Up to 5,000 women found out on 27 April 2010 that they had won their claims for equal pay against Birmingham City Council based on bonus payments which allowed male employees to earn in excess of £50,000 a year. The judgment is set to cost the council some £600m in equal pay claims.
The women, 1,200 of whom were represented by Paul Doran of Stefan Cross[1] Solicitors Limited, had submitted claims against their employer in respect of their jobs which included cleaners, cooks and care assistants.
Large numbers of men employed as refuse collectors, street cleaners and road-workers had for many years received up to 159% of their basic pay. In 2007, one refuse collector alone took home almost £51,000 whereas women on the same grade received less than £12,000.
The Tribunal, having noted that the management of the council believed refuse collection staff deserved special treatment, decided that the payments could not be justified since they had been paid to the men simply for turning up to work and doing their jobs properly. The Tribunal also found that the most senior levels of management were aware, as early as 2000, that there was a problem but chose to do nothing, instead continually pushing the problem to one side like a ‘disagreeable sprout’ on a Christmas dinner plate.
The men’s bonus payments were found by the tribunal to be discriminatory.
Paul Doran explained that a Grade 4 Care Assistant working 20 hours a week could expect to receive in excess of £100,000 and went on to tell The People Bulletin: ‘This is a classic victory for the women. Many of these claims made in 2006. The Equal Pay Act has been in force since 1975 and the fact that 25 years later these women are still being treated by the council as second class citizens is outrageous. We are delighted the Tribunal recognised this in a damning judgment; it criticized the council’s officers at the most senior level for having been well aware that it had a problem since at least 2000. The legal fees that have been paid by the council defending these claims have been a complete waste of the public’s resources. This was confirmed by the reasoning of the Employment Tribunal who criticized the number of defences as having no reasonable prospect of success. It’s pretty certain they will appeal given their conduct so far through though these entire proceedings.’
Birmingham City Councillor Alan Rudge, cabinet member for equalities and human resources, said the council had removed its ‘inappropriate bonus schemes’ back in 2007 as well as introducing a revised pay and grading structure which was in line with the Equal Opportunity Commission equality guidelines. Many people were unhappy with the new deal, which unions said left some people £18,000 worse off. About 3,000 council staff went on strike in 2008 over the new pay structure, which Unison said still left women underpaid.
When asked about the prospect of the £600m settlement: of the pay claim he said: ‘It is too early to determine financial implications and currently, consideration is being given as to whether there are grounds for appeal on any aspects of the decision.’
Unison, the trade union, said it was difficult to calculate the total amount the council would have to pay out as a result of the tribunal. Payments would be calculated on an individual basis depending on factors such as length of service and whether people were full-time or part-time workers. Both Unison and the GMB union have estimated the pay-out could be in the region of £30m in total. 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. He said the council had cost taxpayers a huge amount in legal fees fighting the claims, which would have been better spent providing local services.
Zoe Williams, in her column entitled ‘The brothers are hopeless. Sisters with solicitors must do it for themselves’ (the Guardian 29 April), was pretty scathing about the role the unions had in securing this equal pay victory. ‘..the abiding sense I am left with is not triumph but outrage, , not least at the GMB union[2] which, solicitors say, was just as culpable as the council in maintaining the exploitative status quo….Female staff, attempting to right the iniquities in the pay scale, weren’t just poorly represented by their union, they were systematically bullied’…this included actively encouraging women to settle for pitiful sum (£2,000 to £7,000 in cases where the claims were as much as £50,000) and publicly briefing against the women on the basis that their claims would lead to job losses or bankrupt the council.’[3]
[1] Stefan Cross gave a very candid interview to The Times on some of the barriers he faced when he agreed to take the case and describes himself as 'the most hated lawyer in Britain.' See link
[2] http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2008/CACiv/jul1.3.htm
[3] The basis for this engaging tirade can be found in the Allen v GMB appeal of 2008 which found against the GMB. Her full comment can be read in the Guardian here