Posted on: 15/05/2025

Thought Leadership

Equal pay in local government remains a challenge despite clear frameworks like the Single Status Agreement and job evaluation schemes. The issue often lies in inconsistent local implementation, grade drift, and reduced JE expertise. Councils must commit to transparency, regular audits, and staff training to address these gaps. Long-term fairness requires a strategic approach, not just reactive fixes, to prevent costly claims and rebuild trust in pay equity.

By Lorna Wells LLM FCIPD is principal HR consultant at West Midlands Employers

Equal pay in local government continues to challenge us—despite strong frameworks and shared intentions. So where are the gaps?

It’s not that we don’t have the right tools—we do. The nationally agreed job evaluation scheme and clear legal guidance provide a solid foundation. But over time, we’ve seen a shift in how these tools are used.

Job evaluation is often treated as a technical task, when in reality, it’s part of a wider fair pay and grading system which the organisation must own. Getting it right takes more than process—it takes purpose.

In October 2024, Sheffield City Council became the latest authority to address thousands of equal pay claims, following in the footsteps of Glasgow, Sunderland, Birmingham, and Coventry. These cases have not only led to substantial financial liabilities but also prompted industrial action—placing public sector pay inequality firmly back under the spotlight.

These examples prompt us to reflect: how can we move from reactive fixes to long-term, sustainable fairness?

At first glance, this shouldn’t be such a persistent issue. The local government sector benefits from a nationally agreed job evaluation (JE) scheme, a single national pay spine, and centrally negotiated pay awards. So why is equal pay still so difficult to achieve?

The answer lies in the complexity of local implementation. While the pay spine is consistent across councils, how it's applied locally varies significantly. Each authority sets its own grade boundaries, and although many councils share broadly similar grading structures, some have introduced broader, less specific pay bands that are more vulnerable to challenge.

The foundations for equal pay in local government were laid back in 1997 with the Single Status Agreement. This landmark deal was intended to harmonise terms and conditions across different staff groups and introduce a jointly developed JE scheme for all employees covered by the “Green Book”. Its core purpose was to ensure equal pay for work of equal value—a legal obligation now enshrined in the Equality Act 2010.

However, the implementation of Single Status was far from uniform. Unlike the NHS, which adopted the nationally managed Agenda for Change, local government relied on decentralised, council-by-council implementation. In some instances, historic pay disparities between male- and female-dominated roles were not corrected but merely repackaged. For example, traditional bonuses tied to male-dominated roles were sometimes consolidated into basic pay rather than removed, maintaining the pay imbalance under a different guise. Similarly, the continuation of “task and finish” practices inflated hourly rates in certain jobs, once again undermining the principle of equal value for equal work.

Even when JE schemes have been assessed as equal pay compliant, their success depends on how well they are applied. This requires trained evaluators, robust moderation processes, and regular, systematic reviews to ensure consistent application across the organisation. Where these elements are missing—or where skills and expertise are lacking—discrepancies inevitably arise.

Elephant in the room time, pressure from management to deliver a certain grade outcome leads to the problems of grade drift or grade suppression. Arising when there’s pressure either to justify a higher grade in response to recruitment market challenges, to suppress a grade to meet tight budget constraints. In both cases, evaluations risk being conducted ‘back to front’, starting with a desired pay outcome rather than an objective assessment of the role. This manipulation undermines the integrity of the process and creates significant long-term risks for equal pay compliance. These pressures are rarely about bad intent—they often stem from the real-world challenges of recruitment, retention, and financial constraint, but without sufficient safeguards, the integrity of systems is damaged.

Unfortunately, the capacity to maintain rigorous JE processes has diminished over time. Teams once dedicated to Single Status have been downsized or disbanded altogether. In many councils, JE responsibilities have become absorbed into already overstretched HR roles. Meanwhile, the pool of professionals with deep expertise in the NJC 13-factor scheme has significantly shrunk.

While the challenges are real, this is not a hopeless situation. With proactive management and a commitment to fairness, councils can take meaningful steps to minimise liability and embed lasting solutions.

The first step is transparency. Conducting a thorough equal pay audit is essential—ignoring problems won’t make them disappear. Once issues are identified, councils must invest in updating the skills of everyone involved in the JE process. This includes training for HR professionals, line managers, and union representatives to ensure evaluations are carried out consistently and in line with best practice.

Councils should also review how job evaluations are moderated and monitored across the organisation. Continuous oversight is key, and where internal expertise is lacking, technical advice from external specialists may be necessary.

Finally, any changes to grading structures must be carefully planned, fully understood, and subjected to equality impact assessments. Adjusting pay structures is a sensitive and complex undertaking, particularly where some employees may see a reduction in pay—but failing to act only compounds the risk.

There’s real value in councils learning from each other. Sharing what works, being open about where it hasn’t, and building confidence in the process can help us all move forward with more certainty. Job evaluation may not be rocket science, but addressing equal pay is undeniably challenging. The issues are systemic, long-standing, and require a whole-organisation approach to resolve. Some authorities have settled large claims without tackling the root cause—leaving them exposed to future disputes. The solutions aren’t simple, but taking no action is too big a risk to contemplate.... The reality is that resolving equal pay issues requires significant and sustained effort. The longer inconsistencies are allowed to persist, the greater the liability—and the further we drift from the principle of fairness that public service is meant to uphold. Ultimately the fairness and compliance in pay decisions is a value that we all share and absolutely can be achieved with the right approach.