23 April 2015
JOINT UNION ADVICE ON SODEXO PROPOSED JOB CUTS & REDUNDANCIES
This bulletin sets out the joint probation unions’ position on the job cuts announced in the 6 Sodexo owned CRCs, and gives advice to members who may be placed at risk of redundancy.
WHAT IS THE JOINT UNION POSITION?
Napo, UNISON and GMB are opposed to the 600 job cuts announced by Sodexo in early April to deliver on the proposed operating model for the 6 CRCs. We are also extremely concerned at reports that none of the 6 Sodexo-owned CRCs is planning to honour the terms of the national enhanced voluntary redundancy scheme (EVR), agreed as part of last year’s Staff Transfer and Protections Agreement, if voluntary redundancies are eventually declared.
We intend to fight to ensure that Sodexo complies with the national agreement, and that EVR is the only route that is available for people to exit a CRC on redundancy grounds. Any other approach would leave our members at a disadvantage, and will be seen as unfair and unjust.
Any other voluntary severance package, or early retirement scheme, is likely to be inferior to the nationally agreed package, and members should be wary of any offer that undercuts the terms of the national agreement. See advice to members below.
In response to the threat to members’ jobs, public safety concerns over the scale of the job losses and the possibility that the national agreement on EVR may be ignored, the three unions have:
In response to the threat to members’ jobs, public safety concerns over the scale of the job losses and the possibility that the national agreement on EVR may be ignored, the three unions have:
Written on 17 April to Ursula Brennan, the MOJ Permanent Secretary, to ask her to:
- Confirm whether the Sodexo job cuts have been authorised by the Secretary of State as the ‘special shareholder’ in each of the CRCs. The unions doubt whether this has been done.
- Instruct Sodexo to halt the timetable for the job cuts in order to allow proper scrutiny of the staffing and public safety issues after Ministers return to the MOJ after the general election
- Confirm that each of the Sodexo-owned CRCs must abide by the terms of the contract that the company signed with the MOJ to honour the terms of the national enhanced voluntary redundancy scheme (EVR) if voluntary redundancies eventually take place, and that MOJ will enforce this contractual term if Sodexo refuses to abide by its provisions.
‘We therefore confirm that your understanding (that the EVR terms set out in the National Agreement should apply to any voluntary redundancies offered by Sodexo CRCs to employees employed by a Probation Trust on 31 May 2014 for the lifetime of the Sodexo contracts) accords with the MOJ’s intention and understanding of the relevant terms of the National Agreement and the ARSA [contract between MOJ and Sodexo], subject to any amendments to such terms being negotiated with the relevant employee representatives and in accordance with applicable employment law’
• Lodged a national dispute at the National Negotiating Council (NNC) at the meeting on Friday 17 April, over the risk to the national agreement on EVR and asked for the Joint Secretaries of the NNC to also instruct the 6 Sodexo-owned CRCs to halt work on the proposed redundancies pending resolution of the potential dispute over redundancy terms. MOJ representatives at the NNC meeting confirmed that MOJ agreed with the unions that Sodexo must apply the terms of the EVR scheme.
• Met with Sodexo on Monday 20 April to ask the company in the strongest possible terms to:
- Reconsider the scale of redundancies, in light of our concerns over staffing pressures and public safety. We are awaiting information from Sodexo on their operating model so the proposals can be properly scrutinised.
- Consult fully with trade unions locally over the company’s proposed operating model via the CRCs’ local negotiating machinery
- Confirm that, if voluntary redundancies are eventually declared, Sodexo will comply with the NNC enhanced voluntary redundancy agreement
As a result of the meeting, and the trade unions’ request to halt the redundancy process, Sodexo confirmed on 22 April that:
Following discussions with our colleague CRC CEOs earlier today, we have agreed, where these have commenced, to pause our current redundancy consultations. This is pending further clarification, refinement and consideration of staffing numbers and associated budgets during May.’
• Met to consider our joint union strategy going forward, including the potential for industrial action if we cannot make progress on the above issues via negotiating channels
ADVICE TO MEMBERS
ADVICE TO MEMBERS
If you are an employee of one of the 6 Sodexo-owned CRCs, and you find yourself at risk of redundancy as a result of the recently announced job cuts, you are advised:
- Not to enter into any individual consultation or agreement with your CRC, or Sodexo, in relation to your job security or redundancy terms, until further advice from your union
- To refer any approach from your CRC, or Sodexo, regarding your job security or redundancy terms to your local union representative/branch
- To advise your CRC, or Sodexo, that you are not able to respond to any approach regarding job security or redundancy terms until you have received further advice from your trade union and refer your CRC, or Sodexo, to your trade union representative or branch
It is particularly important that you do not commit to accept any redundancy terms that have not been approved by your trade union, as it is possible that Sodexo plans to offer inferior terms to those set out in the national agreement. If you agree to any such inferior terms you will have put yourself outside of the protection of the national agreement and your union will be unable to assist you to improve your severance deal. More information will be issued as soon as it becomes available.
