Law suit 'threatens future of unions'

6:04am Friday 9th May 2008

council workers who say they were "sold down the river" by their own trade union during tough equal pay negotiations were yesterday at the centre of a landmark test case.

The 26 women are accusing the GMB Union of sex discrimination, claiming they came out "losers" when the union did a deal with Middlesbrough Council.

Their lawyers say the the union's failure to strike a better bargain with the council meant the women lost out on compensation they could have won for the past inequality between their pay and the earnings of men doing equivalent council jobs.

The union denies discriminating against any of its members and says that, if the women win their case, the consequences for British trade unionism could be devastating.

The GMB's barrister, John Cavanagh QC, told London's Appeal Court: "The importance of this case cannot be overstated. Something in the region of 40 similar claims have already been lodged in England, Wales and Scotland against the three biggest public service unions.

"These claims involve thousands of members of those unions."

Describing the case as of general public importance, Mr Cavanagh said that, if the women succeed, "it will be practically impossible for trade unions lawfully to carry out their main functions of negotiating for and representing their members in dealing with employers".

He said: "This, of course, is important not only to trade unions themselves, but to their members, employers and, indeed, central Government.

"This case raises issues of fundamental importance in relation to the scope of indirect sex discrimination."

The case centres on the GMB Union's negotiations with Middlesbrough Council and many other local authorities over the introduction of standardised employment terms - known as "The Green Book" - for all local authority workers.

The women's barrister, Andrew Stafford QC, said it was their case that the union had "sold them down the river and misled them", striking a deal which saw them lose out financially.

Mr Stafford said that, during the negotiations, the union faced competing interests within its own membership.

He described women who were paid less than men doing equivalent jobs as "have-nots" and men, who were generally better paid, as "haves".

But, he said that when the deal was struck between the union and the council, it was the "have-nots" - overwhelmingly women - who were "required to make sacrifices".

Mr Stafford argued that many of the women workers would have been entitled to compensation for past inequalities in their pay, but some of them were given no help by the union and others were persuaded to accept disadvantageous financial settlements.

However, Mr Cavanagh told the court the negotiations between the union and the council had been "extremely challenging" and the GMB's "paramount objective" had been to achieve a fair deal for all its members, "with as little collateral damage as possible".

The QC said it was inevitable that, in the equalisation of pay scales, "there would be losers as well as winners".

Some workers stood to make substantial gains, whereas others faced "drastic reductions in their take-home pay".

The women initially won a ruling at a Newcastle employment tribunal that they were victims of "indirect sex discrimination" by their union.

However, their allegations of direct discrimination were dismissed and the Employment Appeal Tribunal last year ruled that the union's actions were "objectively justified".

The women are challenging that ruling in the Court of Appeal.

The court is expected to reserve its ruling until a later date.