set of senior officials who advised the Council to defend the WPBR all the way to the Court of Session and lost - unanimously - are the same set of senior officials who are now advising the Council on its approach to settlement negotiations.


And if you ask me, the reality is that the Council's corporate management do not accept the 'unfit for purpose' judgment of Scotland's highest civil court and are fighting a desperate rearguard action to prevent the truth emerging about their role over the WPBR - and whether of not senior officials acted in 'good faith', as they claim.

But perhaps the most shocking point to emerge is that there hasn't been a single meeting between the Council's political leaders and the Claimants' representatives. 

So the political leadership of the Council are relying solely on the advice of senior officials, who are completely discredited in many people's eyes, instead of hearing directly from the Claimants and their representatives.

I'll reserve my final judgment until next week's joint meeting with the Council on 22 May, but up until now I think it's fair to say the whole process has been a terrible sham.



Apologies as I’ve jumped the gun a bit here.

We’ve had a written response from the council but the claimant group does not get to discuss it until tomorrow and we don’t get to discuss it with the council until next week.

The council has stressed that everything in their response is confidential so I cannot disclose any details.

But on the face of it they’ve agreed to nothing. Not a single issue. Nor have they proposed anything in response.

If this has political approval then we’re looking at 3-5 years of more litigation, at least.

But I’m the ultimate pessimist. I may have misunderstood the council’s intention. Silence, or lack of objection, might be good. They might be holding back until our meeting.

Apologies again, [especially my colleagues) I probably should have waited until tomorrow at least.

Hopefully, the council will provide some assurance next week.

But there certainly isn’t any obvious good news in their response

Stefan Cross