Latest From Napo 21

Today we have two emails from Napo HQ to all members. The first is joint from Tom Rendon and Ian Lawrence and the second is from Tom explaining why he is striking:-

Dear All

A campaign against privatisation has to fire on all cylinders. Some members will favour industrial action, others the press and parliamentary side, others think the answer lies in a legal challenge. The debate is an academic one because we have to try all of it. Here’s the latest.

Industrial Action Guidance: Guidance about taking industrial action has just been sent to Officers in all Branches*. The guidance covers information relating to the picketing, pay, pensions, the hardship fund and how to maximise the impact of the strike by not squashing your work on to different days. The guidance is applicable to Napo members in all different grades and roles and we have given attention to the particular challenges faced by administrative, practitioner and manager grades.

Parliamentary Activity: Jeremy Wright MP and Norman Baker MP are appearing before the Justice Select Committee on Wednesday. We had very late notice but we have prepared our evidence for the committee. Parliamentary protocol dictates that we cannot share the evidence beforehand or send out a press release. We will send you further details once we know the time and place. The government is still misleading members of the House by saying that the unions have agreed to everything. This is refuted by Napo and we know is causing huge frustration among members. A strong show on 31 March/01 April will consign the government’s disingenuous claims to the rubbish bin.

Transforming Rehabilitation: We are aware that Trusts are moving ahead with TR in all sorts of ways- the caseload split, moving desks around etc. If this applies to you and is part of a “management instruction” it carries with it an implied threat of discipline. We have sent previous guidance about compliance with TR tasks. Essentially, members have to do tasks as directed because this is contractual. We are seeking advice as to which tasks we can refuse to do as part of industrial action- this is legally difficult and we have to ensure that our guidance does not put any individual at risk.

The Legal Situation: A recent comment went along the lines of, “If Napo went to JR, we wouldn’t have to go on strike”. We understand the feeling but it couldn’t be more wrong. Judicial Review is not a panacea and industrial action remains vital. There are risks.

If we “win” at JR, the Court could say, “Secretary of State, the Court agrees with Napo, go away and review your position.” The Secretary of State reflects and comes back to Court and says. “I’ve reviewed my decision and it is staying the same.” The Court is then reluctant to interfere with a sovereign Parliament. Or, we could “win” and prove that the government is misusing the law. But, in response, the government can just change the law. We do think there should be judicial scrutiny of TR and, subject to NEC approval, there is no funding barrier to this. The risks we have predicted are likely to come about as evidenced reality as TR progresses. This is the evidence that we need and we are reliant on members sending it in- campaigns@napo.org.uk. Look out for the template form we will be sending out. We’ll keep you updated.

A Message of Solidarity: The criminal justice solicitors are joining our action by working to rule on 31 March/01 April. Here’s a quote and link to their news site.

'In addition to working to rule, the solicitors voted for two more days of joint action, this time with the probation service on 31st March and 1st April. Two weeks ago 2000 lawyers marched on the Ministry Of Justice in a full-day walkout chanting, ‘Grayling, Grayling, Grayling Out! Out! Out!’ The lawyers have been escalating their action since cuts of £215 million from the annual criminal legal aid budget were confirmed. Solicitors, barristers and access to justice campaigners have been united in their opposition, arguing that the cuts will see the criminal justice system collapse, increased miscarriages of justice and a denial of justice to those who cannot afford a private defence lawyer. Now lawyers are joining forces with probation to warn the public of the wider crisis facing the criminal justice system.

Nicola Hill, President of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association said, ‘We are standing by the probation service as they too face a dangerous overhaul and risky, non-evidence based privatised rehabilitation agenda. Throughout the criminal justice system we are seeing justice eroded. The Ministry of Justice and the courts have benefited from the goodwill of defence solicitors for many years. Legal aid lawyers have been oiling the wheels of a creaking justice system for too long. We’re no longer prepared or able to do this. That’s why we’ll be working to rule, sticking to the letter of criminal procedure. This won’t be to the detriment of clients but will demonstrate to the MOJ that we’ve been taken advantage of too long. Our hand has been forced.’

http://www.clsa.co.uk/index.php?q=For-the-first-time-ever-solicitors-work-to-rule

*we can’t send the guidance direct to members because of the number of attachments. If you haven’t had this, please contact your branch officers.

