Re: Changes in Severance Terms

Thanks for the responses.

However I do think that public sector staff should be treated no differently from other staff generally. I merely referred to the point that changes were made without trade union agreement as it is accepted that local authorities, being employers of relatively large numbers of staff, would seek to make changes in terms and conditions of employment through trade union consultation and agreement rather than seek such agreement with individual members of staff. You have answered your own point. They woulld seek to make changes with agreement. It is not compulsory that they do. They failed to reach agreemnet wit the unions (at the moment they seldom do). So what are you going to do about it? Because your union now needs you. To take industrial action to proect your conditions. The numbers of staff in a workpace have nothing to do with anythiing - the power of a union depnds on the members willingness to fight for their conditions.

Notwithstanding the fact that acting to reduce severance payments in advance of the need to make staff redundant is somewhat cynical, Cynical it may be - unlawful it is not. Join half of the rest of the public sector - this is realitythe fundamental point here is whether such changes can be implemented retrospectively. They aren't being imposed retrospectively. The changes were made then - you are redundant now.

For example, there has been much debate in relation to the public sector in making changes to what are seen as being the very generous final salary pension arrangements as compared with the usually defined pension benefits that are increasingly applied in the private sector. Indeed in recent times, I have noted some changes in the local government pension scheme. However such changes have not been implemented retrospectively in that previous entitlement prior to the imposition of change has been protected. Not entirely true - and totally irrelevant. The point in question is not the pension scheme - it is your authorities redudancy scheme.

Arguably therefore this may set a precedent in itself as it would not appear not to be reasonable for some changes to be applied retrospectively and some not. Not arguably in law.

I would be interesting if anyone has any further views on this as I am sure that there must be some restriction as to when changes in terms and conditions can be applied retrospectively.

I would add, as I have some experience in this regard in a professional capacity, that I have also raised a query with the Council concerned as to whether an Equality Impactment Assessment was carried out as part of the report made to members in making their approval. Impressive. Really?. A whole question about a non-statutory impact assessment? Wow. Compared to 30 + years as a barrister in employment law (me) and a similar backgraound for Atlas in public sector unions. Knock yourslef out mate!

By way of a separate argument, if such an EIA was not carried out, it could be further argued that approving such changes would impact more significantly on older employees particularly those of long service and that consequently due regard should have been made by elected members as part of their decision?