Although I represent the best and most important Region in UNISON on the National Executive, I do notice what happens elsewhere – in Birmingham for example, where business leaders have their knickers in a twist because UNISON members striking over the implementation of Single Status are coordinating their action with teachers, college lecturers and civil servants on Thursday.
On the same day in Leeds, refuse collectors in the GMB Union will be starting a work to rule following a one day strike over the same basic issue. In the mean time, in Glasgow, the Council is threatening job losses and appears to be blaming the costs of implementing their pay and grading review.
The underlying problem which unifies all these disputes is the problem of inadequate funding of public services. This problem calls for a unified – and unifying – response from the trade union movement, industrially and politically. That is what ought to be the most important topic of conversation at the coming round of Union Conferences.
Hat tip – this unofficial site.
Showing posts with label Equal Pay and Single Status. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Equal Pay and Single Status. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Strike action works
UNISON members – taking action with other trade unionists – have achieved some success in a dispute with our largest English local authority employer.
UNISON members in Birmingham really have achieved a result in getting their employers back into negotiations over Single Status by taking strike action.
When the same view is taken here, here and here, it seems pretty clear that this is real progress.
It’s always good to see when those who describe strike action as out of date are shown to be as wrong as they always have been.
However, with disputes all over the place we need more coordination of action across the country.
This won’t be easy because of our natural proclivity for parochialism in local government – it will hardly be possible at all if (as I may have mentioned) we continue to maintain a vow of silence on the question at Conferences…
UNISON members in Birmingham really have achieved a result in getting their employers back into negotiations over Single Status by taking strike action.
When the same view is taken here, here and here, it seems pretty clear that this is real progress.
It’s always good to see when those who describe strike action as out of date are shown to be as wrong as they always have been.
However, with disputes all over the place we need more coordination of action across the country.
This won’t be easy because of our natural proclivity for parochialism in local government – it will hardly be possible at all if (as I may have mentioned) we continue to maintain a vow of silence on the question at Conferences…
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Equal Pay moving centre stage?
For a long time the media have been more or less ignoring the massive problem of implementing equal pay in the public services – now you can hardly turn the Today programme on without hearing someone talk about it!
Last week Brian Strutton of the GMB acquitted himself well in a debate with notorious “no win no fee” lawyer Stefan Cross. Yesterday, Trevor Phillips from the Commission for Equality and Human Rights was calling for representative legal action to be possible in order to unblock the employment tribunal system which is overloaded with equal pay cases.
The CEHR appear to be heading towards backing the phased introduction of equal pay in order to limit disputes, such as that in Birmingham, over pay protection for those who lose out. If we don’t get sufficient funding from central Government to provide adequate protection and fair back pay then perhaps this compromise is unavoidable.
Capitalisation – allowing local authorities to borrow to meet the one off costs of implementing equal pay – has given some authorities room to manoeuvre but the real answer would be for the Government to remember where it keeps those billions of pounds which were available for Northern Rock or for the Iraq war and to apply some of them to funding the implementation of single status…
Last week Brian Strutton of the GMB acquitted himself well in a debate with notorious “no win no fee” lawyer Stefan Cross. Yesterday, Trevor Phillips from the Commission for Equality and Human Rights was calling for representative legal action to be possible in order to unblock the employment tribunal system which is overloaded with equal pay cases.
The CEHR appear to be heading towards backing the phased introduction of equal pay in order to limit disputes, such as that in Birmingham, over pay protection for those who lose out. If we don’t get sufficient funding from central Government to provide adequate protection and fair back pay then perhaps this compromise is unavoidable.
Capitalisation – allowing local authorities to borrow to meet the one off costs of implementing equal pay – has given some authorities room to manoeuvre but the real answer would be for the Government to remember where it keeps those billions of pounds which were available for Northern Rock or for the Iraq war and to apply some of them to funding the implementation of single status…
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Equal Pay in 2008?
Today’s Guardian flags up one of the major issues which will continue to confront UNISON in 2008. It’s good to read comment which is not simply advertising the services of the “no win no fee” lawyers.
