I'm sure there must be a few lawyers who read this blog, or maybe people know of a friendly lawyer who could be pointed in this direction? We need help quickly because colleagues in the Sodexo-owned CRC's are being royally-shafted by this French catering company who know nothing about our business.
I'm a fairly simple soul who likes to think he can understand plain English. The following is a quote from a letter sent to Napo by the Secretary of State for Justice, Michael Gove MP. It seems pretty clear to me, so what the f*ck is the problem in Gove picking up the phone and telling Sodexo where to get off?
"Clause 30.3(e) of the Amended and Restated Services Agreement (ARSA) with Sodexo requires that unless more beneficial terms exist, the contractor must give effect to the Voluntary Redundancy Terms; these terms apply unless renegotiated in accordance with applicable law. These Voluntary Redundancy Terms are outlined in Annex B to the National Agreement and are annexed in the commercial contracts. The MoJ position on the National Agreement on Staff Transfer and Protections is that this remains unchanged. Any probation staff employed as at 31st May 2014 will, if they are eligible for voluntary redundancy, be entitled to the EVR terms outlined within this National Agreement. My officials will continue to work with all providers to ensure they honour this obligation.
Any proposals to amend these terms, like those that Sodexo have put on the table, will need to be considered through negotiation with trades union and in accordance with applicable employment law. With regards to the differing Voluntary Redundancy terms that Sodexo are offering, my officials are continuing to work closely with them to ensure they comply with their contractural obligations."
I have already discussed this with two friends who are employment lawyers - basically, the major issue is that NAPO signed up to the EVR terms but foolishly neglected the fact there were no enhanced compulsory redundancy terms. All this meant that any CRC could bypass the EVR stage and move straight to compulsory anyway. By offering the voluntary severance package, Sodexo aren't breaking the terms of the contract. All they're simply doing is offering something completely unrelated to the contract. One of my friends said he couldn't believe how foolishly amateur NAPO had been in agreeing these terms.
ReplyDeleteHowever, N'bria and Cumbria/ Lancashire had policies in place which DID guarantee EVR up until March 2016 if redundancies were to be made. I know that doesn't help the other 4 areas, but surely colleagues in these two areas should have the policy honoured! I believe the phrase is 'custom and practice' I.e other people (senior management) have been given EVR as a result of TR but trying to move the goalposts for frontline staff is a clear breach of the policy. Trying to sneak a new policy in without being approved is breach of contract surely?!!
DeleteThanks for that, I don't think the position has been put so clearly before. We need a response from Napo - but there's a greater chance of pigs flying I suspect - in which case I think we need to see a resignation before the AGM in October.
DeleteSome of this was on the blog a long while back and if you look further back this was coming. The leadership we have had has no capacity to look long term. Anyone know that's what you pay a lawyer to do , find the weak clauses. While napo should be paying for that instead of the former general secretary relationships fiasco. The bank rolling big spender rendon forked out the lolly and we are really going to pay the price for that. He was in the in club and paid of his former buddy. Well done nec turned your backs on the people that said no to the scandal. That cover up the NEC assisted because they are weak led the way for the total scam. I hope lawro does go before AGM I will be there to boo and stick 2 fingers up to the monitors and useless pair of chairs double rubbish. It wont matter I have my letters to get rid of me . I wont be able to fund napo either. I would rather have a job but that has little prospect now I have to accept.
DeleteAnd therein lies the problem. NAPO allowed this to happen and now it has are trying to cover their tracks with misinformation and posturing. They need to back off. Sodexo will not respond to their attempts to bully their way through this, and people who chose to take a deal want to move on.
ReplyDeleteSo if NAPO back off, then who WILL Sodexo listen to? Nice try Sodexo boy, but not very clever.
ReplyDeleteNot sure what point you are making Anon 10:42.
DeleteThe situation is simple:-
1) We need to know if what is alleged is true regarding Napo's failure to spot Sodexo's loophole?
2) What legal advice did Napo get specifically in relation to the possibility of a loophole?
3) If no advice, why not?
4) If Napo's legal advisors failed to spot the potential loophole, what redress is Napo going to seek?
5) If advice was offered, was the advice followed?
All this happened on IL's watch and we need a new General Secretary.
In March (BR 25/2015) Napo wrote: 'The unions do not expect CRCs to propose any compulsory redundancies during the term of the private contracts.' This expectation was held despite the fact that there was a seven months countdown to compulsory redundancies included in the framework agreement. I have never understood the basis for the assumption, presumably shared by all three unions, that compulsory redundancies were unlikely during the lifetime of the contracts. If this expectation that there would be no compulsory redundancies was truly the groupthink of the unions then what was their rationale for this expectation? Because it has turned out to have been a monumental misjudgement.
