Sir, I refer to your article and Comment on the staff of South Lakeland District Council (Gazette, September 17, Council's staff to bear brunt of £1m shortfall' and Comment, Authority faces hard choices').

There were certain assumptions made in your report and we feel it is appropriate that a response is made. It is understandable that there is some confusion considering the difficulty the Gazette appears to have obtaining information.

The staff employed by the council are anxious that accurate information is in the public domain and to this end we would like to shed light on several comments in your newspaper.

We would challenge your comment that the council had only three options available. Other options, including efficiency savings, based on reducing staff and management by restricting recruitment and working more efficiently, would reduce costs. This suggestion was put forward by the unions as we wished to explore all opportunities to make the scheme affordable. The council rejected this.

The only option was to reduce the pay bill? This is not rocket science and the unions have never said in any of our discussions with the council that this would not be the ultimate aim; it is how you achieve that aim. The proposals will not affect all staff equally and will not affect the top management of the authority at all.

We would take issue with the comment that after six years you would have expected us to get it right.

The unions did get the job evaluation exercise right; indeed the authority got it right, it was not flawed. The unions negotiated an equal pay agreement to end discrimination in the work place primarily against women; all employers are required to end this discrimination. Women are at present paid 19 per cent less than men, why?

What appeared to go wrong was the implementation of the grading structure that was questioned by the trade unions before it was implemented.

Staff in the council lost pay as a result of Job Evaluation but accepted this, as it was part of an effort to end discrimination. They also lost enhancements to pay for working unsociable hours and weekends. Staff also lost bonus payments and they would certainly challenge the comment "a red letter day".

You suggest that the council be left with no option. The unions have not as yet been presented with alternative pay and grading structure.

The discussions started in March 2004 but most of that time was spent identifying what went wrong.

The union representatives did receive information but they were bound by confidentiality rules, which meant we could not even discuss detail with our members; we are still bound by that undertaking. The union has therefore limited its response to answering the comments already published in your newspaper.

There are legal implications in what the council is proposing and the union will have to explore what options are available to its members.

The unions have attempted throughout this difficult time to be open and honest. It is not in our members' interest to negotiate unaffordable equal pay agreements. The alternative to an agreement would have been costly litigation on correcting discrimination in the workplace, a cost some other councils appear to be willing to pay.

The unions negotiated an equal pay structure. This was successful, there was always going to be a cost but the cost was not calculated by the unions or staff but in the end they will be the ones to pay the price.

Vivienne Procter.

UNISON Branch Secretary