Tuesday 6 September 2016

CRC Dispute - Latest

Thanks once more to the reader for sending me the following which has been published and sent to Napo members in the South West. What I find particularly interesting is that it's quite clear this action is only being mounted because of the sheer tenacity, skill and determination of the local Napo chair:- 

Dear members,
Attached is the recent letter to Working Links regarding the regional dispute over the consultation process and the general and total disagreements of the situation so far. I am not going to dress this up now but reiterate there are many behind the scenes activity and discussions that generate this declining situation have seen Working Links the company fail to make any proper efforts to arrest the situation they are making worse.

I will be drafting a full branch report shortly.
Thanks

Dino Peros SSW Branch Chair
JNCC Napo Rep


Of course we don't know what's going to happen, but it also doesn't escape my attention that this person was recently felt not to be the most appropriate to lead Napo nationally, largely because three members of the top table, also standing as candidates in the election, had the effect of splitting the vote, thus ensuring continuation of the status quo. No doubt CRC members will continue to reflect on whether the current make-up of the NPS top table adequately reflects their interests?  

--oo00oo-- 

JTU 16 -16
Diane Powell, HR Director
Paul Hindson, Director Justice Services
Working Links

(By e-mail)
2nd September 2016

Dear Diane and Paul

DISPUTE BETWEEN WORKING LINKS AND PROBATION UNIONS

We are writing further to our meeting on Wednesday where we sought to find potential resolutions to the existing dispute between the unions and Working Links owned CRCs.

Whilst we recognise the willingness of senior Working Links management to try and find a way forward for some of the aspects of the dispute, the meeting was overshadowed by the revelation that the position on WAV calculations is possibly going to worsen which in turn would have an even more serious impact on service provision and future staffing.

We have received the version of your spreadsheet detailing the essential points of the dispute and we have agreed to meet as a short sides (union officers and management) next Friday to see if we can make more progress.

EVR proposals unacceptable

Notwithstanding, we thought it important to respond quickly to the proposal that you made to us in respect of altering the Enhanced Voluntary Redundancy (EVR) scheme and which of course took up the best part of the time available on Wednesday.

It will come as no surprise that the unions reject any notion that we are prepared to countenance a reduction in the terms of the EVR scheme as you have suggested. In your written proposal.

It was made repeatedly clear by us that irrespective of the fact that you wish to press ahead with your staff reduction programme without having convinced anyone of the rationale for this, that the unions are insisting that the option of enhanced voluntary retirement must be promoted across all three CRCs in order to see what impact this might have on staff currently in post. We also urged you to seek serious expressions of interest from all staff for EVR so that some informed modelling could be undertaken whilst issues about future WAV volumes and funding are discussed between you and your client NOMS.

As we pointed out when we met, without the above steps being taken the unions cannot be seriously expected to countenance a reduction in EVR terms when some staff have already been awarded full packages. Moreover, we do not agree with your analysis that we are somehow content to see this paid to a few so that the remainder of staff can be dismissed on compulsory terms. We need to remind you once again that we are in dispute and that we oppose the overall position that you have put before us.

Your offer to vary EVR is also unacceptable because:

* Under the terms of the National Staff Transfer and Protections Agreement, we do not consider that you have demonstrated fair and equal treatment of all staff.

* You have not engaged in transparent, equitable and straightforward processes relating to re-organisation and

* You have not ensured that unions are properly consulted with and kept informed of progress this is especially relevant in terms of your desire to reduce the workforce to end state by 31st March and it is essentially the locus of this dispute.

* The existing redundancy policy within DDC CRC does not allow for a variation of the terms for voluntary redundancy and we expect this to be the benchmark across the whole of the Working Links CRC estate. We have offered the support of our local reps in working to a harmonised redundancy policy and this remains on the table.

* It is the fault of the contractor that they have failed to adequately take account of their obligation to understand and recognise the express terms and conditions of their potential workforce that were made known to them in the pre-share sale process.

* Your continuing refusal to withdraw the Section 188 notices and to rely on these as the means of commencing a formal period of consultation which we maintain you have failed to serve notice of.

* Your failure to agree any moratorium or period of reflection to reconsider the current staff reduction proposals.

