Celtic is coming under intense pressure from campaigners, trade unions and politicians to increase the pay of its staff after the club's board recommended refusing to introduce a 'Living Wage'.
Shareholders have been recommended to knock back paying around 120 staff a minimum of £7.65 when the club holds its annual general meeting next month.
But a fans' group representing some small shareholders has lodged a resolution for the agm to implement the Living Wage, which is £1.05-per-hour more than the minimum wage for workers over 21.
It emerged last week that Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell has received nearly £1million in annual salary, around £400,000 of which was in bonuses.
The Scottish champions also announced in September it had made an £11.2million pre-tax profit last season despite a significant drop in revenue.
The club has claimed it is an "excellent employer and engages with staff at all levels", adding it is the only UK club to achieve Investors In People status.
At last year's agm, chairman Ian Bankier claimed it cost Celtic around £500,000 to implement. Retail, ticketing, catering and stewarding staff, including many who are full time, would be the expected beneficiaries.
Representatives of the Scottish Living Wage Campaign have called on the club to reverse the recommendation.
Peter Kelly, chairman of the campaign and head of the Poverty Alliance, said: "We know that Celtic are a rich club and can afford to ensure their staff aren't paid poverty wages.
"Two-thirds of children in Scotland in poverty are in working households and the Living Wage is one of the best ways to help lift these families out of poverty."
Dave Moxham, deputy general secretary of the STUC, said: "Given we are securing some significant gains for the Living Wage from employers far less stable and charitable in outlook than Celtic its an enormous disappointment that given its wage structure its not been seen fit to mete out better treatment to hard-working employees."
Labour MSP James Kelly has also written to Mr Lawwell, outlining the economic case for the living wage, claiming raising workers' pay improves performance.
He said: "It appears the board intend to recommend shareholders vote against the resolution. I believe that would be a mistake.
"I hope Celtic listen to the growing campaign, think again, and use their status as a world famous football club to show the benefits of better, fairer pay."
The Celtic Trust, which is behind the resolution, said the Investors In People status had nothing to do with wages and cast doubt on Celtic's costing of the pay award.
Jeanette Findlay of the group said: "For the second year running the Celtic board have shamed themselves and the supporters by refusing to become a Living Wage employer. Their excuse for this is no better than they won't pay because they don't have to.
"We know Celtic are doing very well financially. Our own chief executive pocketed pennies short of £1million this year and yet they are refusing to pay the lowest paid the relatively small sum of £7.65.
"In what way are they 'more than just a club'?"
In response to the resolution, the Celtic board said: "The company offers a competitive range of employee benefits, including a bonus scheme for all permanent employees, with up to 20% achievable by even the most junior of colleagues.
"We also offer a pension scheme with generous employer contributions starting at 7% of salary, a comprehensive company sick pay scheme, life assurance for all permanent staff, and a range of free or discounted medical and healthcare schemes."
It added: "The board will continue to review the company's remuneration policy on an ongoing basis, but considers that in order to act in the best interests of the company at this time, particularly given the economic uncertainty of Scottish football, it must retain control of its remuneration policy, while respecting all legal obligations and continuing to act in accordance with the standards we have set as an employer and which have been acknowledged through our Investor in People status.
"Accordingly, the board recommends that you vote against this resolution."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article