UNIONS REGISTER FAILURE TO AGREE AT NNC MEETING – INITIAL ADVICE REGARDING TR ASSIGNMENT PROCESS
This message is to alert you to the fact that at yesterday’s meeting of the National Negotiating Council (NNC) which had been convened to conclude the negotiations on the proposed Staff Transfer Framework Agreement, the Trade Unions: Napo/Unison/GMB SCOOP, have formally registered a failure to agree. We will now be seeking the intervention of ACAS (the Conciliation and Arbitration Service) to assist us in exploring a way forward. We also understand that Unison will now be reviewing their position regarding a potential trade dispute in light of these developments.
Why is there no agreement?
Following last week’s difficulties caused by the issuing of information directly to Trusts (which had not been seen by the Unions), the genuine efforts of Probation employers and the Trade Unions were once again cynically undermined. On the last available day for negotiations, new information was presented by a senior MoJ Official which would have caused significant detriment to members. This prevented the NNC from actually debating the substantive Framework Agreement which was on the table and resulted in a situation where, by the close of business at just before 7:00pm, it was simply not possible to reach an agreement thereby forcing the Unions into the position described above.
What happens next?
It now seems certain that Trusts will seek to implement the instruction from the Secretary of State to impose the unagreed (non NNC version) of the Staff Assignment Process. This will either automatically assign staff to the proposed National Probation Service (NPS) or the proposed Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC’s) or ask you to make an expression of interest. We have previously issued advice to Napo Branches about registering a Local JNC dispute if this should happen. If you are in any doubt about this process Branch Officers should make immediate contact with their link Official and Officer. Keeping lines of communication open will be critical at this time.
If you receive a letter or email regarding the imposition of the staff split, DO NOT DO ANYTHING YET.
We will be sending fresh detailed advice to all members over the next two days to explain the situation in more detail with a summary of the dangers, and advise you how to respond, as a result of this precipitate action by the MoJ under their reckless Transforming Rehabilitation agenda.
Meanwhile:
- Continue to follow the previously issued advice on industrial Action short of Strike Action, and await more news on further industrial action
- Take no action in response to letters issued to you by your employer concerning the staff assignment process and advice your Napo representative if you are subject to duress.
- Ensure that your Napo Branch registers a LJNC dispute in the event that such letters are issued
- Discuss this situation with non-members and stress the importance of joining a trade union
Ian Lawrence Tom Rendon
General Secretary National Chair
21st November 2013
In my experience, at Trust level a 'failure to agree' was no obstacle to the employers doing exactly what they wanted. I would be astonished if the MoJ agreed to ACAS – it's just not going to happen. The unions are weak. Napo could not even motivate more than fifty percent of its members to vote in the recent ballot and Unison are sitting on their hands. Never mind that the two unions are not in lockstep, they are on different roads! I think the MoJ will do what exactly it wishes, that Trusts will follow orders as is their instinct and there will be few, if any, guaranteed protections post TR transition. The work-to-rule is not going to shake the probation world. It's all wimpers and no bangs. But keep joining unions advises the Napo missive: Why?
ReplyDeleteI think that it is democracy in this country is now weak, and that there is real strength in the unions. Not as much strength as we would like, but strength nevertheless. I don't believe that TR is a done deal. I must admit I was hoping that we'd be given some ground by the opposition yesterday. But I reckon that the breakdown of yesterday's negotiating (which the unions were making on our behalf ) will be just what we needed to consolidate people for the fight against TR, the demolition of public services and this government's appalling policies. As NAPO's Pat Waterman says, "we've got a large stone to move", but I think the tide is turning, and the sooner this goverment is gone the better.
Deletedoes anyone know if the enhanced VR package will ever be back on the table now that there is no table? About the only good thing to come out of the whole debacle was 67.5 weeks pay when you weren't interested in either of Grayling's new agencies
ReplyDeleteVR was only ever likely to be available to senior managers or corporate staff whose jobs were duplicated when Trusts were merged. They need the front line staff to make this "work", at least for the short to medium term. None of these privateers can raise a workforce from scratch.