* We have still to resolve the position of ACOs working across CRC boundaries, despite assurances that you would write to clarify the contractual continuity with the substantive home CRC employer.

* The lack of any assurance of additional funding from Aurelius the new owners of Working Links whilst the possibility of new ventures are promoted amongst staff in fear of their livelihoods. We again reiterate our request to meet with members of the Aurelius senior management team so that we can be convinced if the denial that they are not the 'asset strippers' that we believe them to be.

This is an interim response to the proposal that you made on varying the EVR terms while we consider other aspects of the outcomes from Wednesdays meeting, but it is clear to the unions that irrespective of the foregoing, the CRC's are required to notify the NNC Joint Secretaries of any intention to vary legacy terms and conditions and we strongly advise that you consider the situation before issuing any communications to staff.

We will be considering our future position over the next week and it is likely that this will include the need to consult with members and release information that we have so far resisted doing, our options for unilaterally approaching the NNC Joint Secretaries, the potential for recourse via ACAS as well as a future industrial strategy if we are unable to make progress.

IAN LAWRENCE               GLYN JONES              DAVID WALTON
General Secretary             Regional Organiser      National Secretary 

Napo                                  UNISON                       GMB/SCOOP

30 comments:

  1. ' it's quite clear this action is only being mounted because of the sheer tenacity, skill and determination of the local Napo chair' I think Jim's correct here because I don't recall a similar National Napo response when Sodexo/Nacro we're avoiding EVR in BeNCH CRC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. The two statements below were NEVER uttered by the unions when Sodexo were wielding the axe; in fact the unions previously released a statement accepting Sodexo COULD do what they wanted whilst Napo & Unison simply hid behind the sofa holding their breath, hoping not to be noticed whilst members were being kicked onto touch. Good luck to Dino & SW members.

      "it is the fault of the contractor that they have failed to adequately take account of their obligation to understand and recognise the express terms and conditions of their potential workforce that were made known to them in the pre-share sale process...
      it is clear to the unions that irrespective of the foregoing, the CRC's are required to notify the NNC Joint Secretaries of any intention to vary legacy terms and conditions"

      Wonder why the change of tack?

      Delete
    2. I recall they balloted the members in Sodexo and found there was little solidarity and individuals went their own sweet way. There are signs of stronger leadership in the SW but no idea if there is any grassroots solidarity.

      Delete
    3. Please do not rewrite history. Members of napo & unison in Sodexo owned CRCs wanted action to stop Sodexo riding roughshod over their EVR arrangements. However Napo released guidance which advised members that Noms/moj had given Sodexo the green light to do what they wanted with the modernisation fund AND that the EVR arrangements had, as claimed by Sodexo, effectively expired on 31 March 2015. Napo's retained legal team was made available to members expressing an interest in severance & were advised that the voluntary package was "as good as it will get", despite the two-tier pay-off arrangement it facilitated - and yet Napo now say: "As we pointed out when we met... the unions cannot be seriously expected to countenance a reduction in EVR terms when some staff have already been awarded full packages". Oh really...?

      Delete
    4. I agree that staff in Sodexo CRCs were desperate for Napo to fight. This from my email to Napo HQ in Aug 2015:

      "Unlike some other CRCs our t&c's were properly negotiated & ratified by management, trades unions & JNCC, & written into the management operating document. They state EVR up to 67.5 weeks maximum for the duration of the contract. The CEO now says those T&Cs have been unilaterally changed. ACAS guidance states it isn't lawful to do this without agreement.

      I can't agree to NAPO negotiating with Sodexo when, as far as I'm aware, legally I have as good an arrangement as possible in the circumstances, i.e. 67.5 weeks, already enshrined in the t&c's of my employment with my employer. Even if the shares have changed hands, my employer has not changed.

      I'd like NAPO to fight to get the CRC to honour those pre-existing terms & conditions ... "

      The lack of effective action was a very sad episode in my long experience of trade union membership.

