The fall out continues from the recent Court of Appeal judgment in the Allen v GMB case - see post dated 17 July 2008.
Action 4 Equality has been inundated with enquiries from around the country - from ordinary union members who have been badly advised about their equal pay claims.
Lots of low-paid workers have lost out - thousands of pounds in many cases - because they were encouraged (by their trade union) to accept poor offers of settlement from their council employer.
The effect of the Court of Appeal decision - - which was scathing in its criticism of the GMB - is that trade unions can now be held to account for this kind of behaviour and union members can seek financial compensation in the courts.
The decision is a body blow for the trade unions, but great news for ordinary union members.
The Court of Appeal has soundly punished the bad behaviour of the GMB in Middlesborough - which opens the door for other union members to bring similar claims.
If you need advice about your own situation, contact Action 4 Equality London on 0845 300 3 800 or e-mail Mark Irvine at: markirvine@compuserve.com
Saturday, 26 July 2008
Friday, 25 July 2008
Labour and the unions
Union leaders are meeting the Prime Minister (Gordon Brown) today - to discuss a series of demands that the unions want to see included in the Labour Party's next election manifesto.
Union bosses feel they are in a very strong negotiating position because they are again acting as Labour's paymasters - providing 90% of the party's funding - now that individual donors have deserted the fold following the recent 'cash for honours' row and police investigation.
So, their shopping list is wide and varied - ranging from new picketing rights during an industrial dispute (bonkers) to the introduction of 'fair employment' rights in council contracts (good idea - but 10 years too late).
What's noticeable is the absence of any sensible measures to strengthen the existing equal pay legislation - which has been on the statute books for almost 40 years ever since the Equal Pay Act of 1970.
Why is this? Because although Labour and the trade unions claim to support equal pay - they have a terrible track record when it comes to delivering results.
The fact is that Labour run councils and Labour supporting trade unions have presided over pay systems - that for years have blatantly discriminated against many female jobs.
So, the unions are not anxious to draw attention to their part in this ignoble affair - because it would require them to face up to some home truths about how well the unions stand up for the rights of their women members.
Union bosses feel they are in a very strong negotiating position because they are again acting as Labour's paymasters - providing 90% of the party's funding - now that individual donors have deserted the fold following the recent 'cash for honours' row and police investigation.
So, their shopping list is wide and varied - ranging from new picketing rights during an industrial dispute (bonkers) to the introduction of 'fair employment' rights in council contracts (good idea - but 10 years too late).
What's noticeable is the absence of any sensible measures to strengthen the existing equal pay legislation - which has been on the statute books for almost 40 years ever since the Equal Pay Act of 1970.
Why is this? Because although Labour and the trade unions claim to support equal pay - they have a terrible track record when it comes to delivering results.
The fact is that Labour run councils and Labour supporting trade unions have presided over pay systems - that for years have blatantly discriminated against many female jobs.
So, the unions are not anxious to draw attention to their part in this ignoble affair - because it would require them to face up to some home truths about how well the unions stand up for the rights of their women members.
Thursday, 17 July 2008
Sex Discrimination Bombshell for Unions
The big 3 public sector unions (GMB, Unison and Unite) are in a state of shock following a landmark decision yesterday in the Court of Appeal.
The case, known as Allen v GMB, was heard originally in the Employment Tribunals in Newcastle - and found that the GMB had discriminated against their own low-paid women members.
It was the first decision of its kind in the UK - and has huge implications for the GMB and other trade unions.
The women workers complained that the GMB was guilty of sex discrimination when it acted on their behalf. The women - who sought equal pay with the men - alleged they were represented inadequately by the union.
The Employment Tribunal decided unanimously that their employer (Middlesborough Council) should have eradicated unequal pay years earlier.
The tribunal also found that the GMB then collaborated with the employer by manipulating members, who had back pay claims, into unwittingly sacrificing their rights - to the benefit of the employer.
In doing so, the tribunal agreed that the union had unjustifiably discriminated against their own low-paid women members.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) reversed the initial decision of the Employment Tribunal in 2007, but the Court of Appeal has now restored the original judgement.
The Court of Appeal has decided that the GMB misrepresented the 'deal' that was on offer from Middlesborough Council - and the case will now be referred back to the Employment Tribunal to consider compensation awards.
The GMB was refused permission by the Court of Appeal to appeal further to the House of Lords - the union is entitled to seek permission from the House of Lords directly, but this must be done by 30 September 2008 - and Stefan Cross will oppose any such application.
Thousands of similar cases are waiting in the wings.
The case, known as Allen v GMB, was heard originally in the Employment Tribunals in Newcastle - and found that the GMB had discriminated against their own low-paid women members.
