Glasgow Health Visitor Strike Ballot Over Job Evaluation Delays 2026

Key points

• The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) is balloting health visitor team leaders employed by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde on potential strike action in a dispute over delayed job evaluation processes.
• The balloting, which opened on Tuesday 5 May 2026, asks members what industrial action they would support up to and including strike action.
• The dispute centres on Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership health visitor team leaders, whose updated job description was agreed locally and submitted for evaluation in July 2025, but has yet to be assessed by the job evaluation panel.
• RCN Scotland claims NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has not followed the nationally agreed job evaluation process, and has also requested further amendments to the job description despite it already being agreed.
• Joint trade unions have formally raised the dispute with the health board, following concerns about the board’s approach to job evaluation and adherence to national guidance.
• The case comes after an earlier dispute involving district nurses in Glasgow, which led the Scottish Terms and Conditions Committee to issue updated guidance requiring all health boards to follow the national process.
• RCN Scotland’s head of pay, terms and conditions, Philip Coghill, said the health board’s behaviour contravenes national guidance and demoralises frontline staff, while striking would be a “last resort” if no resolution is reached.
• A spokesperson for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde said the board greatly values health visitor team leaders and is working with trade unions to agree an accurate job description and submit it for evaluation.

Glasgow (Glasgow Express) May 7, 2026 has launched a statutory ballot of health visitor team leaders employed by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde on potential strike action, following a prolonged dispute over delayed job evaluations. The ballot, which opened on Tuesday 5 May 2026, is being conducted by RCN Scotland and asks members what level of industrial action they would support, including the option of strike action if the disagreement is not resolved.

According to the RCN, the conflict centres on health visitor team leaders working within the Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership, whose job description was revised more than two years ago as part of a local agreement with the employer.

The updated description was agreed by the line manager and formally submitted for job evaluation in July 2025, but the application has still not been considered by the relevant job evaluation panel under the Scotland‑wide national process.

How has NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde handled the job‑evaluation request?

RCN Scotland states that, in addition to not progressing the evaluation, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has requested further amendments to the job description, despite the fact that a revised version had already been agreed at the local level.

The union argues this has effectively stalled the process and left team leaders in a state of uncertainty over their grading and pay banding.

Joint trade unions have formally raised the dispute with the health board, citing broader concerns about the board’s approach to job evaluation and its compliance with nationally agreed protocols.

The RCN notes that the Scottish Terms and Conditions Committee has previously issued updated guidance affirming that all health boards across Scotland are expected to follow the national job evaluation process, a framework that was reinforced after an earlier dispute involving district nurses in Glasgow.

How does this case relate to earlier disputes in Glasgow’s NHS?

As reported by RCN Scotland and covered by Nursing in Practice, Glasgow has seen a similar dispute in recent years involving district nurses employed by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

In that earlier case, district nurses argued that their updated job description had also not been run through the national job evaluation process, despite being ready for assessment, which they said led to inappropriate pay banding and undervaluation of their skills.

Following an indicative ballot in which a large majority of district nurse members indicated willingness to strike, and subsequent pressure from RCN, the health board agreed to progress the job descriptions through the evaluation panel.

In late 2025, RCN announced that eligible district nurses with the specialist qualification would be re‑banded to band 7, with the change backdated to May 2022, effectively resolving the dispute, though the formal trade‑dispute procedures remained in place until all staff received the appropriate uplift and back‑pay.

Unions now argue that the current situation with health visitor team leaders mirrors those earlier concerns and suggests a pattern of the health board operating outside the nationally agreed process.

What are the union’s main arguments against the health board’s approach?

RCN Scotland’s head of pay, terms and conditions, Philip Coghill, has publicly criticised NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde for what he describes as a failure to adhere to national protocols.

As reported by Nursing in Practice, Coghill stated that the health board’s behaviour “directly contravenes national guidance” and amounts to “unfair treatment” of a group of staff whose expertise and skills should be formally recognised through the proper evaluation route.