      Delete
    5. No rewriting of history. GS blog, 28/8/15,
      'These talks followed the receipt of the letter from Michael Gove which we published earlier this week. This upheld the view that Michael Spurr provided some months back that any redundancies announced by Sodexo should attract the Enhanced Early Retirement terms (EVR) as per the National Staff Transfer and Protections Agreement. This view was supported by those Napo and Unison members taking part in the recent indicative ballot who confirmed our view that this was an unacceptable position for the unions'.

      You say members wanted action - where is your evidence?

      The situation in the SW is no different to the challenges faced in the Sodexo situation and it's wrong to say Napo was not supportive. All we have in the SW at present is positioning and references to an industrial strategy. The fact is if WL remain intransigent like Sodexo, the only option is industrial action. There was not the will for it in Sodexo and the jurys out as to whether there's a will in the SW.

      Delete
    6. Evidence that members wanted action? You quoted it yourself viz- "This view was supported by those Napo and Unison members taking part in the recent indicative ballot who confirmed our view that this was an unacceptable position for the unions'."

      It was often made clear that staff not in a union were not prepared to support industrial action and in some areas the dwindling numbers of CRC union members in satellite offices left individuals feeling too vulnerable. The confusion, lack of communication & general inaction from the two key unions only added to those feelings of hopelessness & isolation - feelings which were both exploited & exaggerated by eager pro-CRC bullies, e.g. Implicit threats were made that staff would be 'managed out' before any EVR settlement was finalised, with some pro-CRC colleagues making it clear they would 'grass up those not on message with the CRC'. Toxic, toxic, toxic.

      I wish the SW staff every success.

      Delete
    7. 17:59 another napo apologist. The SW situation is materially different. 1 They have a properly agreed local term and condition first rate protective redundancy policy. It is a simple matter breaching this will be an automatic breach of staff terms and conditions that will result in legal claim. I think the reps down there knew what they were doing sadly they were doing this for all of us? From what I understand is that they SW NAPO are driving this agenda properly and ensuring the full support of the General Secretary is full square in this battle.

      Delete
    8. I think 17:59 does not realise there is more than one way to skin a rabbit.

      Delete
    9. Napo allowed Sodexo to walk all over them, they quivered at the knees were too late to the table and the deal was done before they had breakfast. They took our money and did sweet FA for it. The strength is with the branch and HQ needs to get behind them. Problem is their in front and leading the charge like a group of lemings over the cliff and majority of members falsley believe their are no other choices. SW is leading the charge and HQ are behind them not in front thats why they are battling it out for the members and doing a good job.If you leave NAPO HQ in charge get a lottery ticket your chances are better.

      Delete
    10. I think one of the keys to success may be in the term apparently used by Sodexo - that of a 'full and final offer'. If WL HAVE to shed staff to balance the books then a degree of leverage remains -Staff will have very little to lose by refusing any reduced voluntary offer and holding out for compulsory redundancy owing to the excellent terms in place in DDC.

      Delete
  2. The comments from Diane Powell, HR Director
    Paul Hindson, Director Justice Services
    Working Links - such a personal attack is so reminiscent of those clients, who attack us personally for doing a good job.!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 08.00. I think you may have misattributed the comments which I read as JB's

      Delete
    2. Indeed they are my comments and I can see how the confusion came about - now more clear I hope.

      Delete
  3. "House of Commons business papers > Summary Agenda and Order of Business
    BUSINESS TODAY: CHAMBER

    11.30am Prayers

    Followed by

    QUESTIONS

    Oral Questions to the Secretary of State for Justice

    1 Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton)

    What steps she is taking to reform the Human Rights Act 1998. (906054)

    2 ......... etc., etc.. "

    The word probation does not seem to appear in the questions published in advance: -

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmagenda/ob160906.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oral Questions to the Secretary of State for Justice

