Monday 4 September 2017

Birmingham Bin-men: Deal or No Deal?

Birmingham Mail report By
Birmingham City Council leader John Clancy is facing calls to resign over claims he has misled the public over a deal to call off the bins strike.
In media interviews the council boss claimed that there was never a confirmed deal struck to preserve 113 leading hand binmen jobs at the current pay grade - only an agreement to put the proposals on the table for further negotiations.
But in a leaked email from the Labour leader to depot managers, sent two weeks ago after the strike was suspended, he states he and his cabinet had agreed the deal and adds that ‘all the terms of the compromise would be implemented’.
 Suspension lifted?
Cllr Clancy also told managers to lift the suspension and threat of disciplinary action against a binmen union representative.
There is no mention of this being subject to further detailed negotiations.
The strike began on June 30 but was suspended on August 15 following the announcement of the deal by the conciliation service ACAS.
The Unite union heralded it as a victory for its members threatened with redundancy or loss of pay.

But senior council officials, believed to include interim chief executive Stella Manzie, interim chief finance officer Mike O’Donnell, as well as members of the Labour cabinet refused to back the deal, amid concerns that it leaves the council open to further expensive equal pay claims from other staff.
There were also fears the proposed deal would fail to achieve the cost and efficiency targets from the reorganisation of the bins service.
  Leaked E-mail & 'breach of procedure'
A council source said that Cllr Clancy not only bypassed senior officials and colleagues in negotiating the deal, but acted against the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in instructing waste management staff that they should reinstate the union representative suspended during the dispute.
In the email - leaked to the Skwawkbox website - Cllr Clancy claims there are urgent reasons for his unusual request, but it is understood political leaders are strictly prohibited from issuing management instructions like this.
On Friday Cllr Clancy told the Birmingham Mail that it was the Unite union who misled the public over the deal, when it hailed victory in the dispute. He had said: “There was no deal – there was an agreement in principle.”
But in the leaked email, he told depot staff: “I am writing to let you know that Birmingham City Council cabinet took the decision last night to support the compromise which had been negotiated through ACAS as a step forward in achieving a longer term solution to the refuge collection dispute.
“All of the terms of the compromise will be implemented and the Council looks forward to working with the Union to progress discussions towards achieving a lasting solution which works for the staff, the Council and most importantly delivers for the people of Birmingham.
“This is a “key decision” under the Council’s Constitution and thus falls to be made by the Cabinet. Officers of the Council are required to act in accordance with cabinet decisions.
"These decisions would normally be communicated to you by officers but due to the relatively unusual circumstances in this case, I am writing to you directly to inform you of the decision that the Council has made.”
 Labour Council Boss Not Returning Calls
Cllr Clancy was not returning calls or texts today.
But sources close to the council leader said that the email referred specifically and only to the issue surrounding the suspension of the union representative and his return to work.
They said: "Cllr Clancy would not be writing to depot management about the wider issues. This was purely about the staff member.
"There was never a deal in place and Cllr Clancy never said there was. The discussions about the leading hand jobs were always subject to Cabinet approval."
 But Birmingham Lib Dem leader Cllr Jon Hunt said: “John Clancy’s position is now untenable. He has lost all authority and credibility as leader of the council. ACAS clearly believes that ‘agreement’ and ‘deal’ are the same thing.
 “To make repeated public statements that there was ‘no deal’ on August 16th – even if it was an untenable deal – has served the city badly."

No comments: