Striking museum staff have hit out at the city’s Labour administration for backing what they say is a “fire and rehire” policy.
Brighton and Hove Museums, which took on staff previously employed by Brighton and Hove City Council five years ago, has asked employees to sign new contracts which remove the right to the same pay rises council staff get.
Staff say they’ve been told this is a result of a new funding agreement with the council, which no longer has money ringfenced to pay for this, and removes a condition requiring it.
The council still owns the museums, Preston Manor and the Royal Pavilion, but set up the trust to run them in 2020, when it was promised staff would continue to have the same rights as council staff.
The trust denies it is implementing a “fire and rehire” policy. Following a strike on Saturday, 4 April, another strike is due to be held on Wednesday.
One staff member, who wanted to remain anonymous, said: “The council has reneged on its promise there wouldn’t be a two-tier workforce.
“Our employer has used the threat of fire and rehire – and has told us this is coming from a Labour council at arm’s length.
“This is a Labour administration that has publicly stated that it is against fire and rehire as a practice in the city.
“So, while taking public credit for being anti fire and rehire, they are actively and secretly pushing to do exactly that to all the Royal Pavilion and museum staff.”
He said that of the roughly 160 people who work for the trust, more than 100 are members of the GMB union, and about another 30 of Unison, all of whom have been advised by their unions not to sign the new contracts.
The new contracts have also been slammed by former Labour Kemptown MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle, who who has since joined the Green Party.
He said: “This is a clear case of broken promises. Staff were told their pay and conditions would be protected, and that has been quietly abandoned.
“There is no need for this. The council and the trust both have the power to honour NJC terms, but instead workers are being made to pay the price.
“These are public assets, owned by the people of Brighton and Hove. They should not be run by driving down staff pay and conditions. I stand in full solidarity with GMB members taking action.”
Hedley Swain, CEO at Brighton and Hove Museums, said: “Our priority is to protect jobs, keep all sites open and ensure the long-term sustainability of Brighton and Hove’s historic buildings, so they can continue to be enjoyed for many years to come.
“Like many museums across the country, we are experiencing significant rising costs on top of cuts to our public funding. The changes to staff contracts are in response to these challenges and we believe are proportionate.
“We recognise this is an unsettling time for staff and visitors, and we are continuing to work closely with union representatives to find a constructive way forward. Any changes to opening times due to industrial action will be advertised through our website.”
Brighton and Hove Labour were approached for comment.
Brighton & Hove City Council’s senior staff, including the Chief Executive, have seen salary ceilings rise to £194,750 as of March 2025. Concurrently, in 2024, councillors approved a 4.6% increase in their own basic allowance to £14,218, with some top leaders receiving higher total allowance increases. [1, 2]
Key Pay Details (2025-2026):
* Highest Paid Staff: The chief executive’s salary ceiling increased to £194,750 by March 2025.
* Senior Officer Salaries: Executive directors can earn up to £127,288, while the chief financial officer and head of human resources (HR) can earn up to £107,252.
* Councillor Allowances: As of May 2024, councillors approved a 4.6% increase to the basic rate, raising it to £14,218. The leader’s allowance rose to over £51,000.
* Lowest Paid Staff: The council has increased the lowest pay point, setting it at £13.69 per hour as of April 2025, which is higher than the national real living wage. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The council has aimed to align with national pay offers, which included a 3.3% rise for employees in 2026. [5]
What has this got to do with the subject of the article James?
If you have a comment on the topic at hand pleaee give YOUR opinion on it rather than regurgitating stuff from chat gpt and its ilk
Chris, it’s pretty obvious what I was getting at — the contrast. When senior pay and allowances keep rising, but lower-paid staff are being asked to accept worse terms or risk ‘fire and rehire’, people are going to question priorities. That’s directly relevant, whether you agree with the point or not
It’s not relevant. It’s just AI slop.
Your unemployed Benjamin.
No car
No mortgage
Just a rental basement 😀
I think that’s the first non-AI thing you’ve said for yourself in a while. Well done. Still completely irrelevant, though, lol. Expectations were on the ground, but I see you brought a shovel.
How about we redeploy Hedley on new terms with a reduced figure from his comfortable six-figure salary? Ruined the Pavilion estate and New Road yet expects the actual workers to compromise their terms and conditions!
Benjamin, aka walter.
calling something “AI slop”a lot better if you didn’t spend half your time doing exactly the same thing—just without admitting it.
At least when others reference information, it’s obvious what they’re doing. You, on the other hand, regularly copy and paste points, pass them off as your own, and conveniently leave out where they came from so you can keep up the “all-knowing” act.
And let’s be honest—when you do that, half the time it’s outdated or cherry-picked just to force your point through, not because it actually reflects what’s going on now.
So this sudden concern about originality and relevance feels a bit selective.
If you want to criticise the quality of someone else’s argument, fine—but maybe start by holding yourself to the same standard first. Right now, it’s a bit of a glass houses situation.
Who?
Wrong on every single thing here, once again, JamesGPT. Let’s just take the “sudden concern” for example, we’re up to 41 times now. GPT struggles with long-term memory.
The person who made that specific point recently, wasn’t me either. Can you come to my funeral, James, so you can let me down one last time?
If you look passed the noise, then trust has been under funded for several years. Not just by labour but all parties. It’s also worth noting that the employees transferred potentially under tupe and have taken benfit from the old terms, however that period is well over and like any private employer will need to adjust to the times other wise will run out of funds.
I do however appricate all the hard working teams at the trust looking after the iconic face of Brighton and Hove on behalf of the council without funding this must be difficult.
Your comments are all irrelevant with the greatest of respect only the staff involved in this appalling situation who are all effected by the decision to change our terms and conditions know the real damage this would do if headly got his way he would have a blank canvas to do what ever he liked we refuse to let this happen and will continue with any action required to stop him .
Time to retire not redeployment I wouldn’t wish this man on anyone else.
We are not only fighting for ourselves but for generations to come.
Ideally the council needs to consider taking us back in-house.
An important reminder of the people involved. Do you think the council are in a position where they financially could, and would they realistically want to, since it would give the organisation avoidable pressures?