DeleteI've had a letter requesting expression of interest. I'm a case managing PSO who does court work as well. As such I do not have any of the sifting criteria for CRC and as I have been on maternity since may, I also do not now have any of the sifting criteria for NPS . As such I'm stuffed. I'm also only getting smp and not therefore paying Napo subscription. Double stuffed. I worry for my baby I worry for the future.
ReplyDeleteYour Napo membership subscription is free during maternity leave.
Deletehttp://www.napo.org.uk/about/full_member.cfm
Really? Ill check it out and join . Thankyou.
DeleteThere is a considerable way to go yet before staff are actually transferred and moves in parliament may prevent it happening or cause it to be delayed.
DeleteAny person affected by a decision of Parliament is entitled to seek support and advice from their member of parliament. If MPs get a flood of requests from every individual who gets any sort of letter about reassignment - that should have quite an impact.
Also the Committee to examine The Offender Rehabilitation Bill has just been appointed and will be considering amendments that may change the arrangements. Here are details of the membership, even if your MP is not a member they can still be asked to intervene on your behalf.
- - -
Chairs: John Robertson and Nadine Dorries
19 Members:
Steve Brine
Lorely Burt
Sarah Champion
Jenny Chapman
Alex Cunningham
Mr David Evennett
Paul Goggins
Rebecca Harris
Gareth Johnson
Mr Elfyn Llwyd
Stephen Metcalfe
Caroline Nokes
Ian Paisley
Mr Mark Prisk
Mr Lee Scott
Mr Andy Slaughter
Mr Michael Thornton
Karl Turner
Jeremy Wright
http://www.napo2.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=330
Andrew Hatton
Thanks for that post Andrew. I will be writing again to my MP to see if he will ask to intervene on my behalf in examing the Bill, and tell him the way TR is impacting on colleagues and myself.
DeleteSue Hall, West Yorks PT, has confirmed she will be appearing on 'Newsnight 'tonight.
ReplyDeleteFirst Reassignment notice seen via Twitter: -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.napo2.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=331
Just arrived home and received EOI letter in today's post!
ReplyDeletewhat is that please?
ReplyDeleteExpression of Interest, letter states - 'Your substantive position has been identified as a role required by both organisations after 1 April 2014 and it has not been possible to automatically assign you. You are therefore invited to state whether your preference is for a position in the CRC or NPS using the Expression of Interest [EO1] form included with this letter'. Asks for return by 5 December and 'If you do not express your interest, your preferences cannot be taken into account in allocating you to either the CRC or NPS'.
ReplyDeleteInteresting to notice the time the letter was processed by Royal Mail - 6.47 pm last night.
I am sure that in some document I have read about the split that the MOJ said you must make an active choice, if you chose neither you will not have a job - anyone remember this please? I think it meant that if you do not choose when your employer ceases to exist ( the Trust) so,in effect, does your employment.
ReplyDeleteNowt from NAPO today but released on EPIC (MoJ intranet) last night (not 19th Nov as claimed) are a series of news release and documents about the TR process - including an adobe document about the assignment process. There's a flowchart on page 4 which effectively states that you can challenge the allocation to either CRC or NPS but if you don't accept the outcome of the appeal you either accept what you were given or you walk on 31 March 2014.
DeleteAll of the documents have a 13 Nov date on them - presumably the MoJ was confident of the outcome of last week's negotiations & hadn't expected to (a) lose the commons vote or (b) have to go another round with the unions.
There's also a rather unpleasant spin of the reason the negotiations fell apart last night.
Someone said to me during a telephone conversation today that a £500M deal isn't done overnight - they laughed at me for believing there was a chance of changing anything: "It'll have been a done deal a year ago - all they're doing now is dotting the i's & crossing the t's - jeez, you're so F****'in naiive. You wouldn't last 30 seconds in the private sector."