DeleteI dont know what point 10:42 is making either Jim but as the person who 10:42 is offering the confused response to, I can confirm that I am not « a Sodexo boy». What is a Sodexo boy anyway...someone who dares to present a contrary view?
DeleteCorrect, Netnipper - in April 2015, Sodexo released a statement & a comment on this blog was featured in relation to that statement:
Delete"I feel sick to the stomach as I read that Sodexo statement:
"We had planned on the basis that the majority of exit would be on compulsory terms, seven months after contract commencement, i.e. 1st September 2015, as per the National Agreement."
Says it all - couldn't be more explicit if they tried - it was planned. The slash & burn, the seven month wait to move to compulsory redundancy, the fact it was written into the agreement. IT WAS PLANNED. So come on Napo, Unison, MoJ, NOMS whoever else sat around that table - OWN UP!!! Who got paid what to put together this travesty of an arrangement whereby "the majority of exit would be on compulsory terms, seven months after contract... as per the National Agreement.""
A similarly themed post on here from 7 Apr 2015:
Delete"The MoJ have stated:
"The enhanced Voluntary Redundancy Scheme, agreed with Trade Unions as part of the National Agreement on Staff Transfer, is funded by the Ministry of Justice in the period to 31 March 2015... We are not currently planning to offer VR to probation officers and other operational roles as we believe we need to retain the skills of those who have been transferred to the NPS."
So what about the poor bastards in CRCs? Sodexo, any ideas?
"We had planed on the basis that the majority of exit would be on compulsory terms, seven months after contract commencment, i.e. 1st September 2015, as per the National Agreement. If operationlly possible and staff wish to exit early through a compromise, we are currently looking at whether we can offer an exit package on slightly enhanced terms.""
We can even go back to 2014 & the words of Lord Faulks in Hansard:
Delete""It is difficult to understand why there is apparently—so the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, says—discontent among the staff, because a deal has been negotiated with the unions. We have been undertaking negotiations with probation trade unions and the employers’ representatives over a national agreement for staff transfer that will protect the terms and conditions of staff transferring to the CRCs or the NPS. Probation trade unions and the Probation Association, which represents trusts, ratified the national agreement on staff transfer on 29 January 2014. Trade unions have also withdrawn all local trade disputes. The national agreement offers a very good deal for existing staff, and demonstrates our commitment to fairness by going much further than we are legally required to do. Staff will transfer to the new probation structures with their existing terms and conditions in place. The additional protections set out within the agreement include a guarantee of employment in the new probation structures from 1 June 2014, no compulsory redundancies for a period of seven months following share sale and an enhanced voluntary redundancy period of up to 67.5 weeks. Alongside our negotiations, the programme has put in place a dedicated consultative forum for effective engagement with trade unions and employers’ representatives. We will continue to engage closely with trade unions and employers throughout the transition to the new probation structure.""
On your bike Nipper lets be clear. This blog has seen posters asking specifically what reasons did Lawro have for joining in the SCCOG He was warned by many and I was told reliably he should not be including himself in the talks of the setting up of the TR agreement. Employers should have wrote it independently from his input. That was construction stages not consultation. He should have received it read from them read it and sent to legal for trashing. Instead he helped formulate its incredible deconstruction of us. As has been called for in the past Where are the minutes Lawro of all your meetings that you attended. Where is the legal guidance notes, where are the minutes of the SCCOG meetings and what did you tell them that allowed practically the first draft through. Also JUST SO YOUR CLEAR as a napo fee paying member losing my job I would like Lawros post I could make the same mess and no worse. Finally I do not care for the other union leaders I am holding the man we pay a salary for to account no one else. Why did the officers let you go to the meetings anyway are they that pathetic and send you off have a good day at the office dear?
Deletere the previous blog which highlighted Sodexo admitting they made a mistake with the over 55's rights and HAVE NOW CHANGED THEIR POSITION - I have seen 3 requests for an explanation about what this means- at 1744 (the first comment), 20 54, and the 2nd last comment at 935 this morning.
ReplyDeleteAltho' I am retired, I still feel for my friends, colleagues and those I have never met, many who are over 55, who are struggling with making major decisions and would like to see someone explain this baffling statement.
Thanks ml @ 10:53. I too am waiting for a response to the very clear and reasonable question posed by 17:44 yesterday. This came very quickly after the IL blog had been updated and posted on here so one wonders why someone from NAPO would not have been able to respond.
