Unions lodge dispute over failure by employers to make pay offer

Trade unions have lodged a formal dispute with the Local Government Employers covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland over the failure to make a pay offer for 2014/15.

However, the LGE expressed disappointment at the speed at which the unions had moved into formal dispute.

A letter sent last week by Unison national secretary Heather Wakefield to the employers' secretary on the National Joint Council for Local Government Services said: "In light of the failure to make us an NJC pay offer for 2014-15 and as a result of your suggestion that this year's pay offer will in any case be ‘pegged’ to the national minimum wage, I am writing to notify you that the Trade Union Side considers itself to be in formal dispute with you."

Wakefield signed the letter on behalf of the joint trade unions, which also include GMB and Unite. It was sent after the cancellation of a planned meeting in January.

Unison’s national secretary wrote: “We are particularly alarmed at the reason given for postponing the meeting – namely, the need to wait for the announcement of the National Minimum Wage to take effect from 1 October 2014.

“Not only does this suggest that the employers are viewing the National Minimum Wage as the benchmark for NJC pay, it also means that the pay increase due to our members on 1 April is unlikely to take effect on that date. You will appreciate that we will need to consult our members on any offer you make, making it extremely unlikely that our members will receive an increase on 1 April.”

The letter continued: “As you know, the National Minimum Wage is no more than a legal ‘floor’ below which basic pay cannot fall. It is certainly NOT an appropriate level of pay for skilled and dedicated local government and school support workers, working against the odds following almost half a million redundancies, to deliver quality local services and support children’s education. As you know, our claim is for £1.20 an hour for all NJC workers – to give the lowest paid the Living Wage and restore some of the 18% lost earnings for the higher paid.”

Writing in response the unions letter, Sarah Messenger, Employers’ Secretary, expressed extreme disappointment that the unions had moved so swiftly to register a formal dispute.

She claimed that the unions’ letter misrepresented events, pointing out that the meeting had been arranged by LGE to give a private update on whatever emerged from the Employers’ Side meeting on 13 February. “At no point in those emails was there ever any indication from us that we would be meeting to inform you about a possible pay offer.” Messenger added that the LGE had offered to meet on 21 February but had received no response.

The Employers’ Secretary wrote that negotiations between the two sides rarely concluded before 1 April, but that pay awards were always backdated to then in any case.

On the National Minimum Wage (NMW), Messenger added: “Your claim that the Employers ‘view the NMW as the benchmark for NJC pay’ is unfounded and untrue. The Employers wish to construct a fair and affordable pay offer which would then be subject to negotiation with your side. However, we cannot reasonably be expected to do this given the uncertainty around the increase to the NMW in October.

“Given that the NMW is a statutory requirement we will need to know its new level in order for us to then cost and shape a pay offer. You are aware of the financial situation in the sector; we are therefore obliged to ensure that we represent the interests of local authorities by ensuring that any pay offer is shaped in such a way that it is affordable and fair to both employers and employees.”

Messenger continued: “Finally, you assert that we have suggested that a pay offer will be ‘pegged’ to the NMW. We have never suggested this and I’m sure you’ll agree that the negotiating process is best served by the sides talking directly to each other rather than speculating in correspondence.”