Redundancy Special

My tame barrister seemed very excited about something because she purred as she read the Sodexo email sent on Friday. She won't tell me why, but equally she seemed concerned: "the unions should be all over this."

******
In the Napo Branch Memo of 25/3/15 it is written: 'The unions do not expect CRCs to propose any compulsory redundancies during the term of the private contracts and branches should be vigilant in opposing any such proposals that emerge after 1 September 2015.' I find the union thinking on this almost magical. They sign a framework agreement that states specifically, that for a period of seven months there will be no compulsory redundancies, and come away with the expectation that there will be no compulsory redundancies during the contract term.

When negotiating the framework agreement, I wonder if the union side asked the MoJ why they wanted a sunset clause of a mere seven months when the unions foresaw no compulsory redundancies? It seems to me that any reasonable person would think that there was a clear intention to plan for redundancies. There was no sleight of hand by the MoJ – reading their intentions required no clairvoyance. And yet Napo, unable to grasp this nettle, grasped at straws of hoping it would not come to pass – and it has. September is early this year!

Why did Napo sign the framework agreement believing there would be no proposals for compulsory redundancies? Whatever, it was a major misjudgement and you have to wonder if they were up to the job. If this has caught the union leaderships on the hop, they have only their myopic selves to blame. I hope they don't ask us to write to our MP's on this one. They need to build and organise, quickly, for industrial action.

******
I don't agree with the 7 month clause either, but it's likely that without it the privateers would have made redundancies anytime from 1 minute after share sale. Redundancies were always going to happen and the only way to stop this would have been to stop TR. Very sad news.

******
If you are of the view that compulsory redundancies were inevitable, then seven months notice is better than one minute's. This view, however, does not appear to have been the one taken by the Napo leadership who expressed hopes of no compulsory redundancies during the lifetime of the contracts. Was Napo being hopelessly unrealistic? They, unlike the pessimists amongst us, were not expecting redundancies. Had they been expecting them they could have been planning a strategy to deal with this new threat. As it is, they are on the hop and calling for emergency meetings with CRC reps. Someone suggested on this blog a few weeks back that Napo had 'thinkers and strategists'. Well, it's a pity they never thought to war game the possibility that their optimism was fanciful.

******
How do people think they will arrive at the decision of who will be kept and who will be got rid of? I would think first to go would be all temporary staff. I'm not at all convinced that just because you volunteer for VER you will get it but surely to goodness they'd 'let someone go' rather than keep them against their will and make one of their colleagues redundant. After this, what criterion will be used to choose which POs will stay and which POs will go? This is worrying.

With regards to offices in Lancs/Cumbria, the other day it said there was going to be a central office and a few other smaller ones dotted around the counties. Does that mean all admin will be done in the large centre and does all of this mean offices are closing? If so, which ones? If they are shared buildings, I'm guessing NPS will be left to pay the rent on the whole building rather than as a proportion, like they currently are doing. I'm dreading the next few weeks as things begin to unravel and hope everyone's getting as much support as they can.

******
I would not assume that temporary or agency staff would be the first to go. The objective will not be to protect anyone's job. The assumptions that underpin selections will be driven by a cost-benefit analysis. This is all about units of labour, not romantic notions of loyalty to a hard-working workforce. I don't think Employment Tribunal time limits are relevant in the present context. As long as the employers follow the usual procedures, there will be no legal comeback.

******
I think that Napo were too weak, incompetent or uncaring to forge a better agreement. We all knew that redundancies were always going to be a consequence of TR, and we knew that EVR would only be for those corporate staff in the Ivory tower. Based on what happened when Serco took over London Probation CP, it is unrealistic to think Napo believed there would be no redundancies. I note Napo is threatening emergency rep meetings but the JR horse has bolted and the TR ink is dry.

If Napo had any fight it wouldn't have agreed this in the first place. I'd like to think that since contract handover it's been supporting numerous complaints and employment tribunals. I think we can confidently say this will not be the case. The blame game doesn't help and nor does false hope. It must be awful for all colleagues in the immediate firing line.

