The following is the UNISON case put to a Council Disputes meeting regarding the drastic reduction in working hours for pupil guides, a decision that we believe is unjust, discriminatory, and legally questionable.
We strongly urge the Council to reconsider this approach to avoid serious industrial relations consequences, potential legal challenges, and damage to the Council’s reputation as a fair employer.
Our dispute is based on the following:
1. Unfair Treatment & Discrimination
· This proposal disproportionately impacts a workforce that is predominantly female, older, and includes many workers for whom English is not their first language.
· UNISON believe these employees are being treated less favourably compared to other Council employees, which may constitute both direct and indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
· The Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) itself indicates a disproportionate effect on these groups, raising significant legal concerns.
2. Breach of Contract & Fire and Rehire
· The proposed reduction in hours equates to a fundamental breach of employees’ contracts.
· Many staff members face over a 50% cut in contractual hours, which in effect creates a redundancy situation.
· Changes to employment contracts require mutual agreement – the Council does not have an express term allowing such drastic reductions.
· Members have overwhelmingly rejected these changes, meaning the Council would need to impose them via dismissal and re-engagement—commonly known as Fire and Rehire.
· The government is moving to outlaw Fire and Rehire under the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill.
· Additionally, the Council has not followed the new Code of Practice on Dismissal and Re-Engagement (effective July 2024), which mandates thorough consultation and fair treatment.
3. Lack of Redundancy Pay & Potential Legal Risks
· The Council does not have a formal policy for severance pay, UNISON are concerned that the directorate are acting outside of agreed policies and procedures in seeking to apply one to this group only.
· We believe that these drastic reductions in hours should trigger redundancy rights and that offering a “severance payment” instead is an attempt to block low paid women’s rights to redundancy.
· If staff chose to stay under the new proposals, should they be made redundant in the future due to the way the Council calculates redundancy pay based on the last 12 weeks earnings their payments would not take into account the hours that they lose now and they would be disadvantaged.
· Staff over 55 years old face pension implications, which the Council may be trying to avoid by sidestepping redundancy payments.
· If staff chose to stay under the new terms their pension will be worth much less when they retire.
· Such actions could expose the Council to equal pay and sex discrimination claims, particularly given its existing equal pay liabilities.
4. Inadequate Consultation Process
· Consultation has been inadequate, unclear, and ineffective:
o Most staff do not understand the proposals or their individual impact.
o Management has failed to properly explain the implications.
o Many staff lack access to the Council’s Oracle system and do not have computer-based roles, further limiting their ability to engage in consultation.
· Given the severity of the changes, meaningful consultation is essential, yet employees have been left without the information needed to make informed decisions.
5. Industrial Relations & Reputational Damage
· UNISON believes these proposals damage industrial relations and undermine the Council’s standing as a fair employer.
· Our members are overwhelmingly in favour of being balloted for industrial action, including strike action.
· If these changes are imposed, the Council will likely lose many dedicated and experienced staff who simply cannot afford to continue working under such reduced hours.
6. Financial Considerations – Are Cuts Justified?
· The Council aims to save £1.05M, but this must be weighed against other financial decisions:
o Over £4M per month is currently being spent on consultants and interim staff.
o Nearly the same amount as the proposed savings is spent on Commissioners’ expenses.
· This raises serious questions about whether these devastating cuts are truly necessary or proportionate.
Proposed Resolution
· Given the serious concerns outlined, UNISON urges the Council to:
1. Extend the consultation period to properly address these issues.
2. Engage in meaningful negotiations with staff and UNISON to explore alternative cost-saving measures.
3. Adhere to legal obligations, particularly regarding contract changes, redundancy rights, and equality laws.
4. Reconsider alternative financial strategies to prevent these drastic cuts to low-paid, predominantly female workers.
Conclusion
· Imposing these changes will not only harm the affected employees but also place the Council at risk of legal action, industrial action, and reputational damage.
· We strongly urge you to work with us to find a fairer and more sustainable solution.