I think I'll just walk into the sea tomorrow morning... and keep on going until everything stops.
brainfade - apologies for the bizarre implication that the commons vote was lost. It wasn't, of course.
DeleteAndrew - many staff panicking, contrary to your Corporal Jones impression; in fact most are sounding like Private Fraser
Panic is understandable - but according to Jim's post at head of today's blog from Ian Lawrence and Tom Rendon -Napo Gen Sec & Chair - their firm recommendation written TODAY is - "If you receive a letter or email regarding the imposition of the staff split, DO NOT DO ANYTHING YET."
DeleteAndrew Hatton
Anon at 19.48. Ultimately they need you, no panic to choose I hope - Napo advise - take no action - though I would acknowledge receipt but saying nothing more.
ReplyDeleteI am relieved to be retired.
Andrew Hatton
Having just read tailgunners post on the napo forum for today, I am both surprised and angry that the meeting yesterday went the way it is described in the post. If, as is stated, the MoJ tabled a paper that had not been made available 7 days in advance as required, why was it then even looked at, let alone allowed to dominate the day to the extent that when it was then withdrawn by the MoJ late in the day there was no time left to discuss the paper originally tabled for the day, at which point the MoJ announced the process was out of time! A disgusting and blatant piece of game playing if ever there was one, with the employers and the unions walking straight in to the trap. It only confirms my view that there has never been any intention from the MoJ to negotiate seriously about anything to do with TR, so why they even bothered pretending beats me. Far more honest to have just imposed the change and say 'like it or lump it' rather than this charade. I've seen more honesty in my 13 years of working with probationers than I have in any of this debacle.
ReplyDeletePS. I trust more IT savvy people than me will move tailgunners post to here if you want any more details
Just some thoughts. I do not have answers, however, comments would be appreciated.
ReplyDelete1. Who is the 'senior MoJ official'. Can we name him? What was the info they laid at the last moment?
2. EOI. Would it be worth replying and asking for a copy of our contract with the new companies to allow us to make a more informed decision? By law we must be provided with a contract, failure to do so may lead to legal action.
3. As above. Would NAPO be looking at legal action in regards to members not being given contracts?
4. Tagging. It has a variety of uses, from making sure those who are likely to offend at a certain time are kept indoors to helping those who continuously FTA be in the house the night before their programme/UW/supervision. In my area it is G4S who monitor any tags. Should we as a collective stop asking the Courts to tag people, hitting G4S where it hurts most?
Thanks :)
Whistle-blowers criticise privatised probation service
ReplyDeletehttp://www.napo2.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=331
Whistle-blowers have told the BBC's Newsnight of serious failings in the first probation service in England and Wales to be privatised.
They said community service projects were not properly supervised and there were inaccuracies in reporting cases of offenders not attending such schemes.
The revelations come as the government is poised to unveil plans to privatise probation services elsewhere.
Serco, one of the companies running the service in London, denies the claims.
The allegations were brought to light by a member of Serco staff and a probation manager working for the London Probation Trust (LPT).
Newsnight was told the failings were making it "increasingly hard to enforce justice".
The programme has also been shown emails and internal documents supporting the claims.
In 2012, Serco and LPT were jointly awarded a four-year contract to supervise offenders in the capital on probation doing unpaid work in the community.
Continue reading the main story
Analysis
Danny Shaw
Home affairs correspondent, BBC News
These revelations couldn't have come at a worse time for the government, which is preparing to extend the involvement of private firms in probation to other areas of England and Wales next year.
Contracts will be awarded for supervising 225,000 low and medium-risk offenders; payments will partly depend on how many steer clear of crime.
But the probation union Napo opposes the move and is in dispute with the Ministry of Justice about how the changes will be implemented.
Under the same payment-by-results system, monitoring will be broadened to cover prisoners released from sentences of under 12 months in jail - but the plan hasn't yet been approved by Parliament.