The fundamental problem which faces employers and unions in local government is the lack of central funding – we need to step up our campaign on this issue.
At the moment we are more than a little hamstrung in campaigning on Equal Pay by the legal advice that we can’t discuss the issue in our Conferences and Regional Councils for fear that someone will say something that could be used in evidence against the Union. Also the sheer volume of litigation is clearly taking up the time and energy of our senior officials to such an extent that we aren’t taking the political initiative as we should.
Gordon Brown told the TUC in 2005 that “our aim is to end once and for all the gender pay gap in our country.” It is a laudable aim, and it requires further reaching social change than can be achieved by either litigation or collective bargaining – but it also requires money. We need to step up the pressure on the Government – and those who aspire to exert influence on behalf of our movement need to raise their game.
The fundamental problem which faces employers and unions in local government is the lack of central funding – we need to step up our campaign on this issue.
At the moment we are more than a little hamstrung in campaigning on Equal Pay by the legal advice that we can’t discuss the issue in our Conferences and Regional Councils for fear that someone will say something that could be used in evidence against the Union. Also the sheer volume of litigation is clearly taking up the time and energy of our senior officials to such an extent that we aren’t taking the political initiative as we should.
Gordon Brown told the TUC in 2005 that “our aim is to end once and for all the gender pay gap in our country.” It is a laudable aim, and it requires further reaching social change than can be achieved by either litigation or collective bargaining – but it also requires money. We need to step up the pressure on the Government – and those who aspire to exert influence on behalf of our movement need to raise their game.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Equal Pay - where do we go now?
I really will get my report of Wednesday’s NEC meeting written up shortly!
When I do I won’t cover in full detail the longest discussion at the meeting, as I have been able to do now for the last couple of years. That’s because the lengthy discussions on Equal Pay (including the implementation of Agenda for Change in the Health Service and Single Status in local government) concern an area in which the trade unions (not just UNISON) are embroiled in so much litigation. We are running thousands of legal cases and are also responding to a smaller – but still large – number of cases in which Union members are taking action against their Union (assisted and encouraged by a growing band of “No Win No Fee” solicitors).
The legal advice is that anything said officially by or on behalf of UNISON could end up being used – unpredictably – in evidence against the Union. It is all unpredictable because the case law in this area is continually evolving and so what it is reasonable to do one day may turn out later to have been unreasonable and wrong as the courts decide that the law always meant something different.
One consequence of all of this is that the Union isn’t really able to communicate effectively about the vast amount of work which is being done in relation to equal pay – and is also very reticent about publicising the various local disputes which have been springing up. We are also not really pursuing our campaigning agenda with the vigour that is called for, both I think because of the sheer scale of Head Office resources tied up by the litigation but also because I am not sure anyone in the union movement, or in Government, has a ready solution to the problem.
Of course we do know part of the solution – Government funding on a sufficient scale to fill the gender pay gap, providing recompense to those who have lost out and levelling up rather than down. This is the policy of UNISON and of the TUC and our Local Government Service Group lobbied Parliament along these lines in the summer. All we got was a little extra “capitalisation” (authority for local Councils to go further into debt to fund the costs of implementing Single Status).
Another bizarre consequence of the current wave of litigation is that, on legal advice, we cannot now formally debate Equal Pay at our decision making Conferences (for fear that a resolution drafted in clear and unambiguous terms could come to be evidence against the Union in a case in which, of necessity, we have had to settle for less than our initial demands). As we wait for cases to make their way to Europe this self-imposed silence is set to last for several years.
Now even our ability to communicate with our members at branch level is being inhibited. Such is the all pervading influence of the culture of litigation upon the Union that it is quite possible now that branches negotiating the best deal that they can get with an employer can be told that the Union will recommend members reject that deal, even though we have no viable strategy to improve it, because a cautious reading of developing case law suggests potential legal liability for the Union were it to recommend the deal.
I am generally among the first to criticise the recommendation to members of unsatisfactory settlements – but the place to resolve differences of this nature is within the Union movement through our democratic structures.
We have now reached a point at which, in relation to a central issue for our Union affecting many thousands of our members in a very direct way, we can do almost none of the things that a Union should do without first asking a lawyer and waiting (and waiting) for their advice.
We need to find a way out of this impasse that does not involve waiting for the end of all the litigation, otherwise we are simply failing to act as a trade union should in relation to one of our own key priorities.
When I do I won’t cover in full detail the longest discussion at the meeting, as I have been able to do now for the last couple of years. That’s because the lengthy discussions on Equal Pay (including the implementation of Agenda for Change in the Health Service and Single Status in local government) concern an area in which the trade unions (not just UNISON) are embroiled in so much litigation. We are running thousands of legal cases and are also responding to a smaller – but still large – number of cases in which Union members are taking action against their Union (assisted and encouraged by a growing band of “No Win No Fee” solicitors).
The legal advice is that anything said officially by or on behalf of UNISON could end up being used – unpredictably – in evidence against the Union. It is all unpredictable because the case law in this area is continually evolving and so what it is reasonable to do one day may turn out later to have been unreasonable and wrong as the courts decide that the law always meant something different.
One consequence of all of this is that the Union isn’t really able to communicate effectively about the vast amount of work which is being done in relation to equal pay – and is also very reticent about publicising the various local disputes which have been springing up. We are also not really pursuing our campaigning agenda with the vigour that is called for, both I think because of the sheer scale of Head Office resources tied up by the litigation but also because I am not sure anyone in the union movement, or in Government, has a ready solution to the problem.
Of course we do know part of the solution – Government funding on a sufficient scale to fill the gender pay gap, providing recompense to those who have lost out and levelling up rather than down. This is the policy of UNISON and of the TUC and our Local Government Service Group lobbied Parliament along these lines in the summer. All we got was a little extra “capitalisation” (authority for local Councils to go further into debt to fund the costs of implementing Single Status).
Another bizarre consequence of the current wave of litigation is that, on legal advice, we cannot now formally debate Equal Pay at our decision making Conferences (for fear that a resolution drafted in clear and unambiguous terms could come to be evidence against the Union in a case in which, of necessity, we have had to settle for less than our initial demands). As we wait for cases to make their way to Europe this self-imposed silence is set to last for several years.
Now even our ability to communicate with our members at branch level is being inhibited. Such is the all pervading influence of the culture of litigation upon the Union that it is quite possible now that branches negotiating the best deal that they can get with an employer can be told that the Union will recommend members reject that deal, even though we have no viable strategy to improve it, because a cautious reading of developing case law suggests potential legal liability for the Union were it to recommend the deal.
I am generally among the first to criticise the recommendation to members of unsatisfactory settlements – but the place to resolve differences of this nature is within the Union movement through our democratic structures.
We have now reached a point at which, in relation to a central issue for our Union affecting many thousands of our members in a very direct way, we can do almost none of the things that a Union should do without first asking a lawyer and waiting (and waiting) for their advice.
We need to find a way out of this impasse that does not involve waiting for the end of all the litigation, otherwise we are simply failing to act as a trade union should in relation to one of our own key priorities.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Equal Pay - the Allen decision and debate within the trade unions
The long awaited judgement of the Employment Appeals Tribunal in the case of Allen –v- GMB is now available online. Before I venture any opinion on this matter please remember that this is a personal blog and the opinions I express are my own and are not expressed on behalf of UNISON.
UNISON’s position on Equal Pay is set out on the website, this includes specific guidance for individual members and a persuasive riposte to the attempts by “no win no fee” solicitors to encourage members to litigate against the Union.
The Allen case is one such attempt to sue the GMB (and there are similar cases against UNISON and the TGWU) alleging that the Unions have failed to fight for equal pay with sufficient vigour and then alleging that this amounts to unlawful discrimination.
As far as I can see the Employment Appeals Tribunal seems to have demolished this argument fairly well, in so doing they have supported the right of a trade union to determine priorities in negotiations. The question of how that is done, and by whom, is a question for trade union members (not the courts).
Not everyone is happy with the approach of the trade unions to equal pay – particularly in relation to Single Status in local government. The implementation of Single Status has provoked and is provoking industrial action, and is causing headaches for local authorities in, for example, Wales, the South East and the South West.
Causing headaches for employers is no bad thing – although not of course an end in itself in most circumstances…However if we are going to get the best deal in achieving equal pay then this will be achieved through trade union action.
As trade unionists we need to debate our approach to achieving equal pay and to decide democratically on our priorities, strategy and tactics. Litigation against the unions is not the way to resolve our differences on this question.
This decision ought to pave the way for the democratic debate about our approach to this question which we have been denying ourselves for months. The lobby of Parliament earlier this month was a good start – now perhaps we can start sharing, officially, full information about Single Status negotiations in every authority and brainstorming how to get the best deal for our members in open discussion rather than avoiding public discussion because of pending litigation.
But as I said, all of this is just a personal opinion…
UNISON’s position on Equal Pay is set out on the website, this includes specific guidance for individual members and a persuasive riposte to the attempts by “no win no fee” solicitors to encourage members to litigate against the Union.
The Allen case is one such attempt to sue the GMB (and there are similar cases against UNISON and the TGWU) alleging that the Unions have failed to fight for equal pay with sufficient vigour and then alleging that this amounts to unlawful discrimination.
As far as I can see the Employment Appeals Tribunal seems to have demolished this argument fairly well, in so doing they have supported the right of a trade union to determine priorities in negotiations. The question of how that is done, and by whom, is a question for trade union members (not the courts).
Not everyone is happy with the approach of the trade unions to equal pay – particularly in relation to Single Status in local government. The implementation of Single Status has provoked and is provoking industrial action, and is causing headaches for local authorities in, for example, Wales, the South East and the South West.
Causing headaches for employers is no bad thing – although not of course an end in itself in most circumstances…However if we are going to get the best deal in achieving equal pay then this will be achieved through trade union action.
As trade unionists we need to debate our approach to achieving equal pay and to decide democratically on our priorities, strategy and tactics. Litigation against the unions is not the way to resolve our differences on this question.
This decision ought to pave the way for the democratic debate about our approach to this question which we have been denying ourselves for months. The lobby of Parliament earlier this month was a good start – now perhaps we can start sharing, officially, full information about Single Status negotiations in every authority and brainstorming how to get the best deal for our members in open discussion rather than avoiding public discussion because of pending litigation.
But as I said, all of this is just a personal opinion…
Monday, March 05, 2007
Equal pay on the radio but not in local government?
Once again, the media – this time the Today Programme are debating a topic currently verboten for debate at UNISON Conference – Equal Pay. Whilst the crucial topic of Equal Pay in local government was headlining the BBC’s flagship news programme, the trade unions were notable only for our absence. There are good reasons for this reticence, but it is still unfortunate.
(The link to the Today Programme isn’t updated with today’s headlines yet as I post this, but I assume they’ll be there later).
Noted author and former left-winger, Chris Mullins MP is calling for legislation to prevent historic equal pay backpay claims from those covered by collective agreements. I am not sure how this could comply with the Equal Treatment Directive, nor would it have any impact in the majority of local authorities yet to come to an agreement on Single Status. Nor would this proposal do anything to address the question of litigation against trade unions themselves. In short the idea that we try to make collective agreements directly enforceable is probably not going to fix this problem.
The problem is not fundamentally with the law – it is about money. Achieving Equal Pay means redistributing resources in the direction of women workers whose pay has been unfair for years. These resources have to come from somewhere. One option is to leave other inequal structures of wealth and income distribution untouched and redistribute resources within the working class, between men and women. Another approach would be to tackle the massive class inequalities in income and wealth distribution so that women’s pay is levelled up as part of a wider equalisation of income.
With the latter approach sadly unlikely just now the best practicable approach must be for the Government to fund the filling of the gender pay gap in line with the policy of UNISON – our Conference agreed in 2005 to call on the National Executive Council to demand that the government ensures that initiatives to close the gender pay gap are fully funded, legally enforceable, and address past inequalities as a matter of urgency. These demands have not been met by the New Labour Government.
The sums of money required may be large – but we could save them by not replacing our Trident nuclear submarines… However if we want to put pressure on the Government in line with our agreed policy we are going to have to get beyond a vow of silence on Equal Pay issues!
In the mean time activists need to continue to refer to the official UNISON guidance on Equal Pay.
(The link to the Today Programme isn’t updated with today’s headlines yet as I post this, but I assume they’ll be there later).
Noted author and former left-winger, Chris Mullins MP is calling for legislation to prevent historic equal pay backpay claims from those covered by collective agreements. I am not sure how this could comply with the Equal Treatment Directive, nor would it have any impact in the majority of local authorities yet to come to an agreement on Single Status. Nor would this proposal do anything to address the question of litigation against trade unions themselves. In short the idea that we try to make collective agreements directly enforceable is probably not going to fix this problem.
The problem is not fundamentally with the law – it is about money. Achieving Equal Pay means redistributing resources in the direction of women workers whose pay has been unfair for years. These resources have to come from somewhere. One option is to leave other inequal structures of wealth and income distribution untouched and redistribute resources within the working class, between men and women. Another approach would be to tackle the massive class inequalities in income and wealth distribution so that women’s pay is levelled up as part of a wider equalisation of income.
With the latter approach sadly unlikely just now the best practicable approach must be for the Government to fund the filling of the gender pay gap in line with the policy of UNISON – our Conference agreed in 2005 to call on the National Executive Council to demand that the government ensures that initiatives to close the gender pay gap are fully funded, legally enforceable, and address past inequalities as a matter of urgency. These demands have not been met by the New Labour Government.
The sums of money required may be large – but we could save them by not replacing our Trident nuclear submarines… However if we want to put pressure on the Government in line with our agreed policy we are going to have to get beyond a vow of silence on Equal Pay issues!
In the mean time activists need to continue to refer to the official UNISON guidance on Equal Pay.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Equal Pay on the telly but not at UNISON Conference?
I can’t remember who it was who once described UNISON Conference socials as being, by and large, like a bad family wedding. Our Union is now taking on more of the characteristics of a difficult family get together in that there are more and more topics which just must not be mentioned.
One – of course – is the Labour leadership. That’s because there are some who want to offer tacit support to Gordon Brown (in return for the same “influence” which has served us so well under the current Prime Minister) whilst at the same time maintaining our support for progressive UNISON policies which are poles apart from the policy agenda which would be supported by a Prime Minister Brown. Therefore no one may mention the words “John” and “McDonnell” in the same sentence in any submission to a UNISON Conference they hope to get on to the agenda.
The other great unmentionable topic is Equal Pay. I notice that the gremlins which afflict discussion of the topic of Equal Pay appear now to have afflicted the BBC website. After watching a reasonable report on the problems of implementing equal pay in local government on the Politics Show this afternoon I found the link to the story itself to be broken. (I have included it here in case it gets fixed).
Equal Pay is a major item for debate at every meeting of our National Executive Council and issues relating to Equal Pay are taking up the majority of the time of our senior national officials. However, the following advice has been issued to UNISON branches about discussing Equal Pay at Conferences;
“As you are aware, the Union, its dedicated activists and staff and other unions are now under challenge by a small number of no win no fee lawyers who are contesting the union’s equal pay strategy. The union and a number of named activists and staff now face over 1850 claims. The first case to be heard by a tribunal – involving the GMB union – was decided on 6 June 2006. The GMB was unsuccessful. The GMB have appealed the decision of the tribunal and the appeal is to be heard at the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 12 and 13 February 2007. The EAT decision may have implications for UNISON as the claims made against UNISON arise out of similar facts as those in the GMB case.
