The civil Service Pay dispute has ended on a low note.

With a failure to win any pay increase for 2003 and the acceptance of a derisory 16 month pay offer for 2004, NIPSA members are now calculating the costs of what losing the dispute has meant for them and asking questions about who is to blame.

From the outset of the dispute, it became apparent that right wing members on the Civil Service Group Executive were not willing to take members out on all out strike action. Ignoring the majority vote for strike action, the Executive concentrated instead on selective action, lunch time rallies and one day strikes.

Whilst these strategies are useful to a certain extent, it was clear from the mood of the government that it was going to take something more forceful to change their minds. It was also clear from talking to members at ground level that they knew this and knew that the only way to win the dispute was to take all out strike action.

The Civil Service Executive, who were responsible for running the dispute failed to show strong leadership. After the initial successful strike day held last December, it was a further two months before the next strike day.

This delay meant that the Executive failed to seize the momentum that had gathered and their lack of action created confusion about where the dispute was going. Despite this, when management started clamping down on members which resulted in members walking out, it was evident that members were still confident and determined to take strong action.

When it became clear even to the union Executive that the selective action strategy was failing to achieve any results, it was agreed that all out action was needed to win the dispute, as the left Time for Change group had argued!! Members were then balloted at branch meetings.

Although the ballot gave a slim majority against going out on all out strike action (51%), it was evident from the results that many of the right wing Executive members had not properly argued the case for action. In DSD, where Time for Change members led the action, 61% voted to go out on all out action.

Understandably, many members are angry about how the dispute was handled. Concerns which were raised previously about the effectiveness of using selective action and the need to involve the majority of the members were ignored by the CSGE at a high price.

NIPSA needs to draw the lessons of this dispute. A special conference should be immediately held to address these questions. Members should now call for a special conference at their branch meetings and ensure that the Civil Service Group Executive are asked to examine the decisions they took and why they failed to listen to their members.

The National Joint Council (NJC) pay award for Local Government and related services was settled in July, with a three year pay deal of 8.65%.

In Northern Ireland, the implementation of the deal was halted by the Direct Rule Ministers, who demanded that an exercise was undertaken to ensure that the Treasury threshold of 3.5% was not breached.

As with the pay award to civil servants, the 3.5% was to include increments, which have never been part of annual pay settlements in the past.

The four Public Service areas affected are the Housing Executive, Health Trusts, Councils and Education Boards. By late September, under pressure from the unions, all except the Education Boards had signalled their intentions to implement the pay rises.

The left led Public Officers Executive of NIPSA agreed a two pronged approach: legal advice alongside preparation for industrial action until the Education Boards agreed to pay up in full.

The legal advice was that writs should be served on each of the five Education Boards. These were due to be served in the week beginning 27 September. On the Friday before, the managements of the five Boards gave the go ahead for the implementation of the pay award and staff will not get the rise by the end of October.

This is the second time in less than a month that the threat of determined action has forced the government to back off. Over the summer fire-fighters conducted a ballot for industrial action when New Labour Ministers intervened to prevent the final stages of their pay agreement being implemented.

When it became clear that the ballot was about to deliver a clear mandate for strike action the government gave way. This shows that action and the threat of action can get results.