Please refer to the latest flyer which reflects the Unison position – Equalpayoffermarch2008
Frequently Asked Questions:
Q – “Following the recent equal pay/single status payments offered to staff based on their employment status as of 1 March 2008, is the union prepared to fight the cause for those members of staff deemed not to be eligible. Payments have only been offered to those staff who are on point 25 or less of the pay structure. This excludes everyone on a level 6 or above.
No explanation of how this decision has been arrived at seems to be available from HR or consultancy. How can this be seen as equal?
Staff who have worked their way up through the scales over a number of years are now being penalised for having done so. Surely equal pay issues apply to all staff scales?
A – Please refer to the Unison position – on the downloadable statement above. This money is only being offered to those who the council consider could mount an equal pay claim at tribunal.
This is the third tranche they have done. They may review their assessment and consider some posts above point 25 to also pose a risk, then an offer may be made.
“This does not really answer my question. As a unison member will the union be prepar3ed to right the case for staff on Scale 26 or above?”
A – We are prepared to fight for equal pay for any of our members, whatever their grade but the proper route for that is through the tribunal if a case can be substantiated. What we can’t do is to involve ourselves with the employers offer because it falls far short of the amount that could result from the legal process.
Q- In light of the recent press regarding Staffordshire County Council job evaluation process where it was revealed staff who had benefited with a higher JE score would be eligible for up to 4 years backpay, will the same apply to Stoke-on-Trent city Council staff on final completion of their own job evaluation process?
A – There is no provision in the single status proposal package to pay back pay similar ot the County. Stoke are only offering back pay to some degree to those who they consider would be able to mount an equal pay claim in the tribunal.
Q – As you may/may not be aware, the Stoke-on-Trent city Council, has to everyones surprise decided to give pay outs re Single Status not only to dinner supervisors and janitors but to other groups working in schools such as Teaching Assistants, NNEBs etc. This has come as a shock to the schools and parts of the Council who have only found out about it today after dozens of staff have received letters over the weekend! It is chaos.
I have discovered that I am one of the few members of our support staff who has not received such a payment! When I have questioned this decision I have been informed by HR that awards have only been given to people in “female dominated posts” – as an ICT technician and as most are male, I cannot be considered. They seemed baffled too.
I believe I am a valuable member of the school workfroce. I am furious about this blatent discrimination on the grounds of gender! Surely it goes against Equal Opportunities!
I know that the JCC/Teaching Unions have not been involved in this process and wonder where Unison stands on this ridiculous decision/if you are able to do anything about it?
A – Unison was also not involved (please refer to the downloadable statement which explains our position). This money is only being offered to those who the council consider could mount an equal pay claim at tribunal.
“Thank you but this still does not answer my question about “male dominated roles” and Unison’s stance on the matter. This term was used by SOT HR to explain the situation re why caretakers and technicians had not received any payments as they had been told. As far as I am concerned this makes discrimination on the grounds of gender as well as anything else you would like to call it. Could you please let me know where Unison stands on the use of such a category in relation to pay awards – I bet some of the female technicians are equally as pleased.
A – Any person is a “male dominated role” would find it difficult to pursue an equal pay claim, the legislation for which was designed to address inequalities in women’s pay. Therefore as I said you are not seen as a risk to the council because of the unlikelihood of your being able to pursue a claim and so no “buy out” money is necessary.
Q – Single Status letters – the union should have sent out a statement before now on the letters everyone has received. I have my signing date on 6 March and have been unable to contact the uinion. This must be the position for many. I think you should send a statement out explaining in clear terms what is going on and the unions stance on the sitaution. Are you behind it, should anyone be worried about signing for the money? Are there any repercussions we should be aware of?
A – This question is covered by our downloadable position statement above.
Update 8th March – Unison HQ announce 40,000 Equal Pay claims – details here
Follow the story on the Sentinel website