As a result, it is crucial, now more than ever, that the union not allow any motions relating to equal pay on the agenda at conference pending the decision in relation to the GMB’s appeal. This is because the no win no fee lawyers are able to gain access to everything which is said in union forums and use this to further their claims against the union, our activists and staff. The union’s legal advice is that our defence of these claims and protection of the activists under attack may be seriously weakened if there are speeches impinging on current litigation. For this reason all SOCs are advised not to allow any motions relating to equal pay on the agenda. The legal position will however be urgently reviewed following the outcome of the GMB appeal.”
This advice is available to all on the UNISON website, but there’s not much more that I – as a member of the NEC – can tell you. I can refer to the updated guidance to branches on Equal Pay.
The guidance is useful – and the regular briefings at Regional level at which we share information between branches in different local authorities are also very helpful. But when the Coventry Branch set out to convene a meeting for branch representatives to discuss the implementation of Single Status, about which they have a long running industrial dispute they had to call it off.
To quote from the Coventry Branch site; “Whilst we regret that this meeting must now be pulled, we still believe that something needs to be done in order to resolve problems that branches are facing with single status. Both Dave Prentis and Heather Wakefield have agreed to meet with us therefore we would welcome any comments or concerns you have so we can put them forward. We would like to ask branches to email us with any experiences or general comments regarding the issues surrounding single status.”
Full marks to Coventry for taking an initiative. I hope that at Wednesday’s NEC meeting we shall have some idea of what is going on with the Allen –v- GMB case at the Employment Appeals Tribunal and that it will be possible to reconsider the advice that we cannot discuss Equal Pay issues in our democratic decision making machinery.
What if a case is appealed from the EAT to the Court of Appeal, or from there to the House of Lords, or even to Europe. It could be years before we abandon the self-denying ordinance and talk again about Equal Pay.
No one wants to help the no win no fee solicitors. Individual (or even group) litigation is no way to design a fair and equitable pay structure. The litigation against trade unions places the whole workforce in great difficulty, because it means that the only effective and democratic tools which we have built to defend our interests are placed in jeopardy.
However, trade unions have no way to decide our policies and practices other than by debate through our agreed democratic structures. We cannot leave it to unofficial websites to host the discussions and report on the disputes which should be reported officially.
On the Politics Show Phil Woolas, Minister for Local Government, just said that he was prepared to legislate to try to prevent litigation disrupting negotiated settlements on equal pay in local government. This follows a debate in the Commons on 8 February in which the Minister made the same point under determined questioning from Chris Mullin.
Woolas said;
“The important point to emphasise and to record in Hansard is that the Government do not rule out a legislative route, because we understand the point that my hon. Friend makes so powerfully about the unintended impacts of the collective bargaining agreement, which has been detrimental to some. We recognise the importance of the issue, and that the problem is not confined to one region. We are prepared to legislate if that is desirable, both in terms of the protection of collective agreements and in itself.”
My concern is this. How will UNISON decide what our view is on any proposals for legislation if we do not allow ourselves to discuss this topic in any of our decision making bodies?
One option would be to leave the decision making to a few wise souls at Mabledon Place – but look where that has got us in relation to the Local Government Pension Scheme!
I hope to be in a position to report something more positive after Wednesday’s meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council.
One – of course – is the Labour leadership. That’s because there are some who want to offer tacit support to Gordon Brown (in return for the same “influence” which has served us so well under the current Prime Minister) whilst at the same time maintaining our support for progressive UNISON policies which are poles apart from the policy agenda which would be supported by a Prime Minister Brown. Therefore no one may mention the words “John” and “McDonnell” in the same sentence in any submission to a UNISON Conference they hope to get on to the agenda.
The other great unmentionable topic is Equal Pay. I notice that the gremlins which afflict discussion of the topic of Equal Pay appear now to have afflicted the BBC website. After watching a reasonable report on the problems of implementing equal pay in local government on the Politics Show this afternoon I found the link to the story itself to be broken. (I have included it here in case it gets fixed).
