UNISON has won a four-year battle for pay justice that could affect around 800 union members working for the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA).
The union challenged the LFEPA’s decision not to honour the third year of an agreed pay deal that would have given fire and rescue staff a 2.5% pay rise in April 2009.
The claim could be worth hundreds of thousand pounds, as the 2.5% pay increase is payable from April 2009 onwards for four years. It will have a cumulative or compounding effect on past and future increases.
The LEFPA could have remedied this easily by paying the amount agreed between the union and employer, but intransigence saw some low-paid workers earning as little as £13,627 per annum missing out on the agreed pay increase.
The case Ms Anderson & ors and Phillips and ors v London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority went to the Court of Appeal in London on 13 March 2013.
The unanimous decision in favour of the union states: “In my judgment, it means that in that year the employees would receive an increase of 2.5% or NJC plus 1%, whichever was the greater. Looking at the matter objectively, no other meaning made or would have made industrial sense.
“No other meaning would have represented a three-year deal which the unions would have contemplated and, objectively, that must have been obvious to the employer”.
UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis said: “When employers make an agreement with UNISON we expect them to stick to it. Trust is an integral part of any negotiations and I am pleased that we have been able to deliver pay justice to our members at the LFEPA.
“Times are tough for many public service workers without being denied a pay rise that they are entitled to.
“It has taken a four year legal battle to win this case. Without the union to fight this case the employers would have got away with a gross injustice and members and their families would have lost out.”
UNISON LFEPA branch secretary Tony Phillips said: “Fire and Rescue staff are delighted with the successful outcome of this case. We hope that it will show unscrupulous employers that they cannot get away with reneging on written agreements with trade unions when they no longer suit them”.
UNISON is warning that the judgment could be used as precedent to scotch attempts by employers to take an unduly technical approach when applying collective agreements. It is also an authority for collective agreements having enforceable rights for workers.
The employer in this case tried to take a literal approach to the wording of the industrial agreement to save money. The Court of Appeal said the employer’s argument “makes no real sense”.
