Agenda item

The Unison representative, Ms Avery addressed the Committee and commented that whilst the future of public services was very much in the public eye and staff and the services they provide should be celebrated for their contributions. Staff should therefore be treated humanely and supported through the difficult times that lay ahead. Frustration of staff had been noted, as the process had been lengthy and people felt they were left in limbo during the apparent lack of progress. This indicated the thoroughness of the process had been tackled and it was noted that a section of the workforce had not been included in the process at all. Unison would endeavour to make themselves available to meaningful consultation right up until the door closes and hoped to meet later in the month with the Head of Human Resources and the rest of the Pay and Grading Team.

The GMB representative, Mr Richards addressed the Committee and reported that the joint trade unions have not agreed the proposals.  More specifically, that GMB are fundamentally opposed to them. He stated that the report sets out some of the implications of a proposed pay structure and how this will impact upon employees, but that was not the complete picture.  Taking into account the full range of the proposals, including allowances, etc., he said that 32.1% of employees will lose money.  Effectively, a pay cut for 1/3 of the workforce. He added that on basic salary alone, the report states that 111 employees will lose in excess of £2,500.  That equates to 1 in 10 of the workforce and that the figure will rise, taking into account the full range of proposals.

Mr Richards reminded the Committee that the proposals do not apply to the highest paid employees of the Council. 

Mr Richards went on to identify other specific concerns regarding aspects of the proposals. The concerns related to the period of up to one year pay protection for staff that lose money and the move from service related increments to an untried system of pay progression.

He stated that the period of pay protection is far less than the maximum period justified through equal pay legislation and is far less than that offered by many local authorities.  He added that, previously, the Chief Executive has stated to staff that the Council will protect employees who lose money within what the law allows.  These proposals contradict that commitment.

Regarding the pay progression proposal, Mr Richards stated that the new system would limit incremental progression for employees and amounted to another form of pay cut.

Mr Richards stated that Council employees have been working in a climate of job cuts, potential outsourcing and two years without pay awards. On top of this, the proposals introduce worse terms and conditions and pay cuts for 1 in 3 staff.

He confirmed that, as a trade union, GMB represents the best interests of their members and cannot accept the proposals.  If the council follows the recommendations in the report, Mr Richards stated that this would potentially force GMB into a dispute. He added that GMB Members do not want this and that the Council did not either.  He requested that the Committee reject the recommendations in the report.  He also requested that the Committee commit the Council to restart meaningful negotiation with the joint trade unions.

At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr Richards stated that, at the point at which negotiations effectively ceased in February, the Council put forward alternative pay models.  One of these detailed a much more neutral impact, with 33% of employees as green circles and less than 20% of employees losing pay.  He stated that this demonstrates that better outcomes are possible and that, by working together, it was possible to achieve proposals that meet the needs of both GMB members and the Council’s financial constraints. He added that this would not be possible if the Council moves forward with these proposals.

When questioned by Committee Members, Mr Richards accepted that under proposed changes, pay cuts may occur. However, he stated that he could not justify 33 percent of staff being affected. Mr Richards also suggested that there was still a commitment from GMB to continue the negotiations with NBC and he would agree to a time limitation on this.

Mr Labrum addressed the Committee and commented that the revised terms and conditions of service was a cost cutting exercise and the percentage of people losing out was unacceptably high. It was reported that whilst there were no savings in the initials years, a saving would become apparent after 2013 and that this should have been disclosed in the budget. The Chief Executive responded to this by explaining that the medium term financial strategy actually indicated an increase of spending on staff and therefore it was not done on the basis of financial savings.