Title

An employment tribunal last week ruled in favour of women workers fighting for equal pay against Birmingham City Council. But what will it mean for other authorities yet to settle? Heather Jameson reports. Last week saw a landmark case in the battle for equal pay in local government when an employment tribunal ruled that thousands of women working for Birmingham City Council were entitled to the same pay as their male counterparts. Unison hailed a massive victory on behalf of its members, while newspapers claimed the cost to the council could reach as high as £600m. It is yet another blow to the reputation of local government, as cleaners and care assistants were pitched against the Goliath council in the media. Reports of carers earning £12,000 compared with binmen on £50,000 painted the authority as either sexist or incompetent. Either way, it is not an image one would choose. Behind the media hype, the numbers may be exaggerated, but the principles remain the same. Local government is still struggling to resolve the issue of equal pay, many years after it arose, and the shameful treatment of women workers compared with their male counterparts is left hanging over the sector. Privately, those on the employers side often admit to their failings, but publicly, the battle continues as they fight to get agreements with the unions and staff without creating financial ruin for local government – and ultimately, the taxpayer. In the Birmingham case, 4,000 women appealed against the council's decision to exclude them from bonuses, which were worth up to 160% of the basic pay of the men. Unison general secretary, Dave Prentis, said: ‘For too long, Birmingham City Council has failed to live up to its responsibilities to pay these women workers fairly. ‘This has cost council taxpayers huge amounts of money in legal fees. This money would have been better spent on providing vital local services, many of which are facing damaging cuts.' Secretary general for local government at the union, Heather Wakefield, told The MJ: ‘We have always wanted to negotiate on single status agreements.' The union currently has claims lodged in local authorities across the country and, after the Birmingham ruling, ‘we assume we will win most of them,' she told The MJ. ‘This is a really important victory for our members, but it's a great pity that it had to come to this stage, and has gone on for so many years.' Again she cited the cash spent on legal fees which could have been avoided. But, she claimed councils have ended up costing themselves more money by failing to conduct single status properly, and trying to avoid costly payouts. ‘They all thought the pay up day would never come. It's quite clear that it has come now,' she said. ‘It has taken a long time to get to this point. It is not justified and employers need to be paying out.' The union is hailing the decision as a ‘major test case', and the implication for other councils is clear – pay up or you could be next. Head of the Employers' Organisation, Jan Parkinson, was not so clear cut on the issue. She said: ‘We advise members to try to get deals done which don't have to be taken to tribunals, where the costs are huge.' As with the unions, Ms Parkinson is keen to avoid the added expense of legal fees in favour of an amicable resolution. ‘Most local authorities have dealt with this, or are dealing with it,' she told The MJ. But every case is different, and each council must look at its own circumstances and carry out a risk assessment on whether to go down the legal route. She added: ‘If councils feel they have a case, they are duty bound to pursue it.' It is estimated that at least 60% of councils have settled their single status cases. Original estimates of the cost to local government stood at £5-6bn – assuming everyone who went to tribunal won six years back pay. Local government insiders estimated this figure would be closer to £1.5-2bn. In the case of Birmingham, the council claimed the case related to the ‘outdated bonus system'. In a statement, cabinet member for HR, Cllr Alan Rudge, said the cases concerned historical issues inherited by the current administration. The pay and grading structure introduced by the current administration in 2007 had, he claimed, been taken up by more than 95% of those eligible, ‘generating considerable reductions in the council's liability and reducing enormously the potential cost impact of the current judgement'. He added: ‘Nevertheless, it is too early to determine financial implications, but initial press reports appear exaggerated.' More conservative estimates are putting the cost at £30m, rather than the £600m quoted in the media. Cllr Rudge added: ‘Consideration is being given as to whether there are grounds for appeal on any aspects of the decision.' Regardless of the claims of the unions, local authorities which have yet to resolve their single status cases will inevitably be examining the Birmingham ruling to see if it effects their case. As Ms Parkinson said: ‘This has to be resolved. There's no way out of it.'

Title

WHITEHALL

Birmingham ruling casts a shadow over single status

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING