In 2012, Birmingham City Council was found by the Supreme Court to have breached equal pay legislation in response to claims brought by 174 workers. It had failed to pay the same bonuses to teaching assistants and lunchtime supervisors, roles more likely to be carried out by women, which it paid to refuse workers, roles carried out almost exclusively by men. Since that finding, the Council has paid out over £1 billion to settle equal pay claims. In 2023, it issued an S114 notice, declaring itself effectively bankrupt.

The 2025 strike by refuse collectors is related to this situation, with Birmingham City Council wanting to scrap the refuse collector/driver WRCO role, stating the existence of the role leaves it open to further equal pay claims. Refuse collectors, on the other hand, see the WRCO role as an opportunity for promotion and a rise in salary.

The situation has led some to question whether the idea of equal pay for work  of equal value is perverse, imputing sex discrimination to company management where it doesn’t exist, and leaving all citizens poorer. Birmingham residents now have to find money to pay increased council taxes and for services the council no longer provides. It is certainly not the basis on which Barbara Castle introduced equal pay legislation in 1971. “…men, of course,” said Castle, pondering the concept, “have never had equal pay for work of equal value.”

Meanwhile, the Employment Rights Bill making its way through Parliament seeks to introduce the ability for employees to bring claims of harassment at work against third parties they encounter in the course of work - so-called banter bans. An employee overhearing an opinion voiced by a member of the public with which they disagree in the course of their work could potentially claim harassment. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has raised a concern to Parliament over how the right to freedom of expression of third parties is balanced with the employee’s right to protection from harassment.

Employees wanting to bring claims under existing legislation deal with a tribunal system with a backlog of around 50,000 cases involving 450,000 workers. The introduction of Day 1 unfair dismissal rights through the Employment Rights Bill is likely to worsen this situation. The Chartered Institute for Personnel Development states that the U.K. has relatively low employment protections compared to other OECD countries, but our employment rate is higher, with a much smaller percentage in less secure temporary work. Is that about to change with the extra legislative impositions?

Speakers:

Daniel Dieppe -  Daniel is a researcher at Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society.

Rosie Cuckston - Rosie is an HR Business Partner with a global technology company.

Chair: Simon Curtis, Salon organiser