******
Well in our brief, it was 1 Hub, 3 LDU's. How they will be staffed was not certain as they haven't committed to any new buildings yet, let alone who are going to staff them. Also the assumption for the new staffing levels depends on better IT, better buildings etc, etc,. I've worked in private sector and normally just given risk letter and gone, money as notice in lieu, however, I think because this is country wide it is more complicated than just one factory closing. Business needs was pushed strongly when they talked about the redundancies in Probation. So don't book your holidays until you have it officially in writing your end date. I don't think it's going to be that straight forward.

******
There is no opposition to voluntary redundancies – as these were part of the collective agreement signed by the unions. The concern is that any hoped-for enhanced terms will be watered-down, and these are the signals coming from Sodexo. Compulsory redundancies are a different story. These would be divisive. How these are challenged is an open question.

******
This is and was always going to be a dog's breakfast. The operating model leaks like a sieve and will show its shortcomings within hours but we have to wait and see because the IT and buildings debacles are yet to resolved themselves and all sorts of details are still to be ironed out. The levels of incompetence and deceit amongst both the MoJ and bidders is such that the party is only just starting. There will undoubtedly be casualties but we cannot assume that this will stop at frontline staff. The people who are driving the bids are not the people we see on the ground. Most of them are on short term contracts and are likely to find themselves in the same dole queues as the rest of us as the wheels fall of this turkey.

******
No Union can negotiate "no redundancies ever" deal with an organisation. Businesses have the freedom to make a business case for redundancies whenever and as noted above, when Serco took on UPW in London, they announced redundancy plans within about a month. The transfer agreement cited above would have been the best thought achievable - that doesn't mean Union negotiators thought the agreement was brilliant (I've no idea what they thought) but to sign up to it indicates they believed they had gone as far as they could to win some protections as opposed to what might have been imposed without.

Personally I'd rather we hadn't negotiated at all but the National Officials viewed their task was to protect as much as possible. In relation to what happens next, there should be collective consultation (eg looking to negotiate/influence numbers, categories, delivery plans, H&S impact etc as well as redundancy payments and redundancy criteria) then it moves into individual consultation with selected at risk group who are deemed to meet criteria. Your local Napo/Unison reps and link National Official need your support, not slagging off at this time. The local reps in particular have a lot of hard work ahead of them doing much in their own time. Yes if we had had better strike turnout before, maybe things would be different but I personally don't think sniping about the past helps anyone. As someone above noted, ask your local Branch chair, what can I do to help? From local Cumbria-Lancs Napo rep.

******
I worked in industry before becoming a PO twenty years ago and have prior experience of divestment and redundancies. If anyone thinks they could have done better than NAPO and Unison in the Framework agreement, they really are kidding themselves. At least for 7 months there was protection. Don't believe me? Then look at what happened when Kraft took over Cadbury in 2011 with a pledge to keep open the Bristol factory. No warning just BANG factory closing, 400 jobs gone. That is the real world not the 'probation is a business' fantasy that the Trusts operated under and which many colleagues believe was the world of big business!

Without that agreement, jobs could have gone much quicker believe me. This is the reality of the private sector where £profit is all. Staff are just another overhead and offenders the raw material of a probation industry that is now emerging with a vengeance. Yes we should have fought a more committed battle, but sadly many of those we work alongside chose not to, for me, that is the main issue we got the union response we voted for (or perhaps more honestly, failed to vote for). We are reaping the whirlwind of complacency but lay off the unions for at least getting something, it was really better than nothing. WE WERE WARNED AND FAILED TO ACT IN UNITY.

******
After Cumbria CEO sent her letter to her staff regarding the actual numbers they intend to lose, our CEO (Northumbria) sent an email aying they are calling a meeting with managers Monday. This was not how they planned to notify staff but with Cumbria sending their email, ours is forced to say something now. I think earlier than what they wanted. Cumbria have forced their hand. I think they are in panic in case people start to leave earlier than what they wanted.

******
It is also my understanding that the CEO of Nbria has had his hand forced by the email sent by the Cumbria and Lancashire CEO. It is likely all the CEOs of the Sodexo CRCs have been shown the model at the same time but appears Nbria has had the balls and the sense to rubbish Sodexos plans. Nbria response wasn’t to simply accept and communicate to staff with an email of doom, but to send the plans back to Sodexo and tell them "think again, you're having a laugh if you think that will work".