Concerns that supervision will be superficial, with private firms forced to cut corners to reduce costs, will only have been deepened by the experience in London.
At the time the Ministry of Justice said the contract would save taxpayers £25m.
The Serco employee, who spoke anonymously to Newsnight, said there were insufficient resources to ensure offenders on so-called community payback projects were properly supervised.
"There are not enough projects and there are not enough staff. The projects we have are oversubscribed and anything oversubscribed causes problems," he said................................................................................................................................
Danny Shaw
Home affairs correspondent, BBC News
These revelations couldn't have come at a worse time for the government, which is preparing to extend the involvement of private firms in probation to other areas of England and Wales next year.
Contracts will be awarded for supervising 225,000 low and medium-risk offenders; payments will partly depend on how many steer clear of crime.
But the probation union Napo opposes the move and is in dispute with the Ministry of Justice about how the changes will be implemented.
Under the same payment-by-results system, monitoring will be broadened to cover prisoners released from sentences of under 12 months in jail - but the plan hasn't yet been approved by Parliament.
Concerns that supervision will be superficial, with private firms forced to cut corners to reduce costs, will only have been deepened by the experience in London.
Who is this clown on Newsnight? Jim , there is rich pickings in having a look at this apologist for Grayling....."Max Chambers is Head of Crime and Justice at Policy Exchange. Before joining Policy Exchange, Max worked for a leading welfare-to-work provider, where he was recruited to help establish and grow a new justice services division. As Commercial Development Manager, he led the company’s bids for Ministry of Justice payment-by-results pilots, probation contracts and as part of a major programme of prison competition. Prior to this, Max worked for Policy Exchange as Senior Research Fellow, authoring seven influential reports on police reform, criminal justice and health. Max has also worked in Parliament for the Shadow Justice and Home Affairs teams. He read law at the University of Nottingham." spluttering the usual tedious retoric..
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteThe NN slot on Serco/LPT did at least flush out the PCA ...although Sue Hall has been outspoken before -see JSC last wk.....MC was predictably light on evidence & spluttered the familiar MoJ mantra.....the piece would have had a more impact if HM - LPT Chief had put herself in the ' hot seat'....you may recall that she was ' gagged ' by Grayling when she questioned his figures for CP Contract .....Good to see TR batting for Napo. but the ' dirty war' continues & Serco's strapline' Bringing Services to Life' is sounding more hollow by the day..
Regards
Mike.
What truth that Serco wishes to give up the contract as not making money?
DeleteWell what can one say! Lovely Sue Hall has no 'killer' instinct and well-briefed Max just sounded all so plausible...........oh dear oh dear.........oh dear
Deletewhen you aint hungry, you aint got that desire to kill - and sue's got a crc to run post-pca. max looked well fed and didn't have to try. . . well brifed,as you say. sadly a non-probation neighbour thought tom was an art student in the wrong news piece.
DeleteSue Hall will retire/leave
DeleteMax chambers from the policy exchange think tank? Policy exchange fish tank more likely. Yes, well done Sue Hall for getting some good points across but wish there had been more time for you to challenge his baseless drivel and show it for what it was.
ReplyDeleteWe must do something more. Public safety is the main concern, why don't we organise a Saturday before Christmas to blitz the public with a new paper petition? Wording must be short and to the point and MUST mention G4s, Serco, SFO etc because public are increasingly aware. If not we can tell them. If we mobilise and get a good effort on this we could use the presentation of the petition for further publicity.... or could we ? Do we care ? Would we rely on the active few to save the many? At what point do the few become so run down and exhausted that they too give up and accept this crap ? One last attempt to engage the public in this ALL over the country? Shall WE ?????
ReplyDeleteGood on Sue Hall and Dino Sofus. I was interested in Serco's reply, as of stage I heard they were not as keen on being in the limelight, and we're threatening legal action.
ReplyDelete