NAPO ADVICE TO BRANCHES ON REGISTERING LOCAL JNC DISPUTES
On Friday, 22nd
November NOMS Chief Executive Michael Spurr wrote to all Trusts about the
validity of a (local) trade dispute and the potential refusal on the part of
local union branches to engage in consultations. Clearly the MoJ agenda, under
instruction from the Secretary of State, is to drive ahead with the implementation
of the assignment process. Equally clearly, our joint Union position is to seek
to achieve the exact opposite. Thus there is unlikely to be much agreement
between us.
Napo refutes these assertions and in support of
this position, we make the following points which you may wish to employ
locally in your communications with your local employer.
(a) terms and conditions of
employment, or the physical conditions in which any workers are required to
work;
(b) N/A
(c) allocation of work or
the duties of employment between workers or groups of workers;
(d) N/A
(e) N/A
(f) N/A
(g) machinery for
negotiation or consultation, and other procedures, relating to any of the above
matters, including the recognition by employers or employers’ associations of
the right of a trade union to represent workers in such negotiation or
consultation or in the carrying out of such procedures.
(2) A dispute between
a Minister of the Crown and any workers shall, notwithstanding that he is not
the employer of those workers, be treated as a dispute between those workers
and their employer if the dispute relates to matters which—
(a) have been referred for
consideration by a joint body on which, by virtue of provision made by or under
any enactment, he is represented, or
(b) cannot be settled
without him exercising a power conferred on him by or under an enactment. It is
Napo’s view that current local disputes satisfy these definitions – at Section
244.1 and that Section 244.2 (a) & (b) pertains.
2. Branches
will have to refer to their own local JNCC constitutions as they may
differ from the national NNC model constitution as found in Section B of
the NNC Handbook. Thus the following advice may need to be tailored to
reflect local constitutions.
The Terms
of Reference in the NNC model constitution are as follows:
(i)
To consult on any matters concerning existing practices or proposed changes
which affect the employees of the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Probation Board. [Trust]
(ii)
To enter into negotiations in respect of those specific matters relating to the
terms and conditions of employment of staff employed by the . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . Probation Board. [Trust]. These are:
•
conditions of service specifically left to the discretion of the probation
board from the NNC as matters for local agreement;
`•
procedure agreements including Discipline, Grievance, Capability, Collective
Disputes, Facilities for Trade Union Officials and Representatives, Information
Technology and any other local agreements and variations to the Trade Union
Recognition Agreement itself;
•
issues of collective concern involving matters of health and safety which are
dealt with under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations
or are referred by the local Safety Committee;
•
issues of collective concern involving equal opportunities;
•
matters referred to in Statute, Circulars, and National Probation Directorate /
Government Department correspondence which specifically include Trade Union
involvement;
•
Other matters upon which all parties agree it would be appropriate and helpful
to reach agreement
It
is accepted that issues which may be subject to dispute must fall within the
scope of (ii) above. Napo’s position is that they do for the following reasons:
• issues of collective concern involving
matters of health and safety which are dealt with under the Safety
Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations or are referred by the local
Safety Committee
•
issues of collective concern involving equal opportunities;
What
is being proposed (the split) clearly has equal opportunities issues attached to it.
•
matters referred to in Statute, Circulars, and National Probation
Directorate / Government Department correspondence which specifically include
trade union involvement
•
Other matters upon which all parties agree it would be appropriate and helpful
to reach agreement;
Napo
was under the impression that everybody, including the MoJ agreed it would be
helpful to reach agreement.
On
the above basis, Napo maintains that matters under consideration fall within
Section 4 (a) (ii) of the model LJNCC Constitution
3. Health &
Safety implications – Prior to implementation, it is Napo’s assertion that
a risk assessment on the implications of the said implementation is
required. It is likely that this should be prepared at a national level by
the TR programme team but it will need to be shared locally with the
unions by the employers with a view to addressing and minimising the risks
to staff.
4. Equality Impact - Michael Spurr’s letter states: “ The letter (from Napo to its branches) also
refers to an alleged failure to carry out an EIA. As you are aware, a summary of the national
level equality analysis undertaken by the Transforming Rehabilitation programme
has been circulated to Trusts, with the intention of supporting Trusts to carry
out local EIAs covering the implementation of the reforms. Again this does not appear to fall within the
remit of local JNC dispute procedures as it could only give rise to consultation
rather than negotiation. The concern
raised in the letter is also premature as there is no indication that Trusts
will not carry out EIA, indeed you have been encouraged to
do so. There is certainly no
obligation to conduct these at a time scale directed or agreed with the
unions, however we would recommend
that the local EIA is completed as
soon as is possible.”
5. ‘Measures’
issues: - Appendix A to the National Framework on Staff Transfer &
Protections gives guidance on the handling of ‘Measures’. Whilst most of
these are indeed matters for consultation only, there are elements
contained therein which will require negotiation because they relate to
terms and conditions. This fact further substantiates the assertion that
there is a basis for dispute around issues for negotiation.
Michael Spurr’s letter also
contains the following advice to trusts on the subject of local consultation:
Branches
will need to be mindful of this and consider their engagement carefully so as
not to disadvantage our members. Branches should send two representatives to
such consultation and report back to members.
Tom Rendon Ian Lawrence
National
Chair General
Secretary
26th
November 2013
PS - The third document 'How to construct your individual grievance against assignment - Napo advice' can be found on the Napo website - along with all the others.
PS - The third document 'How to construct your individual grievance against assignment - Napo advice' can be found on the Napo website - along with all the others.
Reading this advice from Napo and seeing the position adopted by the MoJ, there seems no prospect of compromise. The MoJ say they have taken legal advice, has Napo? Given that there is basis dispute here about the interpretation of what qualifies for a local dispute, I would have thought the most sensible thing would be - if this option is open - to seek a judicial review. Without a third party's intervention this war of words will just drag on and in the meantime TR will be implemented, because the MoJ has the sheer power to do it and the trade unions are sidelined and being rendered ineffectual.
ReplyDeleteThere are TWO separate reports from Mactailgunner - please share as widely as possible.
ReplyDelete1. AUTOMATIC ASSIGNMENT & EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST- FURTHER INFO
http://www.napo2.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=343#p2162
2. Weather Report for Wednesday 27th November - Short and Long: -
http://www.napo2.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=347
I would have liked to have put them on the Napo Facebook pages - nationally and for GLB, but I cannot seem to be able to initiate a new post there, hopefully YOU will disseminate as best as you are able
I have an impression that some colleagues are being rushed into agreements by 'bosses' and perhaps others who are suggesting their needs are best met in a mutual CRC - which I doubt. I believe by not agreeing & additionally using the established Grievance Procedures (I personally am not directly affected in any of this) it is more likely the whole thing will not be ready to be implemented & leave time to 'prove it works' before the general election in 2015 Delay may bring the consequence of an opportunity for a serious reappraisal. I am sure - as currently designed - Transforming Rehabilitation, including the Offender Rehabilitation Bill -WILL FAIL - but the more that can be done to stop it ever being implemented or to delay it, the more the damage can be minimised.
New arrangements seem advanced in York and North Yorkshire, Humberside and Lincolnshire region, where according to what I have read on Twitter (Not completely reliable - I know!) A staff council has been formed for at least one Trust area and 80% of staff are said to be in favour of going into a mutual agreement, with one of the USA's biggest prison contractor's.
http://www.napo2.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=345
Andrew Hatton