This is the first of three guidance documents referred to in yesterday's e-mail from Napo HQ - all received this morning at 08:37
NAPO INFORMATION ON COMPLETION OF GRIEVANCES –
RISKS TO STAFF
This
information is not designed to be exhaustive. Due to the varied number of
roles in Probation and the diversity of the staff, we cannot cover every
eventuality but we hope the following provides a useful guide to some of the
issues you should consider when raising your grievance. These are the
questions we have been asking and which the MoJ have declined to answer. As it looks increasingly likely that
litigation will play a part in the near future, it is imperative that members
raise their concerns formally at this stage.
There
is no doubt that the MoJ and some Trusts will accuse Napo of scaremongering for
even asking these questions. That will simply be an indication of how
distorted this process has become. Ignore the criticism - you have the
right to know about your future employment. Document it. Raise the
grievance. Afford yourself maximum protection at work.
Practitioners
in the National Probation Service
This
section is also applicable to managers and administrators who work with
practitioners.
A
probation practitioner in the NPS will become a civil servant. At
present, the probation service retains its independence, we are not subject to
ministerial directions. For example, we are not instructed whether to
support the release or otherwise of a prisoner because we make an independent
professional assessment. We risk losing that in the process of becoming
agents of the Secretary of State. Our concern is that we might come under
pressure in a high profile case to make recommendations not for release or to
recommend certain licence conditions.
Probation offers a varied career and moving into different roles over
the span of your career is one way to manage the emotional demands of the
job. Our concern is
that this will be lost in what appears to be a very narrowly defined series of
practitioner roles in the NPS. Having risk “oversight” but little control
over cases in the CRC is fraught with difficulty. Where are the lines of
accountability? Would there be lots of travel? Who would attend
oral hearings? Solely case managing high risk offenders can be traumatic
given the nature of some of the offences. What support would be in place?
Victim
Liaison Officers will move into the NPS and they are currently paid at
different pay bands because of differences in the Trusts. What will
happen next? Programme tutors delivering Sex Offender Treatment Programmes are
in the same boat and there is no information on whether pay will be harmonised.
Practitioners
in the Community Rehabilitation Companies
This
section is also applicable to managers and administrators who work with
practitioners.
Practitioners
in a CRC may no longer be carrying out risk assessments (when there has been a
change in risk) nor will they provide advice on release, recall and
sentencing. There will be no work with high risk offenders which will
reduce the potential for career development.
We are concerned that after an initial period, all of these jobs risk
being downgraded in terms of pay band to
the less generous conditions.
Programme
tutors can be on different pay bands because of the differences between
trusts. There is no information on future plans. Those tutors
delivering domestic violence programmes have been seen as on a par with SOTP
tutors - will this change? What happens to members who deliver both?
Staff
in the Community Rehabilitation Companies
There
are no certainties about who these organisations will be, and even less
security about who will win the competition. Therein lies the grievance
(see below for individualised impact). You could be happy with the Prime
Contractor but less happy with a sub-contractor for whom you are
chosen/assigned to work for. If you are transferred twice, you would not
necessarily retain all your existing terms and conditions because no assurances
(especially continuity of service) have been guaranteed. You might be unhappy with the Prime and want
to seek reassurances about your future. This has been made impossible
because you can only lodge an appeal against a vague entity called a CRC - not
an actual employer.
Organisations
such as Serco, G4S, Catch 22 and Sodexo have Uniform policies. Will there
be uniforms? What will be the impact on the work and risk of safety given
that uniforms are associated with control rather than care.
Staff
in the National Probation Service
You
will be subject to Acts of Parliament that may severely restrict your
choices. For example, the Business Appointment Rules mean that you are
barred from working for a company (for a period of time) to who you might share
information which gives them a commercial advantage. We have been unable
to get further information about this despite requests. Members are
entitled to know the answer.
We
know that people with protected characteristics are particularly vulnerable in
the workplace and often apply to work for organisations which have a good
record of staff care. To make a choice now or to be assigned without any
information is putting these individuals at risk. A description of your
own circumstances here will be essential in raising concerns with your
employers. Do the new organisations have proper maternity provision?
What about childcare? Dependent carers? Does the organisation have
a diversity strategy? Who will provide AT equipment and ongoing
support? What happens to reasonable adjustments? Have you had a
stress/health and safety risk assessment - will it be honoured? Have the
potential bidding companies got a track record of discriminatory
behaviour? Would you feel safe?
Pension entitlements
and Staff who are over 50
Napo has repeatedly requested assurances on future pension provision and
entitlement post the proposed CRC share sale. Despite these requests, no
assurances have been given for current members of the LGPS or new starters.
This
will have an impact on all staff, but will have a disproportionate impact on
those who are over 50 but not yet 55. This is because any potential Voluntary
Redundancy scheme is only being offered until 2015 (note this has still to be
confirmed).
Summary
Tom Rendon Ian
Lawrence
National Chair General Secretary
National Chair General Secretary
26th November 2013
The extra information that was missed of the bottom of that email yesterday have been sent this morning regarding: -
ReplyDeleteGrievance advice RISK
Local JNC Disputes Napo Guidance
HOW TO CONSTRUCT YOUR INDIVIDUAL GRIEVANCE AGAINST ASSIGNMENT NAPO ADVICE
Also available via the Napo Forum : -
http://www.napo2.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=343#p2157
Andrew Hatton
OH sorry, I posted the above, thinking it was on the post about the original email. We are paddling in the same pool!
ReplyDeleteAdditionally Mactailgunner has sent in a report and seems to have survived a spraying of flak!: -
http://www.napo2.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=344#p2156
Andrew Hatton