Grievance

There's been much talk of following Napo's advice on submitting formal grievances to employing Trusts. We know that for those who decided to register their displeasure in this way, much thought and passion was likely to have been involved, but few have seen the light of day by being published. The exceptions are those by Tom Rendon National Chair and Pat Waterman, Chair of Napo Greater London Branch. 

Well, there is now a third example painstakingly researched and structured by Effie Perine an officer based in a London court and published as a blog post here. It's pretty much a masterclass in the art of conveying a great deal of information and argument into a concise document, indeed exactly what would be expected from an experienced and highly skilled court report author. In my view, many of the key reasons why TR is so appalling are eloquently spelt out here:-

"So I finally submitted my grievance. I’ve been meaning to for so long but I’d got myself really wound up about it, like I needed to sit down with the policies and a bunch of statistics and really WORK at it and just ended up putting it off endlessly – ignoring my own advice about a single line question being enough.

My branch sent a reminder yesterday that the 3 month window would likely be closing soon given when our letters were sent. So I thought, sod it, and sat down at the end of the working day and bashed this out. I’ll probably think of a lot more to add but am trying to be disciplined! It’s gone to my SPO, who I think has already put her own in. Posting it here in case it’s of interest or assistance. I am grateful to Pat Waterman and Tom Rendon for sharing their own grievances, which were a big help in writing mine – and also to a colleague who sent me more detailed and very interesting information on the job evaluation point, which I will come back to in another post.

I am writing to formally register a grievance in accordance with the Trust’s procedures, regarding my assignment to the National Probation Service. Appeal against this was possible, with the alternative being assignment to the Community Rehabilitation Company. However, on receipt of my assignment I had not been given sufficient information to assist me in weighing up this potentially life-changing decision and matters have scarcely improved since. I have not been able to make informed decisions on this matter, and many questions about both organisations remain unanswered. 

London Probation Trust has a duty of care as my employer, and I would have expected that fundamental information about the CRC and NPS would be made available to me, and basic processes and structures already in place, before I was assigned or asked to express a view. This was not the case, and I have experienced months of stress and anxiety, as well as the impact of feeling that my wellbeing, terms and conditions and professional skills are not valued by my employers of 10 years’ standing.

Every week new and often confusing and contradictory information about the new organisations is released, with significant details being changed or backtracked on with little information as to why – most notably the delay of the staff split from April to June, further affecting my ability to make decisions about my future.

My specific concerns include:

- whether arrangements have been made to ensure I am paid during the period April – June, and indeed from June onwards given the uncertainty about allocation of HR staff. I expect confirmation of this as a matter of urgency.

- whether arrangements will be made to financially assist NPS staff if pay dates are harmonised with the civil service, as this will result in a gap of around a week which could affect payment of direct debits and other standing arrangements.

- who will be running the CRC? What will be their organisational aims, ethos, terms and conditions, and what sentencing options and programmes will be available under their remit? Without this information I cannot make a decision about whether working for them would be preferable to working for the NPS, and I cannot fulfil my duty to inform the Courts and service users of how Court Orders will be delivered in the future. Sentences that will be affected by the split are taking place now, and I am not able to fully perform my duties without this information.

- My current work is solely concerned with pre-sentence assessment. In the NPS in the future, will I be able to continue in a report writing role or will I be expected to hold a caseload as well? If these two functions will be separate in the NPS, how will staff be assigned between them and can decisions be appealed? The lack of concrete job descriptions for posts in either NPS or CRC means I cannot make an informed decision about my future with either organisation.

- The lack of job descriptions for NPS probation officers means I cannot assess whether I will be adequately paid for the demands of my work. Job evaluation processes assign points according to the emotional demands of a role, regular contact with potentially distressing offence details, regular contact with people who are likely to be angry and so on. A high-risk caseload is very different to current generic caseloads, placing different demands on staff, as is working on the front line in Court and dealing with high numbers of anxious and potentially angry people – who are likely to become more so given the changes in the workings of the Court system and probation service, and changes to legal aid. I expect to see the evaluation of these roles and evidence that I will be appropriately paid for such demanding work in line with existing job evaluation criteria. I would have expected to see this before being asked to make a decision on whether I accepted being assigned to the NPS.

