- 4-
41/1.
Pay Review Machinery (28)
Mr. Clinton noted that the report by the Controller, P.I.U. on the feasibility of creating a new price index had been discussed in general terms at the May G.P. Committee mecting and enquired whether the staff side wished further discussion at Council level. Mr. Hodson said the staff side would prefer to discuss their letter of 10th June which sought an immediate 3% pay increase retrospective to 1st April 1968, and, in addition, 3% per year increases in each of the three subsequent years. Mr. Clinton said his first reaction to the letter was that it appeared to be inconsistent in that it said the 8% increase in 1968 "put matters right" but went on to claim a further 3%. Mr. Hodson said the staff side view was that the 8% only "put matters right" up to 1st April 1968 and that a case existed for a further increase w.e.f. that date. He added that the staff side had recorded this view at the time the 5% pay increase proposals had been discussed in 1968 and the Report of the Controller, P.I.U. appeared to justify this. Mr. Henderson enquired whether the staff side would be commenting further on the Controller's report. Mr. Hodson said his association did not agree with the Controller's view that one price index should suffice for the whole service and they would forward their further comments on the Report after staff side discussion. The other associations had no comments on the Report at this time.
Mr.
41/2. Mr. Hodson emphasised the staff side's wish that consideration of their claim for a 3% annual increase for three years w.e.f. 1.4.59 should not interfere with their claim for a 3% increase retrospective to 1.4.68 and enquired when the staff side could expect their claims to be met. Clinton pointed out that the P.I.U. Report had advocated that there should be no pay adjustments until the index had risen by at least 5 points and explained that the claims would require thorough examination by Secretariat branches before reference to Finance Committee. He hoped, nevertheless, this could be done quickly and before the next meeting of the Council. He noted the staff side's preference for small increases at shorter intervals instead of the large increases occasioned by previous salary reviews and added that he was generally in agreement with this view. Mr. Henderson added that the implications of the claims on other sectors of the service (e.g. Scale 1 and Superscale staff) would also need thorough examination. He could not say how long this would take but hoped that any review authorised as a result of the claims would be completed in less time than the 1968 Salaries Review which took about three months to produce and another three months to consider.
/ 42/1