'We intend to fight to ensure that Sodexo complies with the national agreement, and that EVR is the only route that is available for people to exit a CRC on redundancy grounds. Any other approach would leave our members at a disadvantage, and will be seen as unfair and unjust.'
ReplyDeleteThe only other approach is compulsory redundancies.
Why did the unions agree to wording in the framework agreement that specifically addressed compulsion? It states, in Key Principles, para 5, bullet point 2:
'No compulsory redundancy in either the NPS or CRCs for a period of seven months post share sale.'
I cannot think of any reason for this clause other than one of the parties to the agreement had something in mind. Now the unions want EVR to be the only exit from a CRC on redundancy grounds, in other words they want all redundancies to be voluntary because EVR only applies to voluntary redundancies. Given that this is their position it is weakened somewhat by their earlier agreement to compulsory redundancies, seven months post share sale.
subject to any amendments to such terms being negotiated with the relevant employee representatives and in accordance with applicable employment law’
DeleteThis is the next hurdle a variation of contract notice being planned no doubt !
Netnipper the answer to your question is obvious re read all your replies the answer is there !
Given the number of experts in employment law and negotiation etc who post here and critique current Napo negotiations, I'm surprised there's not more competiton when it's time to elect Napo Negotiating Cttee members or National Officers
DeleteMy bro in law, just got made compulsorily redundant from the NHS as a result of a services contract being re-tendered. He got the same package as we were offered in the old Trusts, except there was no 16 year ceiling on qualifying service. So, even our Enhanced scheme is crap compared to another compulsory scheme in the public sector.
ReplyDeleteWe should have held out for our LGPS 104 weeks entitlement. Yet again wrong people at the helm ! The line the best that we can achieve under the circumstances comes to memory. West mids still have it though ! Well done them.
DeletePosted on behalf of a third party:-
ReplyDeleteThe real issue is there is no cost to Voluntary Redundancies, whereas legal challenges in relation to Compulsory Redundancies have to be funded by the unions. Napo will be fighting for its financial life and risk ruin if many claims are lodged, and requiring representation. That's why they will 'agree away' so that members will be shafted by not being able to lodge any challenge at an Employment Tribunal. It's basically the same policy as Napo implemented with TR and the sifting/shafting.
On what basis could someone challenge a compulsory redundancy? As long as the employer follows a fair procedure in accordance with employment law – which is not difficult, then I don't see any grounds upon which Napo would be funding a plethora of claims for unfair dismissal. The tribunal system is not clogged up with claims about redundancy and that's because in the UK it's a fairly straightforward matter for employers to do it. Why Napo ' agrees away' is a topic for debate, but it isn't to avoid the costs of funding employment tribunal claims.
DeleteEmployers fair ? Sodexo Fair Tories Fair Employment law fair TR Fair ?Your naïve . If things were fair we would not be in the crisis we all face. You write a lot but now your understanding of the situation is worrying.
DeleteUnfair redundancy claims may well be on the decline because Jobs are with the use of Zero hours and shifting weak employment laws Oh yes introduced by this government in the last 5 years. How long before the temporary staff get slung out in favour of the same. Zero hours zero rights that's fair ?
Napo shys away from employment tribunals. They'll do whatever they can to avoid these costs.
DeleteIf EVR applies then it'll probably be compulsory redundancies and restructuring. Sodexo is big enough, rich enough and business savvy enough to run rings around MoJ worded agreements.
Anon@19.58 must try to understand the difference between 'fair' in law and 'fair' in life.
DeleteThank you for this life education Nip your statement of the obvious is amazing. However patronising, this is the end of a reasonable exchange of views. The readers understand you appear to be advocating it is fair for us all to face redundancies so long as a process is in place. Encouraging a position whereby members should expect to be got rid off within the current context as long as EVR paid a dividend. Somehow Napo should not have to spend all its reserves, and take timely adequate actions in challenging and preventing our demise. When I read you again in the future it will be sceptically.
DeleteI really do hope you read me sceptically, as that's a sign of an intelligent mind. However to distinguish between what is fair in law and in life generally is not to state the 'obvious' otherwise why would you rabbit on about what's fair in your earlier post? You missed the point – that is what is obvious. Which seems odd given that you claim to have your finger on the pulse.
DeleteThe law is narrow and it's findings may not seem fair and just – merely an interpretation of existing law. To the enquiring mind the legislation on trade union activities should make this perfectly apparent. I am more than happy to see the end of these unproductive exchanges.
Your having a laugh Nip ! You introduced the heady romance of life having a fair process so all should be happy. Take ownership. We all know there are many examples in life and law which are just not fair you re- state the obvious.
DeleteRabbit has been your domain still going on. At no point do I claim to have a finger on the pulse as you put it. You venture too far. Pettiness can have the last word so please repost as I expect you'll have a overwhelming need to be. Your generalised view of the law in TU matters is narrow. Many will realise the law has many quirks and cases are unique to individuals. Outcomes are often varied and changes case law over time.
I am feeling less sceptical about you now and perhaps a bit sorry for your dogmatic naivety. Even a little comical !
You promised to end these exchanges and like a bad penny you have come back with another little rant. However, good to see that you now contextualise the meaning of 'fairness' in the law.
DeleteHaha comical as I said ! I never promised anything it is petty Now I promise to stop here as we have a better insight to you. Mind your Ego it reads fragile.
Delete'We have a better insight' ??? I do hope that was only a syntax error and not symptomatic of having more than one mind!
DeleteCan they still make redundancies come September and if so, on what terms? Simples language please to this question? Is what the the unions just stopping cuts until September?
ReplyDeleteThanks, you've asked the question - I don't quite understand it either.
DeleteRedundancies will be made but they are duty bound to consider vol. redundancy first. The terms of compulsary redundancy will be determined by your previous Trust's policy and these differ across the country. Ask your local NAPO reps.
DeleteWhat does 'consider' voluntary redundancy mean? Do they have to offer it or can they bypass it?
DeleteOn a selfish note, does EVR apply to NPS staff for the lifetime of our contracts from 31st May 2014?
ReplyDeleteIf CRC staff win (I hope they do) and EVR applies, it would be pretty unfair if when/if NPS PO's are laid off in a year or two (maybe if custody cases become supervised by prison PO's and community cases aged 28-24 are supervised by the YOT's), will we get EVR as our chief officers have? Any idea?
Heres link to the Staff Tranfer Agreement which does not specify NPS staff getting EVR rates from my reading https://www.napo.org.uk/terms-conditions
DeleteYou would hope PO and think there is logic in this. I suspect as new civil servants working as we do now for the civil service, Napo will as our Union negotiate new terms we hope. Establish the same redundancy arrangements as the rest of our CS staff. terms and severance package which is generous.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem to me, as a Probation Officer, in one of the Sodexo areas that Sodexo are seeking to renege on negotiated agreements, but in particular the enhanced voluntary redundancy scheme, that we all understood and the Ministry of Justice have since confirmed our understanding of. This leads us to speculate that they, Sodexo, did not pay attention to the details or worse. I would counsel Sodexo to keep to the spirit of the agreements as to do otherwise would send a shocking ethical message to all concerned with Probation Services.
ReplyDeleteas you are now civil servants you will be treated as such and there will likely to be no link to CRC EVR i would think.
ReplyDeleteBut it says anyone working for a probation trust on said date... for the lifetime of the CRC contracts.... as far as I can tell that represents all of us both NPS and CRC. It might not be what was intended but that doesn't mean it couldn't be argued.
DeleteI am sorry to be so confused but I do not understand anything. If SOD exo have to make voluntary redundancies on enhanced terms for the life of the contract, surely this would obviate a compulsory redundancy situation from arising. Why then in the agreement is there reference to «no compulsory redundancy in the first 7 months»???? Can anyone explain, in simple terms???? Thanks in anticipation.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Only probation officers could make a simple thing so complicated! !!!! Can someone explain in simple terms.
DeleteSo I see it as this - figures released by MPloy indicate (for example) 30 x PO, 19 x admin, 15 x management posts are to be lost. Phase One = announce & consult with those 'at risk'. Redeployment or other options are considered, figures re-visited then requests are for indications of those wanting to take VR. Phase Two, assuming figures aren't met, compulsories are chosen. If too many volunteer then I guess they have to use selection criteria?
DeleteHow does that sound?
as I understand it, it would not necessarily be the case that the organisation's need to re-organise (reduce staffing levels)would totally be met by those who might want to go. It could be "wrong" grades etc who wanted to go ie people the org wanted to keep so would not grant those applications hence you could end up with situation when org argued it needed less staff , had allowed EVR where it deemed it feasible and redeployed those it could and still had view it had to reduce staff complement in which case it's left with compulsory redundancies ie saying we need so many who fit this criteria and then they assess all staff in that group and determine who scores highest on the agreed "eligible" criteria (eg worst capability or disciplinary or attendance record etc)
ReplyDeleteSo does it have to offer voluntary redundancy before compulsory?
DeleteYes but just because the org says it needs to lose 50 staff that doesn't mean it pays out 50 VRs; (see above)as may be staff who apply may not be deemed suitable
DeleteThis is understood. Thanks. However, what I still dont get is why, given EVR lasts the 7 years, SOD exo dont have to just offer this again in the scenario you describe (ie get rid at one point, then want to shed more a few months later). I am clearly no good to them as I have no business brain, and am a wooly thinker!!!!!
