Birmingham’s bin strike is on course to cost the city council as much as £70 million by the end of the year if it is not resolved, according to leaked internal documents. The confidential report lays bare the impact of the dispute as council officers seek a 'least worst' way out of a dire situation. But they warn there is no “cost-free” way to end the saga. Finding a solution urgently is vital because of the significant damage being done to Birmingham’s reputation and investor confidence.
Estimated Costs and Financial Impact
The 40-page paper, leaked to BirminghamLive, concludes that every remaining option available to the council carries substantial financial, legal or political risk. The report estimates the strike has already cost the authority between £20 million and £35 million during the 2025-26 financial year and predicts a similar bill this year, taking the overall cost to between £40 million and £70 million. That figure includes at least £600,000 a month on agency workers and contingency arrangements, alongside extra millions spent on waste service transformation, lost income from postponed garden and bulky waste services and mounting legal costs.
Officers also warn the dispute has damaged Birmingham’s image as a clean and safe city while undermining confidence among businesses considering investment. This is the latest revelation to emerge from the same documents that triggered a furore earlier this month when officers’ contingency planning for the possible dismissal of striking bin workers behind the backs of councillors was exposed.
Proposed Settlement Offers
Dated early March, the report also sets out a plan to make 'one final attempt' to settle the dispute by offering payments of £3,000 or £7,000 to around 150 of the striking workers, as long as they stop pursuing Employment Tribunal claims against the council. Only those making claims would be eligible for what the council hoped could be agreed as a 'nuisance payment' to avoid the time and expense of litigation. There would be no similar payment offered to around 100 more striking workers who have not taken out legal claims.
But even while setting out the plan, the council acknowledge Unite is unlikely to back it. That's because it's considerably lower than an offer made by the council, and rejected, last year. It is also less than half the amount agreed in a 'ballpark' deal struck by Labour and Unite just before the May 7 election. The document is currently shrouded in controversy over the 'secret dismissals plan' contained in it. That's because the council suggested the low final offer 'may also provoke such a reaction that the council must be ready to initiate a strategy of dismissal'.
Contingency Plans and Political Controversy
A contingency plan set out in the report suggested that if they did need to move to dismissal, the best time to act would be during the period immediately after the May elections and before a new political administration was in place. It was condemned as an abhorrent move to undermine local democracy and has been raised with incoming new Labour leader and Prime Minister in waiting Andy Burnham. Under the proposal set out by the council, 66 former Waste Recycling and Collection Officers whose roles were deleted in January 2025, triggering the dispute, would each receive £3,000 extra. Some 91 Driver Team Leaders whose jobs were downgraded to become 'Drivers' would receive £7,000 extra. They are among 253 refuse workers still on strike when the report was prepared. The rest of those on strike or affected would be offered nothing. The total cost of the payments would be less than £1 million.
However, the report warns any payment could expose the council to fresh sex discrimination claims from other unions and employees, creating a further financial risk estimated at between £26 million and £65 million. But after taking specialist legal advice, officers concluded the proposed settlement represents the “least worst” option available. The report states: “Having considered the financial costs, legal risks, operational implications and wider impact on the city, the value-for-money assessment supports proceeding with a tightly structured settlement of issued and credible claims.” It continues: “Should this approach not be successful in resolving the dispute, both remaining options are unpalatable and require careful consideration.” This includes dismissal.
Alternatives and Union Reactions
Among other alternatives are continuing to operate with reduced services and outsourcing waste collection. The report recommends that any negotiations should be 'carefully structured' to ensure payments are linked to employees returning to work, ending industrial action and settling their legal claims in full. It also warns the council must be clear what steps it intends to take if Unite rejects the offer. Commissioners, external auditors Grant Thornton and specialist barristers have all been involved in assessing the council’s options. The report also recognises that any settlement could trigger legal action from other unions, including Unison and GMB, over potential discrimination claims. Neither the council nor Unite were willing to discuss the likelihood of a settlement, only to say negotiations were at a sensitive stage. But the union's General Secretary Sharon Graham and representatives of Unison have condemned officers and commissioners over the contents of the leaked report.