      1 Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton)
      What steps she is taking to reform the Human Rights Act 1998.
      2 John Mann (Bassetlaw)
      What assessment she has made of her Department's contribution to tackling online hate crime.
      3 Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South)
      What recent assessment she has made of safety in prisons.
      4 Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith)
      What steps her Department is taking to improve safety for prisoners and prison staff.
      5 Joan Ryan (Enfield North)
      What her Department's strategy is for supporting victims of crime.
      6 David Warburton (Somerton and Frome)
      What steps her Department is taking to prevent the use of mobile phones in prisons.
      7 Mr David Nuttall (Bury North)
      What assessment she has made of the adequacy of court provision in Bury.
      8 John Pugh (Southport)
      What information her Department holds on the level of social mobility and social diversity within the legal professions.
      9 Jason McCartney (Colne Valley)
      What steps the Government plans to take to tackle mental health issues in prisons.
      10 Maria Caulfield (Lewes)
      What steps her Department is taking to provide additional support for prisons with increased numbers of inmates who are detained for sexual offences.
      11 David Mackintosh (Northampton South)
      What steps the Government is taking to ensure that offenders find employment on release.
      12 Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton)
      What proportion of prisoners are illiterate.
      13 Kate Hollern (Blackburn)
      What steps her Department is taking to ensure access to justice regardless of ability to pay.
      14 Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East)
      What changes she plans to make to cost protection rules for environmental legal challenges.
      15 Sir David Amess (Southend West)
      What steps the Government plans to take to tackle mental health issues in prisons.
      16 Tom Pursglove (Corby)
      What progress her Department is making on ensuring that offenders find employment on release.
      17 Will Quince (Colchester)
      What steps the Government is taking to improve education in prisons.
      18 Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central)
      What assessment she has made of the potential effect of the UK leaving the EU on the protection of the human rights of UK citizens.
      19 Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down)
      What the Government's policy is on human rights legislation.
      20 Craig Williams (Cardiff North)
      What steps the Government is taking to improve education in prisons.
      21 Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton)
      What steps the Government is taking to address the needs of women in the justice system.
      22 Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness)
      What steps the Government is taking to ensure that offenders find employment on release.
      23 Jeremy Quin (Horsham)
      What assessment the Government has made of the effectiveness of its policies on supporting prisoners with mental health issues; and if she will make a statement.
      24 Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire)
      What steps the Government is taking to improve education in prisons.

      Delete
    2. From Napo General Secretary's fairly recent blog:_

      "A very useful meeting took place with Richard Burgon MP, the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice and Russell Fraser his policy adviser, who members may remember spoke at an AGM fringe last year. Along with Jo Stevens MP, who we are really looking forward to seeing at our forthcoming AGM in Cardiff, they make a formidable looking team.

      Following this Tania Bassett has already sent across a raft of juicy questions some of which we hope will be tabled in the first justice questions session when Parliament reconvenes from what has to be one of the longest recesses in living memory."

      Delete
    3. Player

      House of Commons

      Tuesday 6 September 2016 Meeting starts at 11.30am

      http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3184e13a-c51f-4940-836b-66c97226e358

      Delete
    4. Jo Stevens MP

      Since the Government’s probation privatisation, concerns have repeatedly been raised about the quality of pre-sentence reports for the courts as a result of arbitrary targets set. The probation inspectorate has this month described that as a persistent problem leading to inappropriate sentences being handed down. Vital safeguarding checks, such as domestic violence checks with police and child protection checks with children’s services, are not taking place prior to sentencing. Will the Justice Secretary today commit to an urgent review so that the public, probation professionals and sentencers can have confidence that when convicted criminals are sentenced, those deciding on them have all the necessary safeguarding evidence available?

      Elizabeth Truss MP

      Our probation services do vital work and the Minister responsible for prisons and probation is looking very closely at this issue, but I would point out that those now on shorter sentences get much more support thanks to our new probation contracts.

      Delete
    5. Shorter sentences get no support in our area, your talking cobblers.

      Delete
    6. Dear Ms Truss,

      On behalf of all of the over worked staff in all the CRCs. I thank you for your interest and determined points of view in relation to how you understand the privatisation of the previous award gold standard probation Services formally trusts.