It was the first decision of its kind in the UK - and has huge implications for the GMB and other trade unions.
The women workers complained that the GMB was guilty of sex discrimination when it acted on their behalf. The women - who sought equal pay with the men - alleged they were represented inadequately by the union.
The Employment Tribunal decided unanimously that their employer (Middlesborough Council) should have eradicated unequal pay years earlier.
The tribunal also found that the GMB then collaborated with the employer by manipulating members, who had back pay claims, into unwittingly sacrificing their rights - to the benefit of the employer.
In doing so, the tribunal agreed that the union had unjustifiably discriminated against their own low-paid women members.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) reversed the initial decision of the Employment Tribunal in 2007, but the Court of Appeal has now restored the original judgement.
The Court of Appeal has decided that the GMB misrepresented the 'deal' that was on offer from Middlesborough Council - and the case will now be referred back to the Employment Tribunal to consider compensation awards.
The GMB was refused permission by the Court of Appeal to appeal further to the House of Lords - the union is entitled to seek permission from the House of Lords directly, but this must be done by 30 September 2008 - and Stefan Cross will oppose any such application.
Thousands of similar cases are waiting in the wings.
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
Striking Differences
Council workers in London are being called out on 2 days of strike action today - in pursuit of a better and fairer pay rise - see post dated 1 July 2008.
But the irony is that this industrial action will do nothing to address the big inequalities in pay that already exist - between traditional male and female jobs.
The unions that are manning the barricades - are the same union that have turned a blind eye to equal pay for the past 10 years - completely ignoring the fact that unskilled male jobs (refuse workers, gravediggers and gardeners) have been getting paid much more than carers, catering workers and classroom assistants.
Where have the unions been all these years - why have there been no strikes or national days of action to highlight the issue of equal pay for women workers?
Strike action will do nothing to improve the lot of low paid women workers relative to the men - even after the strikes are over striking differences in they way they are treated will continue.
If a female carer or a classroom assistant goes on strike for a day, they lose a day's pay - never to be recovered, a short-term sacrifice for a longer-term gain, allegedly.
But if a refuse worker or a gardener goes on strike for a day, they get paid to back and pick up the day's work that was lost - so they don't lose out in the same way as their female colleagues.
When the dust has settled low paid women workers will remain stuck where they are now - at the bottom of the pile. Truth is the trade unions can't see the wood for the trees - despite the fact that two thirds of the council workforce are women workers.
But the irony is that this industrial action will do nothing to address the big inequalities in pay that already exist - between traditional male and female jobs.
The unions that are manning the barricades - are the same union that have turned a blind eye to equal pay for the past 10 years - completely ignoring the fact that unskilled male jobs (refuse workers, gravediggers and gardeners) have been getting paid much more than carers, catering workers and classroom assistants.
Where have the unions been all these years - why have there been no strikes or national days of action to highlight the issue of equal pay for women workers?
Strike action will do nothing to improve the lot of low paid women workers relative to the men - even after the strikes are over striking differences in they way they are treated will continue.
If a female carer or a classroom assistant goes on strike for a day, they lose a day's pay - never to be recovered, a short-term sacrifice for a longer-term gain, allegedly.
But if a refuse worker or a gardener goes on strike for a day, they get paid to back and pick up the day's work that was lost - so they don't lose out in the same way as their female colleagues.
When the dust has settled low paid women workers will remain stuck where they are now - at the bottom of the pile. Truth is the trade unions can't see the wood for the trees - despite the fact that two thirds of the council workforce are women workers.
Saturday, 12 July 2008
Why do I need to take out a grievance?
Because the Equal Pay Act requires that anyone who wishes to pursue a claim must first of all give the employer a chance to address the issue internally - before it is taken outside the council to the Employment Tribunals.
In practice, this means raising an individual grievance on behalf of everyone who is pursuing a claim - but this is not as daunting as it first seems because Stefan Cross does this for all clients automatically - there is little for individuals to do other than turn up at any meeting that is arranged.
You don't have to say anything or get involved in a discussion about your case - as this has already been submitted to the employer in a detailed statement.
Our experience is that not all employers observe this stage - and often those that do don't take it very seriously - because they don't address the issues or even attempt to explain the big pay differences between traditional male and female jobs.
But while the grievance stage often ends up as a terrible waste of people's time - because of the employer's refusal to engage and explain their position - it is nonetheless extremely important.
Because - as the trade unions have discovered - the Employment Tribunals can take a very dim view of anyone who tries to cut corners and fails to observe the rules.
Scotland's Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has struck out all trade union claims that have not lodged an initial individual grievance - which comes as a great shock to many union members.
