Time To Reflect

It's the weekend and there's a lot to absorb and ponder on in relation to the TR omnishambles. Many more colleagues have been 'sifted and sorted', often with seemingly anomalous or random results. All the time the realities of this mess are beginning to sink in, not least down at MoJ HQ where a delay of two months has had to be announced, simply because there are so many problems, and so little idea of how to fix them.

It seems that turning a silk purse into a sow's ear is not as easy as it first appeared. Using another metaphor that seemed particularly apt, we now have 2 months in which the good ship probation will be cut in two and the crews of the two halves will have to make their way back to shore as best they can.

Quite understandably feelings are running high, and for all sorts of reasons it seems like a good idea to find some method of expression. I notice there is an appeal from tailgunner over on the Napo forum website and this blogsite is always available. There is also an interesting suggestion left today which might be worth considering:-

Dear Jim
Could we set aside one day's blog, notified in advance, so that we can all write one reason why TR will fail. This should be specific and work related eg information exchange being affected and preventing accurate risk assessment (statutory agencies refusing to deal with the new CRCs). We should indicate which trust we work for, or area of work but no personal identifiers. This would allow accurate comment representative of the whole workforce and prevent Grayling and his minions from dismissing this as union influenced. No personal comments about him but cogent reasons that we know from our individual practice that they have failed to address. Good idea?

It's been suggested that sight of the recent letter from Michael Spurr might prove interesting and informative. Can anyone supply the text please? Hopefully Joe Kuipers will be able to fill in a few more details when he publishes his next blog. By the way, did anyone ever get to see that infamous Grayling DVD? Surely it ought to be on youtube?

I'll round this blog post off with the latest from Pat Waterman, indefatigable chair of Greater London Napo branch:-   

TO NAPO MEMBERS 

Does this wet your appetite for action
I will leave it to our national officers and officials to explain the intricacies and complications of the negotiations that are taking place with our employers at national level. Yvonne Pattison (National Vice Chair and GLB link officer) and Mike McClelland (National Official) will be attending the next branch meeting on Friday 24^th January and should be able to answer your questions.

Local Dispute 
The local dispute which was lodged by GLB NAPO in conjunction with UNISON on 5^th December 2013 (and subsequently rejected by Caroline Corby, Chair of LPT Probation Board) will, on advice from our national officials, be suspended. Contrary to any rumours you might hear, the trade dispute registered nationally with the MOJ by our General Secretary on 26^th September has not been withdrawn. This means that our industrial action i.e. working to rule, remains in place. 

Sifting and Sorting
LPT continues to do the bidding of the MOJ  by  proceeding to sift and sort you all into the NPS or CRC. I attend regular meetings with SMT on local issues arising out of TR. I go to hear what they have to say not to consult on the Staff Assignment Process because this process was never agreed at a national level. 

At the last meeting I was informed that the sifting process in regard to ACO’s has now been completed. I understand that various ACO’s are advising their staff of their own personal reassignments. There were twelve vacancies in the NPS. These were over subscribed and required a ranking of those who expressed an interest. The CRC (with fifteen vacancies) was undersubscribed and four vacancies remain which have yet to be filled. The process is now being applied to SPO’s and then it will be applied to other grades of staff. 

The end of LPT 
You will all have read that the LPT contract will not be terminated on 31^st March as previously thought. The contract will now continue to 31^st May. What does this mean? 

The Chief Executive seems to think that this will enable staff in both the CRC and NPS to trial new ways of working. However, when I recently got to meet Nick Smart (newly appointed Chief Executive of the London CRC) and Sara Robinson (newly appointed Deputy Director of the London NPS), it was clear that they had yet to work out in detail how to make the complicated operating model, devised by the MOJ, work. Nick Smart advised that, in his view, the NPS would not be making all the decisions and that the two agencies would work in partnership. We still have scant details of how either of the two organisations will work in practice. 

I do know that the pay date of those who work in the NPS will be changed to the last day of the month. Heather Munro seemed to think that NOMS would make some arrangements to tide former LPT employees over but she was disabused of this notion by Lynne Last who is current Head of HR but due to leave next week to take up a new appointment in NOMS. I have also heard that all NPS staff, whatever their job role, may be subject to the same intrusive vetting procedures currently in force for those whose jobs require them to have access to the ViSOR system.

Court tool 
As far back as last Autumn, LPT was volunteering to “test” a Case Allocation Tool designed by the MOJ to be used at court to assign cases to either the CRC or NPS. Such testing was never done because the “tool” was not ready. However LPT did engage in a paper exercise just before Xmas designed to address the question of whether or not it was feasible to use  the tool now devised by the MOJ in a court environment. I have been provided with a copy of the LPT report on the court testing pilot. I am however unable to share its contents with you as the MOJ have decreed that it be treated as a restricted document. 

Special AGM in Birmingham on Wednesday 5^th March 
Given the turbulent times in which we find ourselves, I asked Heather Munro if she would grant members a day’s special leave to attend this very important meeting. She declined to grant this request  saying only that staff will have to take either annual leave or TOIL in agreement with their line managers who she hopes will be sympathetic to this request. Members might like to bear this in mind when asked to attend  SMT briefings, road shows or staff forums. 

Grievances 
If you have not already done so, I would encourage you all to register a grievance against the Staff Assignment Process. You have up to three months from the date you received your letter from the Chief Executive notifying you either of your assignment or asking you to express a preference. Although SMT repeatedly promise that more information will be forthcoming it is apparent that the sifting process will be completed before the answers to many of your questions can be answered.

Please do not just accept all that is being done to you. 
Register a grievance and make sure that you do not work more than your contracted hours. The fight is far from over. I invite you all to come to the next meeting of your trade union where we will be discussing (among other things)  working to rule/grievances/appeals and beyond. 

Pat Waterman 
Branch Chair