At an individual level, one of our members has been job-sized at salary point 2 (pound;32,601). Her present salary is pound;37,782. As she came into post in June 2001, she will only be conserved for three years and subsequently will suffer a substantial drop in salary. As she comes of pensionable age three years later, her pension and lump sum will be likewise affected.
If our colleague decides to appeal the decision and loses, conservation is immediately withdrawn and she will lose over pound;5,000 in salary for the coming three years.
This is an intolerable position for anyone to find themselves in. What makes it doubly so is that it has been negotiated by the EIS. What self-respecting trade union agrees to a wage cut for its own members ? What now of the earlier EIS statement on job-sizing that "at least from a financial perspective, there are no losers". This is demonstrably untrue.
In what way is natural justice served when an appeal can cost a member in excess of pound;15,000? Is this even in accord with EU legislation? Surely this cannot be allowed to stand?
The manner in which the job-sizing exercise has been conducted is also highly questionable. The difference in outcome between local authorities, between schools in the same authority and between individuals in the same schools completely undermines its validity.
The entire job-sizing exercise, far from being fair, objective and transparent has been inequitable, arbitrary and obscure.
Danny Kane Educational Institute of Scotland representative Lenzie Academy East Dunbartonshire