Workers’ years-long battle for pay equality whose effects will last a lifetime
THE equal pay dispute harks back to 2006 when a new job evaluation scheme – the Workforce Pay and Benefits Review – was introduced by the council, then run by Labour. It was intended to ensure equal pay for women and was signed up to by the GMB union but not by Unison.
However, despite being intended to address the gender pay gap, the women affected claimed it entrenched discrimination by paying jobs dominated by women, such as catering, cleaning and care assistants, less than male-dominated jobs like refuse collection – notionally deemed to be of equal value. The complexity of the system also penalised people working split shifts and irregular hours – mainly women.
The scheme also built in a three-year payment protection for men who lost out on bonuses. But last year that was ruled discriminatory by the Court of Session.
Women workers have been insisting since the inception of the new scheme that it was discriminatory and that they were being paid up to £3 an hour less than men in similar roles.
As a result, some female workers began to defect from the GMB to Unison, arguing they had been let down. Others began to take legal action against the union, which led to the GMB also sacking and then taking legal action against lawyers Digby Brown, alleging they had been given bad advice – an action which is ongoing.
A 12-year resistance battle had been fought through tribunals and the courts by Labour administrations. But in January this year, after a succession of judgments went against it, Glasgow City Council agreed to settle in a negotiated settlement.
In council elections in May last year the SNP took control from Labour on a manifesto which included a pledge to settle the claim, which the unions argue could cost up to £1 billion, a figure described as “plucked out of the air” by the council. Five months ago, Scotland’s Government spending watchdog described the financial burden as unprecedented, again without putting a figure to it.
Both sides agree in principle that the money is due – it’s over the pace of implementation and commitment to settle where they fall out.
The lawyer who has been leading the negotiations for the claimants, Stefan Cross QC, has described them as a sham. He claims the council has repeatedly refused to engage with any of the underlying legal issues or state its position despite 21 meetings across 12 months. A suggested timetable by the claimants was ditched, he says, with the council simply stating it would make an offer late this year.
“An offer should be the product of negotiations, not the start,” he said.
The impasse resulted in union ballots for industrial action, culminating in a 48-hour strike on October 23 and 24, with 8,000 women taking part. They were joined by 500 refuse workers who refused to cross the picket line.
The action resulted in the closure of hundreds of schools and nurseries and home care services were disrupted. Thousands of women took to the streets in Glasgow.
The council said the strike was unnecessary and that it hoped to reach a settlement soon, and that it would start paying out in the next financial year.
Council leader Susan Aitken, while reaffirming her commitment to equal pay, questioned the motivations of the unions leading the strike, Unison and GMB. She believes that not only have they have let their members down but were also sympathetic to previous Labour administrations by not taking industrial action.
“Had the trade unions employed their industrial muscle long before now we wouldn’t be where we are now. They let the women down for a long time,” she said.
SNP councillor Rhiannon Spear on Twitter also questioned why the unions had not gone on strike under Labour administrations. “This is a politicised ballot,” she tweeted.
That claim was strenuously rejected by Unison’s Jennifer McCarey. She instanced, among others, one of the longest-running labour disputes, the 20-month janitors’ strike – #justiceforjannies – led by the union where there had been stalemate under Labour, but was finally resolved in August with a 6% pay rise, 100 days after the SNP took over the council.
Stefan Cross, representing the 8,000 equal pay claimants, has accused officials of thwarting a settlement, claiming that they don’t share the commitment of the political leadership to secure a fair deal. This is denied by the council.
“There have been no realistic attempts to negotiate,” said Cross, left. “The difference between [council chief executive] Annemarie O’Donnell and Susan Aitken is chalk and cheese.” He added that in “all my years of practising law I can’t say this is negotiation”.
Unison’s McCarey is rather more circumspect. “Sometimes it does seem that the political commitment does not echo in the negotiations. It may well be that these are being misrepresented by the politicians.”
Commenting on Cross’s claims, the council said: “This is condescending rubbish. The leader of the council has been very clear that officers are carrying out the instruction handed to them by committee. The leader has made a huge political commitment on equal pay and anyone who thinks she doesn’t press her officials pretty hard on progress doesn’t know her very well.”