Equal Pay is a major item for debate at every meeting of our National Executive Council and issues relating to Equal Pay are taking up the majority of the time of our senior national officials. However, the following advice has been issued to UNISON branches about discussing Equal Pay at Conferences;
“As you are aware, the Union, its dedicated activists and staff and other unions are now under challenge by a small number of no win no fee lawyers who are contesting the union’s equal pay strategy. The union and a number of named activists and staff now face over 1850 claims. The first case to be heard by a tribunal – involving the GMB union – was decided on 6 June 2006. The GMB was unsuccessful. The GMB have appealed the decision of the tribunal and the appeal is to be heard at the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 12 and 13 February 2007. The EAT decision may have implications for UNISON as the claims made against UNISON arise out of similar facts as those in the GMB case.
As a result, it is crucial, now more than ever, that the union not allow any motions relating to equal pay on the agenda at conference pending the decision in relation to the GMB’s appeal. This is because the no win no fee lawyers are able to gain access to everything which is said in union forums and use this to further their claims against the union, our activists and staff. The union’s legal advice is that our defence of these claims and protection of the activists under attack may be seriously weakened if there are speeches impinging on current litigation. For this reason all SOCs are advised not to allow any motions relating to equal pay on the agenda. The legal position will however be urgently reviewed following the outcome of the GMB appeal.”
This advice is available to all on the UNISON website, but there’s not much more that I – as a member of the NEC – can tell you. I can refer to the updated guidance to branches on Equal Pay.
The guidance is useful – and the regular briefings at Regional level at which we share information between branches in different local authorities are also very helpful. But when the Coventry Branch set out to convene a meeting for branch representatives to discuss the implementation of Single Status, about which they have a long running industrial dispute they had to call it off.
To quote from the Coventry Branch site; “Whilst we regret that this meeting must now be pulled, we still believe that something needs to be done in order to resolve problems that branches are facing with single status. Both Dave Prentis and Heather Wakefield have agreed to meet with us therefore we would welcome any comments or concerns you have so we can put them forward. We would like to ask branches to email us with any experiences or general comments regarding the issues surrounding single status.”
Full marks to Coventry for taking an initiative. I hope that at Wednesday’s NEC meeting we shall have some idea of what is going on with the Allen –v- GMB case at the Employment Appeals Tribunal and that it will be possible to reconsider the advice that we cannot discuss Equal Pay issues in our democratic decision making machinery.
What if a case is appealed from the EAT to the Court of Appeal, or from there to the House of Lords, or even to Europe. It could be years before we abandon the self-denying ordinance and talk again about Equal Pay.
No one wants to help the no win no fee solicitors. Individual (or even group) litigation is no way to design a fair and equitable pay structure. The litigation against trade unions places the whole workforce in great difficulty, because it means that the only effective and democratic tools which we have built to defend our interests are placed in jeopardy.
However, trade unions have no way to decide our policies and practices other than by debate through our agreed democratic structures. We cannot leave it to unofficial websites to host the discussions and report on the disputes which should be reported officially.
On the Politics Show Phil Woolas, Minister for Local Government, just said that he was prepared to legislate to try to prevent litigation disrupting negotiated settlements on equal pay in local government. This follows a debate in the Commons on 8 February in which the Minister made the same point under determined questioning from Chris Mullin.
Woolas said;
“The important point to emphasise and to record in Hansard is that the Government do not rule out a legislative route, because we understand the point that my hon. Friend makes so powerfully about the unintended impacts of the collective bargaining agreement, which has been detrimental to some. We recognise the importance of the issue, and that the problem is not confined to one region. We are prepared to legislate if that is desirable, both in terms of the protection of collective agreements and in itself.”
My concern is this. How will UNISON decide what our view is on any proposals for legislation if we do not allow ourselves to discuss this topic in any of our decision making bodies?
One option would be to leave the decision making to a few wise souls at Mabledon Place – but look where that has got us in relation to the Local Government Pension Scheme!
I hope to be in a position to report something more positive after Wednesday’s meeting of the UNISON National Executive Council.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)