Glasgow City Council pauses plan to fire and rehire 23,000 staff

Glasgow City Council has temporarily halted its controversial plan to dismiss and then re-engage over 23,000 members of staff on new contracts, a move that had ignited widespread condemnation and plunged the local authority into a deep industrial dispute. The decision came after intensive online discussions between the council and three major trade unions – GMB, Unison, and Unite – mediated by Deputy First Minister Jenny Gilruth. This intervention marks a critical turning point in a protracted saga rooted in historical equal pay discrimination against predominantly female workers within the council. The immediate consequence of this pause is that the dismissal letters, which were poised to be sent to all non-teaching staff, will now be withheld, providing a much-needed reprieve and a window for further negotiation.

The contentious "fire and rehire" strategy was a last resort for the SNP-led council after negotiations over a new pay and grading structure broke down. This proposed new system is designed to replace an existing one that was found to be discriminatory, leading to significant financial settlements in the past. While the council maintained that the majority of its workforce would be unaffected or even benefit financially from the changes, an estimated 11% of staff faced potential pay cuts, some substantial, sparking fierce opposition from unions and individual employees alike.

At the heart of this dispute lies Glasgow City Council’s ongoing effort to rectify a long-standing issue of pay inequality. The council had previously been compelled to pay out over £770 million to approximately 19,000 claimants following findings that female employees in roles such as catering and cleaning were systematically paid less than their male counterparts in traditionally male-dominated areas like refuse collection. This historical injustice necessitated a complete overhaul of the pay and grading structure to ensure fairness and legal compliance.

To achieve this, the council embarked on an extensive job evaluation programme, which spanned eight years. This comprehensive process involved staff completing questionnaires and, in some instances, participating in interviews to assess their roles. Each job was evaluated against 13 distinct factors, including physical effort, mental skills, concentration levels, and physical co-ordination. These evaluations generated a score for each position, which then determined its placement within a new 12-grade pay scale. The objective was to create a transparent and equitable system where pay genuinely reflected the demands and responsibilities of each role, irrespective of gender.

However, the implementation of this new, ostensibly fairer, system presented its own set of challenges and inequities. While 63% of staff were expected to see their wages increase or remain unchanged, the evaluation process inadvertently resulted in some roles being assigned lower salaries than they previously commanded. The most severe reductions were anticipated to be around £11,500 annually, with many others facing losses, such as Joanne, a support for learning worker, who stood to lose approximately £300 per year. Her emotional testimony underscored the human impact of these changes, describing the situation as "heartbreaking" and leaving her "distraught" after 25 years of service. She highlighted the critical work she does with vulnerable children, questioning how the council could justify cutting pay for such vital roles.

The threat of "fire and rehire" had been universally condemned as an aggressive industrial tactic. Deputy First Minister Jenny Gilruth unequivocally stated that the Scottish government did not support such schemes and urged all parties to return to the negotiating table. Her sentiment was echoed by the Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC), representing the GMB, Unison, and Unite unions, which welcomed the pause, stating that the practice of "fire and rehire" does not align with the principles of fair work. The UK government’s Scottish Secretary, Douglas Alexander, had also called for the council’s leadership to seek an alternative solution.

The timing of the council’s original threat was particularly contentious. Had the plan proceeded, dismissal letters would have been issued to all non-teaching staff, including senior figures like chief executive Susanne Millar, with new contracts set to commence on 1 January. This date is significant because new UK-wide employment law changes, coming into effect simultaneously, would make dismissing an employee for refusing contract changes automatically an unfair dismissal. This impending legislative shift added urgency and a layer of legal complexity to the council’s controversial approach.

The breakdown in negotiations occurred when Unison, one of the three unions, refused to ballot its members on a proposed new pay offer. Unison’s education convener, Sylvia Haughey, robustly defended this decision, countering the council’s accusation of "betrayal" by stating, "We haven’t betrayed anyone, we certainly haven’t betrayed our members. We are out fighting for our members." She clarified that the union was advocating for those facing significant financial losses, ranging from £200 to £12,000. Haughey further accused the council of employing "bullying tactics" and affirmed Unison’s willingness to engage in further discussions, provided they were "underpinned by increased funding."

In contrast, both the GMB and Unite unions had been in favour of balloting their members on the proposed pay structure. They claimed to have secured an additional £110 million to be integrated into the salary structure, an assertion that Unison disputed, arguing the funding was for "assimilation and arrears" rather than directly addressing the pay cuts for the affected 11%. Despite their differing stances on balloting, both GMB and Unite had also criticised the "fire and rehire" decision, with Unite labeling it a "scandalous threat." GMB organiser David Hume welcomed the council’s willingness to review and reverse its initial decision, emphasizing the urgency of allowing members to decide on the new structure after seven years of complex negotiations.

From the council’s perspective, this was a "hellish situation" that "almost no-one wanted to be in," as stated by Colin Edgar, Glasgow City Council’s communications director. He acknowledged the distress and anxiety among staff but assured that all those affected would be rehired without any break in their continuity of service. Edgar stressed that the council’s actions were a direct consequence of its obligation to fix an unlawful pay scheme, and that in any such comprehensive re-evaluation, some individuals would inevitably gain while others would lose. The council’s dilemma highlights the inherent difficulties faced by local authorities striving to rectify past injustices while navigating tight budgets and diverse workforce expectations.

The intervention by the Deputy First Minister and the subsequent pause represent a significant moment, offering a glimmer of hope for a resolution that avoids the damaging implications of mass dismissals. The resumed negotiations next week will be crucial in determining whether a collective agreement can be reached that addresses the concerns of all unions and ensures a truly fair work environment for Glasgow City Council’s vast workforce. The outcome of these discussions will not only shape the future of industrial relations within Scotland’s largest local authority but could also set a precedent for other councils grappling with similar complex equal pay remediation challenges. The pressure remains immense to find a solution that is both equitable for employees and financially sustainable for the city.