Council using qualified staff on lower pay grade to meet legal requirements for qualified staff?

[free spirit]

Asking for a friend...

It seems that in nursery schools across Leeds there's a freeze on recruitment of qualified staff to the level 3 pay grade they should be on, and they're instead relying on those who hold the qualifications but are just on the basic pay grade to fill the gaps and take on that extra responsibility but without the pay increase that should go with it.

As I understand it, each classroom has to have 1 qualified member of staff in it at all times, to supervise the other non-qualified staff who make up the necessary numbers of staff needed for each room.

To my mind, under the principles of the equal pay act, and the idea of the Single Status and banding this shouldn't be happening. It's the equivalent of qualified bin lorry drivers being expected to drive the bin lorries but only get paid the same rate as the lads who load the bins, which I doubt the unions would allow to start happening without a serious kick off about it.

Does anyone (cesare ?) know what the script is with this legally - is it a legal requirement for people within the councils to be paid at the correct banding level for the work they're doing, if so how should it be being enforced etc?

In this case the situation keeps being referred to as temporary, but it's gone on for 2 years in one classroom, and she's now been moved to another room to provide that cover because a lvl 3 qualified person from that room had retired and they'd not sorted a replacement. They say that's temporary, but on a how long is a piece of string sort of basis for how temporary (that's actually what the manager said).

I've a vague idea that the provisions in he equal pay legislation that created this banding harmonisation mean that all staff should always be on the correct banding, but I'm not really clear if or how this could be enforced - ie employment tribunal etc.

Yes she's in a union, but they don't have much clout as only a small percentage of the staff are in it, and from the sounds of it, the rep probably doesn't know enough to realise that this shouldn't be allowed to go on.

ANy advice from urban folk with experience in council employment situations?

 

[free spirit]

my advice was to say she'd do it for a maximum of 1 month, and if they hadn't found anyone to take the role on permanently then they should give her the role and pay her the correct level for it.

She has previously been paid at that grade for this role and is fully qualified for it, just there were no roles available at that grade so she had to take a lower paid position, initially without the extra responsibilities, but the management have since been taking the piss because she has the qualifications so they keep using her in the role without paying the correct rate.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

It's a while since I've worked in local authority and even longer since I was a NALGO / UNISON rep, but...

I don't think the banding of jobs is something set down in law if that's what you mean. In theory, there is supposed to be national criteria, but each council will have some sort of procedure for this, and for grading appeals (for situations where your job role has changed over time.)

I got the impression that some councils would grade similar jobs higher than others (tendency was for London councils to grade a job a bit higher - possibly as they couldn't get enough staff otherwise, and councils in Wales always seemed to pitch jobs a grade or two lower than a comparable job in England)

There was a procedure for 'acting up' - i.e. covering duties of a higher grade job. (I think this is the key issue here if I understand it right)

From memory, it was all a bit fuzzy - it depended whether you were covering all the duties of the job you were covering, and for how long, and so on. (Management could usually find a way of proving that you were, or weren't, depending on whether they liked you or not)

I have a feeling that a temporary employee becomes entitled to permanent employee rights after X amount of time, but not sure this would apply to temporary acting up going on for some time.

I'm also not sure quite what the legal position would be for refusing to do a job that's beyond your employment contract.

There is certainly case law out there for challenging a job that tends to be mainly done by women being graded lower than a job of similar responsibility that tends to be done by men, but not quite sure how this would apply here - unless there's clear examples elsewhere in the same organisation for men not being treated the same way (e.g. the dustcart drivers you refer to)

If local rep isn't sure, then they really ought to have the sense to get branch / region (or whatever the structure is of the union in question) involved. Some union reps seem to think they ought to know the answer to everything and are reluctant to seek advice. I tended to take the "let me look in to that and get back to you" line where needed.

Unison has a certain amount of info here (not quite clear whether this is intended more as a resource for reps than individual members) but may be worth a look. I couldn't find a bit about acting up, though.

