Full text
The Soulbury Committee
OFFICERS’ SIDE
Dear David
Soulbury Pay
Thank you for the pay offer of 7 October. Following consultation with our respective memberships and executives, the unions jointly reject the pay offer of 3.2% on all pay points and allowances from 1 September 2025.
Colleagues note that for several years a poor offer has been implemented in the hope of a better offer being forthcoming the following year. Yet with no real improvements either in quantum or process, the result has been significant damage to Soulbury Officer pay including major real terms pay cuts.
The unions wish to see a robust negotiation process with transparency around costs. The joint union pay claim set out a strong factual case based on actual statistics whereas the Employers’ Side response is based on vague statements that the claim would impact on council services but with no evidence and costings data to back up such claims.
Our members want to see a detailed breakdown of both the cost of the joint union claim as understood by the employer, together with the costs of the offer from the Employers’ Side. We estimate, for example, that a 5% increase based on some 4,500 Soulbury staff across the UK would cost in the region of £19m, with the cost of the Employers’ Side offer being around £13m.
We question the extent to which an additional £6m significantly does impact on council services spread across some 150 UK local authorities and we request evidence of such significant impact compared to the damage done by another real terms pay cut for Soulbury Officers. It is impossible to discuss Soulbury Officer pay meaningfully without taking account of issues such as agency costs resulting from vacancies. Providing appropriate pay and conditions for Soulbury Officers can support and target early intervention, providing immense benefits.
We also wish to make meaningful progress on SPA points, London Area Payments and other structural issues as set out in the joint union pay claim. Again, we need to see detailed evidence for any claims that making progress on these issues would be too costly.
The unions seek meaningful negotiations, together with a breakdown of costings in both cash and percentage terms. If members on the Employers’ Side are adamant that they cannot provide a more meaningful pay offer, then they need to be prepared to come and present and defend that message in person.
The Officers’ Side therefore urges the Employers’ Side to engage in meaningful negotiations to improve the pay offer and we wish to request a full meeting of the Soulbury Committee as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely
DAVID POWELL
Officers’ Side Secretary