By Carmelo Garcia – Local Democracy Reporter
Gloucestershire hospital bosses have been accused of “dishonesty” and “misleading the public” amid a dispute over phlebotomists’ pay.
More than 20 staff, who are currently two months into strike action, protested outside a meeting of hospital bosses in Cheltenham today.
They want their job to be re-evaluated and moved from band two to band three.
Currently, band two staff are paid a salary of £24,169 while band three staff are paid £24,625 annually – this is increased to £25,674 for those with more than two years’ experience.
Several questions were tabled about the pay dispute at the Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust board meeting which took place at Sanford Education Centre in Keynsham Road.
Phlebotomist Caroline Hayhurst told the meeting that the hospital trust had violated their NHS job evaluation scheme and breached an agreed policy and procedure. She said this was subject to a whistleblowing complaint.
“We believe that senior managers have misled the board, governors and public about their actions,” she said. “We wish to ask the board about their understanding of the situation.”
She said phlebotomists are skilled clinical staff who are required to undertake non-routine procedures.
“This places us, according to the NHS job evaluation scheme at band three,” she said.
“We have provided clear and extensive documentary evidence to demonstrate this.
“Under the NHS job evaluation scheme and the trust’s own agreed policy, the posts need to be evaluated and matched with national role profiles by a job evaluation panel.
“The trust’s panel did not agree that our description was aligned to a band two role because our knowledge, training and experience is at a higher level.
“The panel was then blocked from matching us to band three by trust managers. And were not allowed to reconvene.
“This is a direct breach of the NHS job evaluation scheme and local policy and procedure.”
She said the co-chair of the NHS staff council and UNISON head of health has written to express serious concerns.
Requests for information and transparency have been ignored, she added.
“Why will the trust not allow a job evaluation panel to assess our jobs,” she said.
Claire Radley, director for people and organisational development, said the trust did not agree that there had been a breach of the NHS job evaluation scheme or trust policy.
She said they have followed the NHS job evaluation handbook closely which says requests for evaluation need an amended agreed job description or agreed evidence showing which skills and responsibilities are applicable to the post have changed.
“They should also provide details of the changed job demands which have led to them to believe there is a change in factor levels,” she said.
She said HR listened to the concerns and provided advice which included confirming they should work with their line manager to review their job description and agree changes.
Although the union had confirmed in the meeting of March 11, 2025 that the job description had not changed she said the trust decided to undertake a review.
“The trust decision following the review is that the current phlebotomist job description remains aligned with band two,” she said.
“This is also consistent with other trusts in the South West and the country who continue to use the phlebotomist band two national profile.”
Dawny Elliott said in her question that not a single member of senior management or human resources has met with them to discuss their banding.
“The trust has repeatedly claimed that they have not been sent information that was requested from us. But we sent this in November.”
She said the trust has been made aware of possible band three post roles they can be matched to and have all the information needed.
Ms Elliott said they had cooperated at every stage of the process and in return received a “total lack of transparency”.
“Why is the trust being dishonest in their communication with other staff and the public?”
In response, Ms Radley said they hold a different view on the lack of meetings. She said a UNISON representative, phlebotomists and senior HR colleagues met to discuss the dispute on March 11, 2025.
Ms Radley said it was confirmed in a later email that the next steps the trust was taking in relation to the dispute and that there had been “several meetings” regarding the banding.
“There is some confusion arising between what the trust has requested and requires and what the phlebotomists have provided,” she said.
She said HR requested an amended job description on November 15 last year in agreement with their line manager.
However, she said the job description received by HR did not have any changes and was emailed from phlebotomists with supplementary information and not from the line manager as they had requested.
“We asked for an amended job description because this is what is required for the job evaluation process,” she said.
“And the line manager is required to send the job description through confirming their agreement with the changes and for it to be considered.”
She said the supplementary information submitted by phlebotomists was shared by HR and used as part of a review.
Trust board chairman Deborah Evans said the trust would like to have a meeting with the union to reconsider the issues and try to work together.