A TOP hospital boss has missed out on a £4,500 pay rise, despite independent investigations which showed he is being underpaid.
David Chew, the £76,000 chief executive of Burnley Health Care Trust, was found to be receiving six per cent less than the going rate for NHS and public sector chiefs following a pay review.
But despite the diagnosis by a NHS regional team and independent consultants there will be no quick cash remedy for Mr Chew.
Instead, trust chairman, Brian Foster and fellow non-executive directors have decided he must wait for his money.
They have decided to set a good example to the rest of the 4,000 staff in the hospitals and community care trust by deferring the rise until the climate in the NHS is less cash-strapped.
"At a time when we are having to make major savings in all areas of our activities and when the Government is asking us to keep increases for executives in line with those of doctors' and nurses, we decided to defer it until some future date," said Mr Foster. He added: "It does seem unfair in view of his excellent work, but it is setting a good example and David accepts our decision."
The pay reviews showed other executives were in line with going rates
They, like Mr Chew, will receive the 2.7 per cent annual rise being awarded to doctors and nurses.
Last year's trust annual report showed Mr Chew receiving renumeration of £76,000 - £14,000 less than the highest-paid Trust employee, the medical director on £90,000.
At the neighbouring Airedale Health Trust, chief executive, Bob Allen, received £76,000 in the year to April 1997, exactly the same as Mr Chew, although the Airedale Trust's turnover was £25 million less and it employed 1,000 fewer staff.
At Bury Health Trust, also much smaller in turnover terms than Burnley, the chief executive's remuneration even three years ago was £84,000.
Two years ago, Burnley Health chiefs put an end to controversial performance-related awards to executives.
Management costs at the trust have been consistently lower than the regional average for some years.
Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article