DeleteNapo do not account on this blog they account to the NEC if its not asked they get away with it. I can assure you Napo had been written to many years back seeking a national policy on redundancy to protect people as it was a fragmented situation and some very decent people saw this . National NAPO did nothing those letters exist. In West mids they are the only area to retain their LGPS rights of a 104 weeks pay at point of compulsory redundancy so are laughing at the EVR rate. The harmonisation process also called for upward mergers and so some got a small contract protection. The rest of us will be providing the second pensions rip off since Maxwell and NAPO knew this. Fact !
DeleteI am over 55 and have 2 children at university still financially dependent on me....they live in big cities and cannot pay their own accommodation fees....I need to work for my family....and I still have a mortgage so have my own needs to meet. I want to work and accept my role has changed but I never ever thought I would be living in terror of redundancy given my profession and at this stage in my life.
ReplyDeleteBefore the trolls rush to respond I expect to deliver my usual standard of performance I just never ever believed a profession could be decimated the way our has, in such a short space of time.
I think all right-minded people have nothing but sympathy with all colleagues who are finding themselves in this intolerable situation - they are but the first with others to follow in the remaining CRC's and NPS without a shadow of doubt.
DeleteLets try and carry on using the blog for information sharing, to carry on the quest to get at the truth through all the bullshit and bollocks, for mutual support and the provision of an audit trail for history to be able to judge where the blame for this disgraceful omnishambles lies. I hope historians and researchers might like to take particular note of who said nothing while an honourable profession was smashed...........
I'll end this with a gentle reminder to all readers - please consider writing a guest piece, anonymously of course. As far as I recall, I've never refused to publish any considered piece submitted and have only ever 'tidied' up spelling or layout and certainly not censored anything. This is a genuine offer to facilitate anyone wishing to get things off their chest, but with more space and perhaps in a more considered way.
Morally and legally Sodexo colleagues are right re. wanting EVR over VS. That said IF IT COMES TO A JUDGE AT AN ET, the Judge might not always agree with the Sodexo colleague. Sodexo in my view had lawyers who advised them that what they were doing with VS over EVR was ok. THATS PROBABLY WHY THEY ARE DOING IT, THEY TOO HAVE BEEN LEGALLY ADVISED
ReplyDelete"With regards to the differing Voluntary Redundancy terms that Sodexo are offering, my officials are continuing to work closely with them to ensure they comply with their contractural obligations"
ReplyDeleteThis is ambiguous speech and very different from saying "EVR must be paid to staff". Gove is not fighting for probation staff, no politician is.
The first comment summed it up. Sodexo ensured a contract where it could do what that wanted, and Napo were too incompetent to prevent it and unison/GMB didn't give a damn either way.
Napo had the experience of the London unpaid work sell off, and so knew redundancies would occur. So it was not foolish, but incompetent and useless. I'm in the NPS and Napo will be useless for us there too.
Good point London UPW flogged off NAPO did nothing to save the PSO grade because they were not seen as professionals. Tim Wilson chair Tom Rendon London Chair his own members Jonathan Ledger GS . Not a peep from the usually heard Pat Waterman and the rest is history. The cast was set on the national privatisation looked a lot easier to pull off as there zero campaign . In fact it became the open door invitation.
DeleteWhere is Pat Waterman, all quiet now it's not her branch YET affected.
DeleteCrapping herself now she realises this game is live and NPS will have her straight for the door if she raises her blustering tones.
DeleteThis is exactly why I am taking 6.5 years of experience and leaving Essex CRC to go and work as a Substance Misuse Intervention Worker for a charity! I am of the opinion a charity organisation will actually care about their staff and treat them with respect and not as a mere commodity. I am almost certain a charity will treat the service users with dignity and respect and not as something to be exploited in a money making exercise that goes under the guise of "payment by results" offenders are people, not cash cows!
ReplyDeleteSince the split I have had enough of being disappointed and unfulfilled working within a CRC as it is chaotic and unmanageable; the only positive has been interaction with work colleagues who support each other, have a laugh and also share the same cynical view of this "new world."
It is interesting PSO and PO grades were denied VS as we are required to remain unhappy within the CRC purely for the purpose of doing the "donkey work" to set up "Sodexoffenders" all singing all dancing operating model!
The final straw came for me as humble PSO grade being refused the opportunity to take VS as the plan was to secure another job and take the money and run! Interestingly other PSO's and PO'S were turned down for VS, despite the Chief Officer stating those who want to leave are more than entitled to apply for VS, after all if people are unhappy then they should move on.
