A STRIKE is being threatened by Glasgow City Council workers in a row over pay.

Their union, Unison, claims the council has "reneged" on its promise not to cut individual wages following a pay and benefits review. It says up to 400 workers are affected.

The council rejects both claims and says calling a strike would be "daft".

It says only 58 people are involved and it is trying to find ways of achieving solutions for them.

The row dates to 2006 when the review started and 3700 people faced losing money.

Council leader Steven Purcell assured workers then that take-home pay would be protected until April this year.

Brian Smith, Unison branch secretary, said the council also promised to extend pay protection beyond the beginning of April if the redesigned structure had not been implemented.

In a letter to members he said: "The council has now torn up that agreement, meaning several hundred of your co-workers face losing between £100 and £9000 per year."

Mr Smith said the branch had asked the union at national level for permission to hold a strike ballot next month.

He said the union was willing to discuss "all possible ways" to avoid an industrial dispute.

But he added: "When the union strikes an agreement with the council, the agreement must be seen through - the council can't just walk away. It's a breach of trust."

Mr Smith said if the strike went ahead around 10,000 workers could be involved and it would affect schools, nurseries, social work and cleansing.

The council says that of the original 3700 people who were going to be affected by a "detriment" to their pay, 3642 have either secured a higher paid job, seen the projected loss wiped out by pay increases, or taken early retirement or voluntary redundancy, leaving 58 cases still to be resolved.

That figure is expected to be reduced by the time the pay protection guarantee runs out in March.

However, the council also said that if a service reform was proposed that would move a worker up a grade but the proposal did not take effect for another few months, they would not lose their protection.

But the council added it was never intended to have indefinite protection for people for whom a solution could not be found or who did not agree to the proposed alternative.

A spokesman said: "The council committed to ensuring no one would be paid less in April 2009 than in 2006. In the vast majority of cases we have achieved that and are working on solutions for the remaining 58.

"Threatening a strike over this is daft."