While staff have not been told the details, it was apparently so absurd it would never work and that Sodexo really need to go back to the drawing board. When I look at the proposed cuts for Cumbria and Lancs, I cannot see how the same can be made in Nbria. We have lost a lot of staff in a recent recruitment drive to the North East NPS when they realised they did not have enough staff. This has left staff in Nbria having to be directed all over the place to plug gaps. It is likely more will be lost in another wave of recruitment for North East NPS and is likely some offices in Nbria will no longer be viable.

I understand comments today saying redundancies cannot be protected against or that when another company takes over redundancies are more often than not inevitable. I believe however this is a unique circumstance. CRCs are not a company which has ceased trading where all staff has to go or where all staff employed by the incumbent company has had a fair shot at redundancy. Don’t forget there are as many who want to leave as there is who want to stay. This is an organisation which has been split into two. The way in which this was done was wholly unfair and still to this day cannot understand how employment tribunals have not arisen as a result.

Staff were sifted into the CRC, not based on competency, level of qualifications or years experience but based on what type of cases they were supervising one day. At that stage staff were placed in a company they did not choose to work for and were given no option at all to take redundancy. No option to say “I don’t want to work for a private company”. No option to take the same redundancy packages for the staff that were told they were not needed in the new company before share sale.

Hang about!! Aren’t staff being told now they are not needed in the new company? So because some of us have been kept hanging around for a while while the powers that be get their arses into gear we aren’t afforded the same redundancy package. The very staff who have kept things running professionally in the face of fast paced, illogical and dangerous changes. They’d have known roughly what their plans were and how many staff they would need so why not offer the redundancies prior to the split and why, in Nbria for example were so many PO’s taken over to CRC when it is clear they are not wanted?

Staff were declined the opportunity to go to NPS as they HAD to go to CRC. So why should they be got rid of on a shot redundancy package? Why should these staff also now have to complete application forms, take interviews and negotiate their own terms and conditions to go over to NPS now they have realised they haven’t got enough staff? Anyone who has good contacts with employment lawyers need to get talking NOW. There are some big questions which need to be answered and matters concerning constructive dismissal type scenarios need to be looked into.

******
DTV are to lose some jobs next year. How many is unknown, but it is my understanding that they hope to achieve this through natural wastage. However, if the planned bids were based on closing offices, how will this now be achieved if using mobile IT is not going to be possible because MoJ have not delivered the interface to allow this? I do not think DTV staff are going to be immune from this sorry mess. Trust CEOs and Boards across the country sold us down River because they did not stand up to NOMS or MoJ with the exception of one CEO and Board Chair, who battled shoulder to shoulder with us. I still believe that had Napo and Unison coordinated themselves better and both Unions had taken strike action collectively, it may have stopped this. Sadly it's all now downhill for staff, offenders, victims, public and taxpayers.

******
Just to add my support to you all as former colleagues. As a NAPO rep it was obvious to me from the beginning that the fall out from all of this was not going to be pretty. Encouraging some colleagues to pull the ladder up thinking they were OK whilst others have been thrown to the wolves. As the only middle manager in my former Trust who took industrial action, I was generally seen as a fully paid up member of the awkward squad and decided to trade in my CQSW and move to another job. I knew I would be seen as an easy target when the inevitable redundancies popped up and I had no intention of ending my career in that way. It is interesting to reflect that most of the active NAPO members ended up being shafted into the CRC, myself included. Remember, the best predictor of future behaviour is what has happened in the past. EVR was only ever going to be trousered by a few. When I read the proposals for EVR I mentally made a note of those I predicted would profit. I am confident I will have guesed right.

To colleagues in the CRCs, do read these blogs. In between the understandable rage there is some sound advice. If you have allowed your union membership to lapse, it now may be too late to sign up but if you are in either UNISON or NAPO get rep help asap. It makes senior management stick to the rules even if your rep feels out of their depth (don't bank on help from NAPO HQ). Take as much control over the process as you can but don't cut your nose off as some are suggesting. Going out through competancy proceedings is not nice and could affect your chances of getting another job. Think for yourself and your own needs and those of your family. The organisation you worked for and took pride in has been butchered and the crows are picking over the corpse. Whatever Grayling and co think, you all have skills that other organisations will want to have. Nil desperandum, colleagues.