Best wishes

TOM RENDON     IAN LAWRENCE

National Chair       General Secretary

I find this particularly puzzling under 'legal situation':-

If we “win” at JR, the Court could say, “Secretary of State, the Court agrees with Napo, go away and review your position.” The Secretary of State reflects and comes back to Court and says. “I’ve reviewed my decision and it is staying the same.” The Court is then reluctant to interfere with a sovereign Parliament. Or, we could “win” and prove that the government is misusing the law. But, in response, the government can just change the law. We do think there should be judicial scrutiny of TR and, subject to NEC approval, there is no funding barrier to this.

and I don't seem to be the only one either:-

In their latest note, the Napo leadership say, 'Judicial Review is not a panacea and industrial action remains vital.' At the moment JR is like the dog that won't bark and Napo is forever saying we are going to do it...soon...now, it seems when they get NEC approval. Napo likes to set up straw arguments over JR. Who ever thought it was a panacea? Like pulling out of the Probation Institute, JR becomes another line in the reaction to TR. I was interested to read that industrial action remains 'vital'. I wonder how vital it will be regarded once the next one is over. If so vital, then why no rolling strike programme?

Now I'm assuming that neither Tom nor Ian are legally qualified and that's why Napo pay for legal advice, so I'm slightly surprised at this statement, even before fresh legal opinion has been obtained. All this has done is cloud the issue even further. Napo top table had better get their position clear on this important issue as soon as possible and tell the membership what it is unambiguously, or I sense the mood is going to significantly worsen.

Here is the second email:-

Dear All

 

Almost every day that I get up and go to work represents another day of us being bullied by the Secretary of State for Justice.  It feels personal.  Like all of you, I’m sick of being told that our work isn’t good enough and that the Civil Service or private sector can do it better despite the evidence.  I have over 30 years of work ahead of me and I want this to be in a job that matters, a job that is well regarded, properly paid and meaningful.  The government is putting all that at risk.  What legitimacy do they have to do this?  None.  Splitting up the Probation Service is dangerous and legally dubious.  It is being done in the absence of any scrutiny and it has no credible advocates.

As a main grade Probation Officer, paid in the middle bit of Band 4, the strike will create a dent in my finances but I’m determined to manage it because I think it is a price worth paying to protect our future.  Some members will earn more, some will earn less.  We don’t all have the same personal circumstances so I’m glad there is a hardship fund to offer some assistance to those disproportionately affected.

 

Striking is tricky in our job but there’s no way around that.  Does that mean I shouldn’t bother?  No.  Withdrawing our labour is a fundamental right and, in the present climate, it’s a responsibility.  It is quite simply the strongest signal we can send to the government.  Ministers are still running around saying that the unions have agreed to privatisation- what better way to loudly refute that rubbish than by robust strike action.  The Ministry of Justice would be delighted with a low turn-out and that makes me feel more determined to get out there.  Clients I have spoken to about privatisation (they asked me and I didn’t embellish) were visibly horrified about someone making a profit out of them. 

After some uncertainty I was eventually assigned to the NPS.  I don’t want to work in it and still attended my grievance hearing (not that the CRC would be any better).  Concerns about the CRCs are well documented but what about life in the NPS?  Line management support will be threadbare- 1 SPO per two buildings in some areas.  Where’s the support in dealing with high risk case work?  How do I make risk judgments on CRC cases I have never supervised?  How many times will I face difficulty in front of the Parole Board accounting for those cases?  The command and control approach of the prison dominated NOMS threatens to make probation work unrecognisable as Probation Instructions will dictate every move.

I’m striking because I’m part of a union.  As an individual, the power I have to stand up to a bullying government is minimal.  When I stand together with thousands of colleagues, we can challenge and win. 

Best wishes,

TOM RENDON
National Chair