From the outset, the NEC and national officials failed in their elementary duty to challenge the Government’s pro-rata approach and other restrictions on the payment of the lump sum. It is a sorry, embarrassing, saga:

On 2 June the Minister for the Cabinet Office briefed Mark Serwotka regarding the Government’s package of measures.

In a follow up to the General Secretary the same day, the Minister stated “The Government will issue an addendum to the 2023/24 Pay Remit Guidance which will enable departments…to have flexibility to make a fixed non-consolidated payment of £1,500 per full-time employee…subject to eligibility. You will be aware that departments should have regard to their policies on part time working and consider making the non-consolidated payment on a pro rata basis.”

The Government addendum stated, “under this Addendum, departments are able to award civil servants a fixed non-consolidated payment of £1,500 per full-time employee, subject to eligibility.”

At no point during the meeting or after reading the minister’s letter or after reading the addendum did the relevant PCS national negotiator(s) demand:

• A commitment that part time members would receive the £1,500 in full.
• The equality evidence that had been considered by Ministers and officials, at the point of (lump sum) policy creation; specifically, the equality evidence regarding the obligation or entitlement of BU to pay on a pro rata basis, affecting female time part time employees, other carers, and employees whose health does prevents them from working full time.

It is an elementary trade union equality duty to ask for the equality evidence and equality impact assessment considered by the employer during any policy formulation, to ensure that our members are not impacted adversely by protected characteristic and that public bodies are complying with their legal duties. Our leadership failed in this duty.

The only record provided by PCS to members as to what the General Secretary said to the Minister on 2^nd June is that he “welcomed the fact that the government and Cabinet Office has now listened and responded to the concerns of our members…” No equality concerns there though.

In subsequent videos, emails, and website briefings, there was no mention of the pro-rata issue despite its obvious equality importance, its relevance to so many members and the pressure exerted by activists such as those of us in the PCS Independent Left.

On 6 June, Paul O’Connor, a senior PCS full-timer and Left Unity’s candidate for Assistant General Secretary, issued “further guidance for negotiators on [pay] approach to take at delegated level.” This further guidance:

• Explicitly told pay negotiators to “seek a clear, up-front commitment to the payment of the £1,500 lump sum for all staff (pro rata where applicable)” [emphasis added].
• Did not provide guidance to negotiators as to when pro rata-payment would be “applicable.”
• Did not provide guidance as to the reasons for the leadership’s belief that a pro-rata payment could ever be “applicable” in relation to a one off, flat rate, non-pensionable, lump sum granted in recognition of the pressures of high inflation.
• Did not advise negotiators to reject the pro rata payment as discriminatory (Mark Serwotka’s belated discovery).
• Did not advise negotiators to seek the equality evidence and any equality impact assessment considered by management when formulating a decision to pro rata payment.
• Did not provide any guidance to negotiators concerning the relevance of aspects of law, such as the Public Sector Equality Duty.
• Did not express a single equality concern about the payment of the lump sum on a pro-rata basis.
• Advised, “If the £1500 lump sum payments are confirmed negotiators may enter into talks over the 2023/24 pay remit”, having already noted that “where applicable” payment would be pro rata, and it did so without any equality concern.

It took the General Secretary 28 days, from the Minister’s briefing/letter/addendum, to write to the minister about this issue. It is clear from the PCS report that he did so following membership anger.

Even then, it seems from the PCS website report, the General Secretary did not ask to see the equality evidence that had been considered by Ministers and officials at the point of policy creation. It really is a basic challenge for national negotiators to issue…but they do not seem to understand that.

In his letter, The General Secretary pointed out that, “the result of pro-rating the payments will be that the lowest paid, a majority of whom are women, and including those who have to claim Universal Credit because their salaries are so low and who will have their benefit payments reduced by the lump sum, will receive the least money in their pockets relative to higher paid colleagues.” But he took 28 days to make this obvious point to the Minister! It was too late. And again, in the early leadership briefings, there was no concern with the impact of a single lump sum payment on recipients of Universal Credit. That issue had to be raised by members and reps on the ground.

He also:

• Advised the Minister, “We regard [pro rata payment] as discriminatory and would have to consider our legal options if it is not addressed.” But He thereby let the Minister know that the PCS leadership either had not considered its legal options or had done so but was unconfident. For certain, we are still awaiting a report of the leadership’s considerations of its legal options.
• Complained of the qualifying requirement for staff to have been in post on 31 March 2023. But this qualifying requirement had been set out clearly in the Addendum, its impact was obvious, and yet it had not provoked a timely response from the leadership.
• He did not mention the requirement to be in post at the point of payment. But this date, like the 31 March date, can bar from payment members who were on unpaid special leave at one of the dates.

Frankly, the leadership was too busy, too desperately, selling this issue as a reason for stopping strike action – even though the Government did not make payment conditional on PCS halting action.