Unfortunately people will move on and leave with nothing due to feeling overworked, underwhelmed and generally demoralised by the current state of affairs but on the plus side look at all the money Sodexo will save by refusing to fulfil the wishes of its employees, after all this awful company made over £39 billion profit, surely they can afford to pay people to leave?
They can readily afford to dish out £120,000+ for legal fees to get people to leave, plus the additional costs of the agreements, the HR meetings, etc.
DeleteIL is a mover and shaker. He is toying with Sodexo and will come good just have some faith. Anyone heard of the SPO up north (I think) with a microphone in his office reading out performance like in a call centre every morning??
ReplyDeleteYes I heard that. It was a team manager from upw
DeleteI very much doubt that this is true i.e re the SPO (it is also untrue that IL is a mover and shaker) but even if it is, who cares and what point are you trying to make?
DeleteIL is a mover and a shaker I saw him sing Gold at a karaoke Napo do he was crap at both moving and shaking. On that score I doubt if sodditco will be moved or shaken by the pork pie salesman.
DeleteIL 'toying with Sodexo'? What a hoot.
ReplyDeleteIts too late to 'come good' for some 400+ crc employees who are leaving under VS, some of them napo members he won't have 'come good' for. If, as you seem to believe is possible, he 'comes good' after VS then maybe those members might look at taking IL to task for not protecting their interests.
DeleteAGM time to go IL fast as we can see you down the road the better for napo.
DeleteCan I just make something really clear please. EVR is NOT the same a VS. VS is NOT redundancy (in legal status at any rate) - it is people agreeing they wish to go, on the terms being offered, with absolutely no come back. Redundancy - enhanced, voluntary, compulsory, statutory - you name it, it's different, but it IS Redundancy, and NOT Voluntary Severance.
ReplyDeleteThis extremely basic difference is WHY Sodexo have been able to do this. They are offering (and indeed people are choosing to take) something completely different to what was originally on offer - called Redundancy. I am not in a Union. I did not express an interest in the VS. I easily found out, by phoning LGPS that anyone made Redundant over the age of 55 is entitled to their unreduced pension - no losses (to them) for early payment (at it's current value ie. not as if one had paid in for a further X years to 65!).
The situation is awful; workers are suffering. Sodexo and senior management have been, at best, obfuscatory and this whole mess leaves their morals and ethics in serious doubt in my personal opinion. The Unions have been seriously lax in my view, and totally 'off the ball'. Glad I didn't pay any of them - what do people pay their unions for, if not to protect them from exactly this sort of travesty!?
No wonder everyone is thoroughly pissed off. Sadly I don't imagine Gove gives a fig about any of it, or us - and will just bluff his way through the whole sorry mess, and still come up smelling of roses ... you watch. The 'chosen few' always have a way of bouncing back - look at today's News!
This, 18:02, is the best post I have read on here for a long time. Not just because I agree with you, but because you are clear and concise. Now, do you know what IL meant yesterday when he said 'Sodexo had accepted they were wrong re the over 55s and the pension issue'. I dont think they have been wrong about anything. True, we think they were 'wrong' not to offer us EVR, but they have been very careful in everything they have done.
Delete18:02 - Presumably the bouncing back refers to the vile Brooks woman, media whoor, Murdoch lieutenant, Cameron's fantasy date & wife of one if his best chums from poshville.
DeleteAnother posh boy writes a book about posh people:
Delete"Prime Minister David Cameron misled the Leveson Inquiry over his relationship with former Sun Editor Rebekah Brooks, a new book has claimed.
Cameron told the investigation that he saw more of Mrs Brooks after she married his former Eton school friend Charlie. However, Matthew d’Ancona, who has known the Prime Minister for more than 20 years disagreed. In his book on the Coalition Government, d’Ancona claims: “Cameron knew Charlie Brooks only slightly before his marriage to Rebekah. It was Rebekah who brought him closer to Charlie, not the other way round.”
The book, In It Together, claims that Cameron told Leveson he was “seeing more” of Brooks because of his “friendship with Charlie and as a neighbour”. It reveals that Brooks was not initially a member of Cameron’s inner circle but made her way in due to her charm."
Wikipedia entries suggest a manipulative liar - narcissistic PD?
Delete"Brooks was born in Warrington, Lancashire (now in Cheshire), to a father variously described as a tugboat deckhand and gardener. She grew up in Daresbury, to the south of Warrington, and when she was 14 decided she wanted to be a journalist. She attended Appleton Hall High School – a state comprehensive school that had previously been a grammar school – in Appleton, Warrington. A childhood friend, Louise Weir, described her as "more emotionally intelligent than academic", charming and always able to get what she wanted out of people.