For more information on this point visit the Action 4 Equality Scotland blog site at: www.action4equalityscotland.blogspot.com
In practice, this means raising an individual grievance on behalf of everyone who is pursuing a claim - but this is not as daunting as it first seems because Stefan Cross does this for all clients automatically - there is little for individuals to do other than turn up at any meeting that is arranged.
You don't have to say anything or get involved in a discussion about your case - as this has already been submitted to the employer in a detailed statement.
Our experience is that not all employers observe this stage - and often those that do don't take it very seriously - because they don't address the issues or even attempt to explain the big pay differences between traditional male and female jobs.
But while the grievance stage often ends up as a terrible waste of people's time - because of the employer's refusal to engage and explain their position - it is nonetheless extremely important.
Because - as the trade unions have discovered - the Employment Tribunals can take a very dim view of anyone who tries to cut corners and fails to observe the rules.
Scotland's Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has struck out all trade union claims that have not lodged an initial individual grievance - which comes as a great shock to many union members.
For more information on this point visit the Action 4 Equality Scotland blog site at: www.action4equalityscotland.blogspot.com
Thursday, 10 July 2008
Equal Pay - Time Limits
We've had a rash of enquiries recently about whether any time limits apply to making an equal pay claim.
The answer is - YES - and it's very important the time limits are observed, otherwise even the strongest claim will be regarded as 'out of time' - and will not be entertained by the Employment Tribunals.
The general rule is that people have six months to register an equal pay claim with the tribunals - if they:
Generally speaking a new contract would be issued for a completely different job - not the same job in a new location or the same job on different hours.
But it's better to be safe than sorry - so always ask for advice - a quick phone call or e-mail will do the trick.
Many people in London have not been advised properly on these issues - both by their employers and the trade unions - and have lost out as a result.
The answer is - YES - and it's very important the time limits are observed, otherwise even the strongest claim will be regarded as 'out of time' - and will not be entertained by the Employment Tribunals.
The general rule is that people have six months to register an equal pay claim with the tribunals - if they:
- retire from employment altogether
- leave their current employer (for another job or no job)
- take up another job with the same employer - that involves a change of contract
Generally speaking a new contract would be issued for a completely different job - not the same job in a new location or the same job on different hours.
But it's better to be safe than sorry - so always ask for advice - a quick phone call or e-mail will do the trick.
Many people in London have not been advised properly on these issues - both by their employers and the trade unions - and have lost out as a result.
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Tail Wagging the Dog
A major pay battle looms for council workers in London - with large scale industrial action on the cards for the first time in years.
The unions have rejected a 2.45% pay offer from the employers - and Unison is now gearing up for two days of strikes later in July - after its council worker members voted by 55% to 45% to support a campaign of industrial action.
But what Unison is not telling its members is that only 27% of them bothered to take part in the recent industrial action ballot - which means that fewer than 90,000 members (out of 600,000) actively voted in support of strike action - while more than 500,000 voted No or voted with their feet - by not returning their ballot papers.
Either way it´s hardly a resounding vote of confidence in the strategy of union leaders - when almost three quarters of the grassroots membership can´t even be bothered to participate in such an important ballot.
The result is that the planned campaign of strike action will be hugely unpopular with members - even before it begins - which is hardly a recipe for success.
No one really believes that industrial action will bring about a great improvement in the recent 2.45% offer - and there is a ready alternative to pointless days of strike action - access to independent arbitration - which has the great advantage of not costing low paid members lots of money they can ill afford to lose.
So, quite why Unison is allowing the tail to wag the dog is a mystery - an unpopular strike that fails to engage with the members - will never shift the employers - especially when both sides can put their respective cases to an independent arbitration panel.
The unions have rejected a 2.45% pay offer from the employers - and Unison is now gearing up for two days of strikes later in July - after its council worker members voted by 55% to 45% to support a campaign of industrial action.
But what Unison is not telling its members is that only 27% of them bothered to take part in the recent industrial action ballot - which means that fewer than 90,000 members (out of 600,000) actively voted in support of strike action - while more than 500,000 voted No or voted with their feet - by not returning their ballot papers.
Either way it´s hardly a resounding vote of confidence in the strategy of union leaders - when almost three quarters of the grassroots membership can´t even be bothered to participate in such an important ballot.
The result is that the planned campaign of strike action will be hugely unpopular with members - even before it begins - which is hardly a recipe for success.
No one really believes that industrial action will bring about a great improvement in the recent 2.45% offer - and there is a ready alternative to pointless days of strike action - access to independent arbitration - which has the great advantage of not costing low paid members lots of money they can ill afford to lose.
So, quite why Unison is allowing the tail to wag the dog is a mystery - an unpopular strike that fails to engage with the members - will never shift the employers - especially when both sides can put their respective cases to an independent arbitration panel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
