The GMB union unearthed evidence pointing towards Birmingham City Council’s failed implementation of a crucial job evaluation scheme, igniting complications in a settlement deal intended to resolve the overwhelming equal pay claims that threatened to cripple the council’s finances.
The city council of Birmingham is encumbered by multiple financial crises, chief among them being equal pay claims amounting to as much as £760m – an expense it simply cannot shoulder. Revealed just a month ago, the council initially believed it could settle this issue for a more manageable £120m. This would have been executed through a “memorandum of understanding” in collaboration with the unions and staff.
However, this proposed resolution crumbled when the GMB union alleged they had discovered proof indicating that the city council was in breach, failing to appropriately implement an essential job evaluation scheme designed to guarantee equality in pay between male and female employees.
Concerns also arose regarding the persistence of the ‘task and finish’ practice. This practice allows staff to end their shifts early once the day’s work tasks are completed – a common occurrence in the male-dominated waste collection service and several other components of the council. In contrast, staff in sectors employing a majority of women found themselves unable to access the same privilege.
Following last month’s revelation, the council put a halt to all non-imperative spending, leading to a formal admission in September – via a Section 114 notice – of its inability to balance its books, effectively acknowledging its insolvency.
Adding to the council’s financial burdens is the inordinate £80m overspend on an IT project called Oracle, alongside a projected overspend of £83m on this year’s budget, pushing potential total liabilities close to £1bn.
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Michael Gove, attributed the council’s misfortune to “under-performance, poor leadership, weak governance, woeful mismanagement of employee relations, and ineffective service delivery” within the Labour-led council. In an attempt to salvage the situation, government commissioners have been called upon to assist in running the authority over the next five years.
Senior GMB union organizer, Stuart Richards, disclosed at an employment tribunal in late 2021 evidence of the city council’s pay structures being “not fit for purpose.”
“It was a major revelation,” added Richards, bringing attention to the fact that certain male staff members working reduced hours in the waste service were still being compensated full time, with no equivalent adjustments for the rest of the council.
Led by these revelations and with growing discontent, the GMB advised its members against signing the proposed memorandum of understanding and soon moved into launching equal pay claims.
Conversations held earlier this year amongst the top-level leaders at the council suggested that the ‘task and finish’ practice had ceased. However, in a meeting held in September, a council officer revealed that despite efforts to eradicate it, the practice was still ongoing.
Various opinions circulate within the council regarding the legality of the February budget, given the council’s mounting liabilities; legal provisions require local authorities to consider all potential costs and liabilities in setting a balanced budget. The council’s current leader, John Cotton, admitted he was not informed of the actual scale of potential equal pay liabilities until he assumed leadership and after the February budget had been set.
Ian Ward, the previous council leader who was at the helm when the February budget was approved, has chosen to withhold comments on the matter.