This (I can't face ploughing through it at this time of night) may be worth a look, although it's a few years old now so policy may have changed since.

 

[free spirit]

Thanks.

From what I can gather this seems to be a practice that has become common across most of the nurseries, with some exceptions where the manager is refusing to tow the line and just running a budget deficit for their center by ensuring that all staff are paid the correct rates etc.

I'm considering a FOI request to get the comparative data because that's basically where I think the easiest route is to challenge this, if the same practice isn't being applied in the male dominated field as in the female then it's a pratty clear case of unfair pay discrimination.

If the figures show what I think they will show then I'm thinking that some form of class action against the council could result in not only the uprating of their pay to the correct level on the payscale, but also backdating of this, which would be good for all those affected, but might also make the council management stop and think before exploiting their workers in this way again. IIRC there have been similar cases won in the past, and it's why the councils were supposed to have introduced these uniform bandings in the first place, but that doesn't work if their managers start ignoring the bandings in this way in order to meet budget targets.

I'm basically thinking of gathering the evidence together to present to unison so they're able to hopefully decide to take action on it. Part of the issue being that only a small proportion affected are in any one union / any union at all, but presumably if they were seen to be doing something like this and winning thousands of back pay for affected people then their membership levels would soar as a result. It's all a bit chicken and egg really.

 

[Pickman's model]

Asking for a friend...

It seems that in nursery schools across Leeds there's a freeze on recruitment of qualified staff to the level 3 pay grade they should be on, and they're instead relying on those who hold the qualifications but are just on the basic pay grade to fill the gaps and take on that extra responsibility but without the pay increase that should go with it.

As I understand it, each classroom has to have 1 qualified member of staff in it at all times, to supervise the other non-qualified staff who make up the necessary numbers of staff needed for each room.

To my mind, under the principles of the equal pay act, and the idea of the Single Status and banding this shouldn't be happening. It's the equivalent of qualified bin lorry drivers being expected to drive the bin lorries but only get paid the same rate as the lads who load the bins, which I doubt the unions would allow to start happening without a serious kick off about it.

Does anyone (cesare ?) know what the script is with this legally - is it a legal requirement for people within the councils to be paid at the correct banding level for the work they're doing, if so how should it be being enforced etc?

In this case the situation keeps being referred to as temporary, but it's gone on for 2 years in one classroom, and she's now been moved to another room to provide that cover because a lvl 3 qualified person from that room had retired and they'd not sorted a replacement. They say that's temporary, but on a how long is a piece of string sort of basis for how temporary (that's actually what the manager said).

I've a vague idea that the provisions in he equal pay legislation that created this banding harmonisation mean that all staff should always be on the correct banding, but I'm not really clear if or how this could be enforced - ie employment tribunal etc.

Yes she's in a union, but they don't have much clout as only a small percentage of the staff are in it, and from the sounds of it, the rep probably doesn't know enough to realise that this shouldn't be allowed to go on.

ANy advice from urban folk with experience in council employment situations?

why not contact someone in the relevant unison branch? rather than posting up about a situation you have only second hand knowledge of. maybe the rep doesn't know so much. but that's the joy of being a rep, having more experienced colleagues within the branch who can help you find out.

 

[free spirit]

why not contact someone in the relevant unison branch? rather than posting up about a situation you have only second hand knowledge of. maybe the rep doesn't know so much. but that's the joy of being a rep, having more experienced colleagues within the branch who can help you find out.

because it's been mentioned but neither is sure if it's something that's worth pursuing or not. I'm pretty sure that this is a situation that is worth pursuing in one way or another, but wanted to see if anyone more in the know than me had a better handle on the situation than me / knew of other similar instances etc.

As I say, this seems to be becoming a widespread practice across the city and has been going on for 2-3 years in this case, yet the union so far hasn't intervened of it's own volition, so I don't feel entirely confident in simply leaving it to the union to dither and do nothing for another year if I can give them a bit of a nudge in the right direction.

