'We have compromised'

First of all, it should be remembered that, on two occasions, the Policy Council has shaken hands on a deal with employee representatives, in December 2012 and again in July 2014. On both of those occasions, the unions have stepped in and torn up those agreements.

It should also be remembered that it was as long ago as autumn 2011 that Policy Council representatives and employee representatives agreed to work together as part of a newly-formed joint working group. There was equal representation on both sides, under the independent chairmanship of Rodney Benjamin. The process since then can hardly be characterised as a 'rush headlong into a conflict'.

It was in December 2012 that the joint committee agreed on public-sector pension reform proposals that were fair to both employees and our island's community. The unions then actively intervened to ensure the agreement was torn up and employer and employees went back to the drawing board.

In September 2013, further proposals were offered to the unions, which represented significant compromise on the employer's side – indeed, the employer was criticised in some quarters for giving too much ground. The unions rejected those proposals.

To further avoid conflict, in early 2014, the Policy Council offered to put the matter to independent arbitration for binding resolution. The unions rejected that offer. Instead, they proposed mediation. In order to achieve compromise, the Policy Council agreed to that.

At the end of the lengthy and indeed costly process of mediation, on 21 July 2014, the employer and the unions reached agreement on mediated proposals and jointly signed a letter which stated the following:

'The representatives of ASEO (the Association of States Employees Organisations) present today undertake to recommend to all the constituent members of ASEO at a meeting of ASEO presently scheduled for 31 July 2014 (and in the case of the NASUWT to the national officers of that union) that each should recommend to their members that they should vote in favour of the Proposal for Future Pension Provision in the form attached ("the Proposal").

'The representatives of the States of Guernsey Policy Council present today undertake to recommend to the Policy Council at a meeting of the council presently scheduled for Monday 28 July 2014 that the Council should approve the proposal.'

It is that mediated proposal that the unions have now rejected –

despite the fact that the mediated proposal was formally agreed by their negotiators, who also signed the letter that contained the statement above.

Over the past six months, the Policy Council has made it clear that if the unions did not agree to the mediated proposal, the Policy Council would revert to the September 2013 offer, which it should be noted again was very much a compromise by the employer.

To therefore characterise the Policy Council as choosing conflict over compromise over the past three years and more is wrong and unfair. The Policy Council has sought to achieve a fair deal for public-sector employees who deliver excellent public services for our community every day.

The pension discussions are often characterised as being between two parties – employers and employees. This is also a false picture. There are three parties, as the unions have demonstrated. It is for others to decide if the negotiators of all 14 unions in this process have acted with integrity and transparency throughout this process.

What is clear is that it is not the Policy Council that has rejected compromise. The Policy Council's position has been clear and consistent. There is a compromise proposal from 2013 that has remained on the table, and which will now go the States of Deliberation, so that employees and the community can finally have resolution. The proposal is a fair offer to our valuable employees and an affordable one for taxpayers and for our whole community.

DEPUTY ALLISTER LANGLOIS,

On behalf of the Policy Council.