- I have not yet seen the ‘Risk of Serious Recidivism’ tool to be used by NPS probation officers to decide whether cases will go to the NPS or CRC. If the outcome of this tool contradicts my own professional assessment of risk and of appropriate supervision, which will take precedence? If my professional judgement is to be considered secondary to this new tool I expect to see the evidence underpinning it, to be able to evaluate its usefulness and challenge it if appropriate. Being forced to use a tool that is not fit for purpose, and consequently being forced to act against my own professional judgement and conscience, would be a very serious matter for me and potentially affect my decisions on future employment. I expect this information to enable me to make these informed decisions.

- I am concerned that the extra time needed to complete the RSR tool for every PSR will reduce my capacity to produce the volume of reports the Courts expect, and that the detrimental impact on report completion statistics could result in my report-writing role being changed or stopped altogether. This is yet another cause of stress. There is also an implication for the reputation of my Court team and of my professional reputation if our ability to meet the needs of the Court is reduced through circumstances outside our control. I would like reassurance from my employers that report-writing roles will be protected and that evaluation of team and individual productivity will taken into account the additional demands of RSR and of the new organisations and roles, especially in the early stages post- staff split.

- I am not aware of whether the RSR tool will be used pre- or post- sentence, and have concerns about both. If it is to be used pre-sentence, the additional time needed will delay provision of reports to the Court; if it is to be used post-sentence, I will not have been able to provide the Court or the service user with full information about what services will be provided and what will be expected of them, and indeed will have been hampered in assessing whether the outcome of RSR is a supervision package that is even suitable. Again, this could have detrimental impact on my professional reputation and that of my team. I would like this issue to be clarified and to be informed of what consultation on the matter has been undertaken with HMCS, to prepare them for the reduction in service. I would also expect advice on how to explain the changes and rationale for reduction in services to Courts, as I may be asked these questions in open Court as a representative of LPT and later the NPS.

- Court report-writing teams provide a high volume of PSRs, including fast- and standard-delivery reports. Still the service is reliant on ‘sessional’ reports in order to meet demand. Once CRC probation officers are no longer allowed to write PSRs, and the RSR tool takes up a significant amount of report writers’ time, the pressure on NPS staff writing reports is likely to be immense. I am seriously concerned that we will not be able to meet the needs of the Courts, again impacting on team and individual professional reputations. This may disadvantage service users who could be held on remand for longer periods or required to attend Court when reports are not ready. The latter also wastes public money and court time, and the anxiety caused to service users could raise the risk of abusive behaviour toward Court staff, including myself, on the front line. There is a potentially serious impact on my safety and risk of stress and ill health. As I have already suffered work-related stress as a result of working over-capacity I am very concerned about this possibility. I have undergone difficult and expensive long-term counselling to deal with my mental health problems, which were contributed to by work-related stress, and do not want to see all this progress undone through a lack of consideration and neglect of my employers’ duty of care.

- My sexuality, gender and history of mental health problems means I have legally protected characteristics. The lack of equality impact assessments and paucity of those that do exist lead me to feel underrepresented and unclear about my future protection from discrimination.

- Staff in the NPS are to use Phoenix for HR functions rather than SAP. So far I have seen no information about this system, received no training and seen no assurance that records will be transferred and a user account will be set up in time for me to begin using this new system.

- Staff across the probation service have been raising these concerns and many others for a long time, along with other public and voluntary sector organisations, academics, MPs and journalists. Yet I have seen virtually no evidence that LPT as my employers have publicly defended me and my colleagues and stood up for our professional standards and our service users’ rights. I feel very let down that LPT has signed the end of trust agreement and dedicated itself to implementing the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms despite serious and well-documented concerns about public safety. The Ministry of Justice’s own risk register highlights a high risk of service delivery failure, and in our line of business this could mean deaths. Improving the plans to try to ensure they are compatible with organisational aims and duties – and indeed legal requirements under equality legislation – could and should be undertaken before going ahead and implementing them. In asking me to engage in this dangerous process and continuing to inflict it upon me, my colleagues and our service users, LPT is going against one of its crucial stated aims, that of protecting the public, and is asking me to do the same.

The above issues are having a direct impact on my levels of stress and anxiety. I expect to be provided with this information about my future and that of the organisation I had hoped to continue a long career in, in line with my employers’ duty of care."