DeleteBecause businesses (including the old Trusts) typically work to annual budgets. They'll want to streamline sooner rather than later ( when Serco took over Unpaid Work in London they began consultations on redundancies within a month of starting) and if Sodexo or whomever, say the org needs to lose staff their estimates will be to lose this year rather than next (although they could revise their business plans again next year. This is not new. For example, we had about 3 "revisions" of staffing levels for Unpaid work in Lancs over about 5yrs)
DeleteIn yesterdays napo 57 anon @ 946 mentions the 7 month period.
ReplyDeleteWhat seems not to be clearly explained is that the State is abdicating responsibility for the redundancy of trained , professional probation staff and leaving that responsibility to the third party - in this case Sodexo.
ReplyDeleteThere is "relief" for CRC to make staff redundant which is effectively the payment to the company (Sodexo) on behalf of the MoJ.
What may not be clear also is whether the MoJ fund the loss of jobs at EVR rates or at "standard" rates and here might be the issue that is causing the difficulties between contractor and customer.
Although the anger is focused on Sodexo , the snakes in Petty France have just as much responsibility for this horrendous situation.
The Government is spineless, it does so many such tricks , hiding behind the "market" which it sees as the most suitable vehicle to run substantial parts of the public services in the UK.
When as a school governor my choice is between sacking teachers or running a secondary school with less capital funding than it costs to put up a domestic conservatory - the "choice" is shadowed by the threat of Free Schools and Academy Chains waiting to pounce with additional funding and pots of cash available from a government that is idealogically driven to drive down the size and quality of public services.
Probation is not alone in the struggle and that is why there is not a great deal of public support , when the public has more personal worry in the consideration of housing, welfare and health all been "marketised" , such as is happening in the TR project is unfortunately not at the top of their list.
Natalie Bennett holding her own on Question Time, but I've just heard John Major, in his defence against Natalie''s challenge about unemployment, say- ' the only job losses are in the public sector'!
ReplyDeleteThat's alright then...
For what it's worth, was in Question Time audience last night, tried to challenge Hague's comments about Public Service jobs but over ruled, had argued with him in previous debate about CJS b4programme was recorded so not surprised didn't get 2nd chance. Have been invited to give Radio 4 interview next week and will be raising the profile of private enterprise making announcement of 100s of job loses, replacing people who have given a lifetime's work in many cases with machines, people who now face unemployment in their 50s
DeleteThank you.
DeleteThinking about this a bit more. I speculate the Sodexo will back track a little in order to seem reasonable. EVR will goto large chunks of CRC senior staff such as ACO grades and their friends in finance, PA's, etc, maybe a few select SPO's that were good at brown-nosing over the years. We all know this is how probation trusts worked and they created policies to enable this. This is how Chiefs and their friends left with tidy nest eggs. Operational staff from PO grade downwards will not get a sniff of EVR and instead be on the compulsory redundancy list, actually they are already on the list and they just don't know it. Some PO's will be offered alternative roles as PSO's. PSO's will face changes in job descriptions to justify pay cuts. Admins will be shown the door. I suspect job titles will change to justify the above.
ReplyDeleteI've seen similar happen in the police: roles changed, pay reduced, but can they do it in probation? If certain roles aren't needed wouldn't this have been known prior to transfer?
DeleteGood article by Frances Crook here, raising some important issues about privatised probation.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2015/04/24/comment-who-will-look-after-victims-now-grayling-has-privati
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/clinks-report-highlights-redundancies-criminal-justice-charities/management/article/1344438
ReplyDeleteClinks report highlights redundancies at criminal justice charities
DeleteA sample of criminal justice charities has made a total of almost 400 redundancies over the past three years, according to a report published by Clinks, the umbrella body for criminal justice charities.
The report, The State of the Sector, published today, identifies key trends for charities working with offenders and their families. It says that a survey of 62 charities working in the criminal justice sector shows that they reported a total of 390 expected and actual redundancies between April 2012 and March 2015. Clinks has more than 600 member organisations.
It says that according to its research, carried out in conjunction with the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion, 131 redundancies were made by 50 criminal justice organisations in 2013/14.
It says that many organisations are relying on their reserves, putting them at risk of closure.
Winning new contracts is a problem for the sector, it says, and the majority of organisations are failing to receive full cost recovery on every contract they are delivering.
And it says that organisations are spending more time on funding applications, diverting resources away from front-line services.
Clive Martin, director of Clinks, writing in his foreword to the report, says: "The tension between increasing demand for services and decreasing access to funding continues to erode the sector’s ability to provide quality at the required scale.
"The reality of this situation needs to be acknowledged; otherwise it will become too burdensome for staff and the communities they work in."