Coghill told the publication that this is “yet another example” of the health board believing it can operate outside the nationally agreed framework, which in turn

“actively suppresses and demoralises frontline staff.”

He added that while the union remains in discussions with the health board, members have expressed “deep dissatisfaction and anger” over the delays, and that taking industrial action would be a “last resort” if progress continues to stall.

How is NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde responding to the dispute?

In response, a spokesperson for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde told Nursing in Practice that the board “greatly values the work of our health visitor team leaders” and is working closely with trade union colleagues to resolve the matter “as quickly as possible.”

The spokesperson confirmed that steps are being taken to “agree an accurate job description for these roles,” which will then be submitted to a job evaluation panel for formal assessment.

The health board’s statement emphasises a commitment to resolving the issue through dialogue rather than industrial action, but does not specify a timetable for when the revised job description will be finalised or when the evaluation panel process is expected to conclude.

A spokesperson for Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership, which oversees the roles in question, has also reiterated the importance of ensuring that job descriptions accurately reflect the responsibilities of health visitor team leaders before they are submitted for evaluation.

What are the wider implications for health visitor services and families in Glasgow?

Local health visitor services play a critical preventive role in Glasgow, supporting families from pregnancy through early childhood, monitoring child development, and identifying emerging health or safeguarding issues.

If the dispute escalates to full‑scale strike action, families could face delays in routine health‑visitor contacts, including post‑natal checks, developmental assessments, and targeted support for vulnerable households.

Due to the structure of the statutory ballot, any industrial action would only be considered if the RCN secures a legal mandate under the UK’s industrial relations rules, and any strike would need to comply with notice‑period and ballot‑validity requirements.

Until the ballot closes and the results are formally announced, the immediate impact on services is expected to remain limited, though the prospect of industrial action has already heightened concerns among some families and community‑health partners.

Background: How job evaluation works in Scotland’s NHS and why it matters

In Scotland, job evaluation is a nationally agreed process used to determine the pay band of NHS roles by assessing the level of responsibility, complexity, and required skills against a standard framework. Where a role is updated or re‑designed—such as when a health visitor team leader’s duties are expanded—employers are expected to submit the revised job description to an independent evaluation panel so that banding and pay can be reassessed in line with the national guidance.

The dispute involving district nurses in Glasgow, which concluded in late 2025, led the Scottish Terms and Conditions Committee to reiterate that all health boards must follow this national process, rather than adopting local shortcuts or prolonged delays.

The current case with health visitor team leaders is being framed by the RCN as a test of whether that guidance is being consistently applied across NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s workforce.

From a workforce perspective, delayed job evaluations can directly affect retention and morale, particularly in roles such as health visiting and district nursing where responsibilities have expanded over time without corresponding recognition in pay or grading.

For families and wider communities, unresolved disputes risk destabilising services that rely heavily on experienced specialist staff, especially in deprived areas of Glasgow where health‑visitor‑led interventions are often most intensive.

Prediction: How this dispute could affect families, staff, and health‑board planning

If the strike ballot returns a mandate for industrial action and no resolution is reached, there is a realistic possibility that health visitor team leaders in Glasgow could participate in limited or sustained strike action, depending on the ballot result and any subsequent negotiations.

That would likely force NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to re‑deploy staff, prioritise the most urgent cases, and potentially delay routine health‑visitor contacts, which could disproportionately affect families in vulnerable or high‑risk households.

For the staff themselves, the dispute could either strengthen the RCN’s bargaining position—potentially leading to faster re‑banding and clearer processes in future—or deepen frustration if the evaluation process remains slow or inconsistent, which may affect recruitment and retention in already‑stretched community‑health teams. For the health board, a protracted dispute could prompt further scrutiny from the Scottish government and the Scottish Terms and Conditions Committee, which may press for more rigorous oversight of how job evaluation is handled across all NHS boards in Scotland.