      All our Po qualified staff are now languishing and enjoying to some degree the benefits of the new ways of working. We now have zero job satisfaction across the board. In statistics terms that means a 100% score for the card. WELL DONE ! Our PSOs now carry all the work that should have remained within appropriate skilled staff groups but for less pay why not exploit them Well Done !
      A good percentage of highly skilled staff with centuries of amassed practice and experience, have all been shown the VR door out of work with a series of stolen compensation arrangements. So in terms of crime this lot went unreported and so reduced even more the numbers of thefts because of the distorted measurement by which crime is now recorded. Nevertheless your government has created additional victims who also remain 100% off the score card well done.
      Moral 100 in the gutter lost and deflated staff by resignation Well Done !
      Staff sickness absence rates soaring not quite 100% but well on the way so lets see things worsen and you will get another plaudit. Well Done
      Inter teams NPS relations failing Well Done Courts in a mess over sentencing and CRC do not deliver on any proper outcome Well Done.
      Of course my colleagues could go on at length Unpaid work no longer delivers Well done ! You may realise we have little time to actually complete a piece of real work these days. This list will grow.

      Next time your spouting your mouth off you ought get one of your new support researchers this country pays for or your PPS Parliamentary private secretaries to actually find out the real truth and not your disingenuous party line.

      For and on behalf of all of our totally demoralised insecure and shafted privateer rubbish workforce stuffed arbitrarily into the CRC innovation farce and nonsense.

      Your truly one of the multitudes of had enough.

      Delete
    7. Hear! Hear!

      And please don't forget how the ripple effect of the TR target-led PBR bullshit affects communities - those who would see their probation officer regularly or when they felt were 'in need' or 'in crisis' can't do so anymore. So where do they go?
      - Mental Health Team? No duty staff available, no Crisis Team.
      - Police s.136 cell? Full up.
      - Social Services? Overworked & no duty staff available.
      - Drug or alcohol worker? No, closed down or appointment only.
      - GP? No, only 3 mins available per appointment IF they're allowed in the building. GP: "Why not refer yourself to our NHS counsellor?" (The GP surgery get paid for each referral).

      So we now have increasing numbers of sex offenders, DV perpetrators & chronic substance users ringing up & referring themselves to & clogging up the IAPT service - the NHS talking therapy provision for low mood, depression & PTSD as an alternative to prescription meds. And it won't be long before that service is oversubscribed by this wholly inappropriate client group - who, in order to be accepted, are posing as victims & absolving themselves of responsibility for their actions. Result? Another much-needed public service ends up in yet another train crash, a disaster leaving a trail of chaos & devastation in its wake.

      Then no doubt some eager Tory child will be quick suggest that privatising the IAPT service will resolve the 'crisis' - maybe the next MP for Epsom?

      Delete
    8. From NHS website for info:

      "The Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme supports the frontline NHS in implementing National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for people suffering from depression and anxiety disorders.
      It was created to offer patients a realistic and routine first-line treatment, combined where appropriate with medication which traditionally had been the only treatment available. The programme was first targeted at people of working age but in 2010 was opened to adults of all ages."

      Delete
  4. Nice one, Liz. Not true but nice one.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm in SW and I vote we walk out for 2 weeks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd support that fully. I'm in SSW CRC. 2 weeks is nothing n exchange for a job OR the correct rate of EVR. WL are disingenuous to say the least.

      Delete
  6. Are the N.E.C reuslts out? I ask because I heard a rumour that we still don't have quoracy???

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just heard today that the GS and the NAPO TOP team of who exactly have agreed the VLO outcome with a an excuse as long as your arm. This GS earns approximately £75k Per year or £6250 Per month or £1562 per week or £312.per day. So any job he is doing I would want to be assured he is the best that this money can buy. On current performance and management apologies a union in decline what are we paying for? Plus his pension .

    ReplyDelete
  8. I genuinely hope that the staff in Working Links CRC's get the correct amount of money as agreed for EVR, should it come to this. However, Working Links will have seen that Sodexo got away with not paying staff the agreed EVR package and therefore why should they? Regardless of what Michael Spurr said, or what ACAS said, Sodexo simply ignored everything and paid marginally more than the legal requirement, and a lot less than the EVR agreement required. Why should Working Links do differently now the precedent has been set?
    Good luck to all concerned anyway as it is about time these CRC owners got a bloody nose for the way they have treated the (once proud) workforce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why should WL not believe they can reduce terms just as Sodexo did. They will reduce terms and they will get away with it, just as Sodexo did. All the hopes that the SW will pull a rabbit out of a hat will be dashed. But this reality is for tomorrow - in the meantime hope springs eternal.

      Delete