Taylor Wimpey has asked around 50 directly employed joiners and scaffolders in north-east England to sign new contracts on reduced terms, after a pay review found they were earning nearly 25% more than comparable roles, with higher bonuses making up most of the difference.
The house builder said the discrepancy emerged during regular pay audits of workers it employs directly. It described the exercise as routine benchmarking and said it identified a small number of Direct Labour roles in its North East business where current terms and conditions were significantly ahead of comparable rates and required review.
The gap was mainly accounted for by higher bonuses rather than by differences in the roles themselves, and the affected staff are joiners and scaffolders working in the North East, according to the account of the review. The audit covered staff employed directly by the company, and the roles concerned are described by the firm as Direct Labour posts within its North East business.
Unite challenges the change
Unite has condemned the move. Greg Robson, a regional officer at the union, said Taylor Wimpey had serious questions to answer about how it has treated the affected workers. He said the union would keep supporting its members through the process and would press the company for the information it is entitled to, and that it was looking at all avenues to fight the decision, including industrial action.
Consultation and grievance
Taylor Wimpey said the consultation process had been concluded fairly and openly and that it had consulted ACAS. A grievance has been raised in line with the Construction Joint Industry Council Working Rule Agreement, and the company said it was committed to engaging fully with employees before a final resolution is reached, with several potential outcomes still under consideration.
The company added that it was committed to ensuring all employees are treated fairly and consistently across the business and throughout the process.
The two accounts frame the same decision differently. Taylor Wimpey presents the review as a consistency measure, arguing that pay significantly ahead of comparable rates needed correcting; Unite presents it as a question of how a group of directly employed tradespeople has been treated, and has not ruled out industrial action.
The dispute therefore turns on two points: whether terms that ran well ahead of comparable rates should be brought into line, which the company treats as a benchmarking matter, and how the change has been handled for the staff concerned, which is the focus of the union's complaint and of the grievance now lodged.
How many of the affected workers have signed the new contracts was not specified, nor was the timetable for the grievance procedure or the final shape of the revised terms.