Basically I need to be able to convince the person involved whether there is a legal route to addressing this situation or not before they're willing to make much more of an effort to get the union to get involved, as she doesn't want to waste her time / antaganise the management if there's little prospect of her getting anywhere with it.

It's worth £3k a year to her though, which makes a big difference for someone who can't pay the bills from her current wage level, and that could well be multiplied across dozens / hundreds of low paid workers in a similar position across the city.

To me that's at least worthy of a thread on urban, or is it just for daft kitten pics and slagging anything off that moves these days?

 

[Pickman's model]

because it's been mentioned but neither is sure if it's something that's worth pursuing or not. I'm pretty sure that this is a situation that is worth pursuing in one way or another, but wanted to see if anyone more in the know than me had a better handle on the situation than me / knew of other similar instances etc.

As I say, this seems to be becoming a widespread practice across the city and has been going on for 2-3 years in this case, yet the union so far hasn't intervened of it's own volition, so I don't feel entirely confident in simply leaving it to the union to dither and do nothing for another year if I can give them a bit of a nudge in the right direction.

Basically I need to be able to convince the person involved whether there is a legal route to addressing this situation or not before they're willing to make much more of an effort to get the union to get involved, as she doesn't want to waste her time / antaganise the management if there's little prospect of her getting anywhere with it.

It's worth £3k a year to her though, which makes a big difference for someone who can't pay the bills from her current wage level, and that could well be multiplied across dozens / hundreds of low paid workers in a similar position across the city.

sounds to me like an issue. perhaps the rep could be encouraged to seek advice from the branch secretary or chair.

 

[free spirit]

sounds to me like an issue. perhaps the rep could be encouraged to seek advice from the branch secretary or chair.

That'd be the intended course of action, but it'd just help to get a bit more of an idea of the legal position first so all involved can be asking the right questions in the right way and the higher ups in the union can see that it potentially is a winnable issue worth taking a stand on (if it is).

The branch currently has 3 members, so probably isn't a priority within the union, but that's why they've been getting walked all over in this way since this austerity crap started to really squeeze the budgets.

 

[The39thStep]

That'd be the intended course of action, but it'd just help to get a bit more of an idea of the legal position first so all involved can be asking the right questions in the right way and the higher ups in the union can see that it potentially is a winnable issue worth taking a stand on (if it is).

The branch currently has 3 members, so probably isn't a priority within the union, but that's why they've been getting walked all over in this way since this austerity crap started to really squeeze the budgets.

3 members? That is a very small branch

 

[free spirit]

3 members? That is a very small branch

it's something like that in that nursery, I don't know if that's what classes as a branch. Not very up on my union structures.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

it's something like that in that nursery, I don't know if that's what classes as a branch. Not very up on my union structures.

i'd have thought the branch would be the whole council wide, not just one workplace

 

[Duncan2]

If it is happening as a result of the Council pursuing a deliberate policy it s surely worth pursuing free spirit?One would think that just the prospect of the adverse publicity would be enough to make the Council think again.Surprising to me that your friend has put up with it for so long.

 

[equationgirl]

That'd be the intended course of action, but it'd just help to get a bit more of an idea of the legal position first so all involved can be asking the right questions in the right way and the higher ups in the union can see that it potentially is a winnable issue worth taking a stand on (if it is).

The branch currently has 3 members, so probably isn't a priority within the union, but that's why they've been getting walked all over in this way since this austerity crap started to really squeeze the budgets.

Respectfully, this sounds quite complicated and really needs a qualified lawyer's advice. Most lawyers will do an initial consultation for free to help ascertain if there is a case or not and if so how to proceed.

The people involved need to talk to their union to press the issue.

 

[equationgirl]

If it is happening as a result of the Council pursuing a deliberate policy it s surely worth pursuing free spirit?One would think that just the prospect of the adverse publicity would be enough to make the Council think again.Surprising to me that your friend has put up with it for so long.

Knowing it and proving it can be two different things though, unless you can find written evidence of this policy.