In Brooks's entry in Who's Who she stated that she had studied at the Sorbonne in Paris, but did not claim to have a degree, and did not later answer questions about this; in a 2003 Spectator article, Stephen Glover suggested that, since she was working at the age of 20 for the News of the World, "we can safely assume that she did not study at the Sorbonne in any meaningful way". In 2010, Brooks was awarded an honorary Fellowship from the University of the Arts, London, for her contribution to journalism. She attended the London College of Communication, now part of the university, as a student.
The commentator Henry Porter claims little is known of Brooks personally. Tim Minogue, who was one of her first co-editors before becoming a journalist at Private Eye magazine, recalled a "likeable, skinny, hollow-eyed girl who was very ambitious"."
Charlie Brooks must have a tongue like an electric eel. He's nothing to look at and, by the transcript of the phone hacking trial, spends his time watching lesbian porn DVDs (impounded by the Met, whilst evidence gathering). Nevertheless, he pulls the women. John Francome, in his autobiography, told of reading about Brooks gallivanting in Italy with his (Francome's) wife Miriam, in the gossip columns. Knowing his wife was in England, Francome, laughing, rang Brooks and said 'have you seen the rubbish they've written in the paper about you and my wife?!.. Brooks, replied ' I think you better speak to her' - and passed her the telephone...
DeleteHere's a response to IL's "enjoy the summer bank holiday", courtesy of the eloquent & talented Edwyn Collins, but with some crass adaptations to his gorgeous lyrics - sorry.
ReplyDelete"The rotting carcase of July
And CRC hung out to dry
Your gorgeous hippy dreams are dying
Your frazzled brains are putrefying
Repackaged, sold and sanitized
The devil's shilling exercised
You live, you die, you lie, you lie, you die
Perpetuate the lie, perpetuate the lie,
Perpetuate the lie, just to perpetuate the lie
Yes, yes, yes, it's the summer festival
The truly detestable summer festival
Yes, yes, yes, it's the summer festival
The truly redundant summer festival"
Trust you're doing as best you can, Edwyn. Nottingham 1980 was a long time ago.
I know this may sound daft..but has Nacro made any comments about staff being screwed like this. .not really charitable
ReplyDeleteThat's because NACRO is where the former DTV Trust Chief Russell Bruce( JFDI) has surfaced....charitable...nope just after an honour!
DeleteHi 18.19 - in response to your enquiry: "Now, do you know what IL meant yesterday when he said 'Sodexo had accepted they were wrong re the over 55s and the pension issue'." - like you, I can only interpret it as meaning they have been wrong to go off plan with the VS to the detriment of the over 55's, instead of offering the EVR. ... NOT that they will have any intention of playing fair and correcting the situation. I don't imagine they are that 'close to change' do you? In fact, I'd put money on them 'offending' again in the future.
ReplyDeleteSodexo have been behaving as if the entitlement to a pension for the over 55s is their gift rather than something you and your previous employers have paid into:nothing to do with them.If you are over 55 check with your Pension admin office for the correct position or look at the website.The information is there.
ReplyDeleteRelease of the pension UNREDUCED is a gift! I am 56. If Sodexo were not offering the deal and I wanted to take my pension I would have to bear an early payment reduction of around 40% a year. The deal covers this. The LGPS website you refer to covers the issue of reductions.
DeleteRush, rush, rush, make a decision now, take this, go away, meet these people, deadlines for signing, pay those people to check it, ignore the unions, here's the best deal we'll ever offer...
ReplyDelete... Dude, where's my agreement?
It'll now be 1 Sept at the earliest before I get it thru the post, just 3 days before it needs to be returned with signatures etc after being scrutinised by a lawyer. I'm not in unison or napo or any union for my own reasons - so getting a lawyer at such short notice will be expensive.
Is this how global enterprise succeeds in business? Doesn't seem very impressive or effective to me.
Sodexo are paying for the lawyer. You just go to whoever you want and they invoice your CRC direct up to £300. Re return date CLCRC an Northumbria have extended deadline. I agree however. Get me the contract!!!!!
DeleteIm sure the GS has financial commitments like all of us so this constant call for his resignation must be unsettling for him. It must stop so he can focus on doing his job.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but who cares?
DeleteI doubt he even bothers with what people on this blog thinks as it's only a handful of members wanting him gone with most members backing him to the hill. You are right. There is no chance of him going so he should be backed?
DeleteThey are not believe anything but 600 members soditco are not the UPW London are not and now every branch at risk after Sodditco will not be.
Delete