Wednesday 7 September 2016

Latest From Napo 117

N 26/2016
TO: All Napo NPS members (by mail out)

CC: Napo CRC members (for information)
Branch Chairs, Vice-Chairs, Secretaries and Convenors
National Executive Committee
Family Court SEC (for information)
Napo Officers and Staff

Dear Member,

E3 Job Evaluation Appeal Results

Napo Officers and Officials share the disappointment that members will have about the outcome of the Job Evaluation Appeal panels for the posts of AP Managers (Band 5), AP Residential Workers (Band 2) and Victim Liaison Officers (VLOs) (Band 3).

Napo's involvement in the process

In order to avoid any confusion it may help to be explicit about the process used for the appeals on each of the grades involved. For example, in respect of the VLO role, this was not an evaluation appeal of the job that VLOs have been doing; it was an evaluation of the job that E3 says VLOs will be doing. This means that many of the vital tasks that VLO colleagues have been undertaking with victims and families of victims will no longer be part of the future job description.The same applies to the AP Residential Worker and AP Manager roles. This speaks volumes about the consequences of this Government’s continuing austerity policies and their desire to cut costs and offer the minimum possible service by cutting out job functions that they see as unnecessary. We continue to challenge this approach at every opportunity with Ministers and senior NPS management.

As is the case for all the job evaluation outcomes, the new job roles are part of the changes being brought in by E3 and anyone currently being paid at a higher band will be covered by the protections agreed in the E3 implementation Agreement which we secured before the process began.

When the original evaluation results of these grades were published many members were unhappy about them but so was the employer (in respect of the AP Manager outcome) and it was agreed by the parties that we should have a process of appeal.

This was not the familiar individual process of job evaluation appeal and, given the numbers of potential appeals, the Unions prepared collective appeals to be re-evaluated. For Napo, Katie Lomas (National Vice-Chair) worked with specialist practitioner Napo members to prepare appeals and make suggested amendments to the Job Descriptions and Job Description Questionnaires. We then met with the Employers to go through a process of discussion for each of the roles and every amendment that we had proposed.

It is useful at this point to note that this is not an individual process where the employee's account of what their role is or will be in the future is automatically accepted. This is an employer led process and under the scheme rules it is for the employer to dictate which duties and responsibilities they want to include in a new job description. This means that if they want a job to have a lower grade, they can remove duties and responsibilities from the role. We of course sought to challenge this during the appeal process where we and the practitioners that attended the discussions with us, worked very hard to ensure that we challenged each area where duties and responsibilities were, in the opinion of our members, missing; however it is the employers’ prerogative to remove these.

This work, especially in respect of the VLO role was done in conjunction with practicing members and took into account the wealth of information and the considerable amount of time that members had contributed in their work alongside Katie.

Where do we go from here?

Napo will work with all of our members involved to ensure that no one is expected to carry out any duties and responsibilities that have now been removed from the job description in order to achieve the new E3 specific grading. We will liaise with members impacted by the new grading to ensure that the E3 agreement is adhered to and that where applicable, members currently graded above the appeal outcomes are offered support to seek alternative roles at the appropriate grade during the three years of pay protection.

We will also work with members to ensure that we continue to raise the issues you have highlighted around new operating models and concerns about service delivery and the public safety considerations. We will of course need ongoing input from members to do this effectively, feeding back to branches, officers and officials. We will also be holding a fringe meeting at AGM specifically to allow members to meet and discuss issues relating to E3 implementation.

Napo will work with all members involved to review the situation after 6 months of working to the new E3 job descriptions so that if, in practice, there are elements of the role that were not included in the job evaluation appeal we will apply for a re-evaluation as per the NNC policy.

We fully appreciate that this news will not be well received by our members in each of the grades that were appealed. Be assured that Napo has done all it can to try and secure a different outcome and we have received personal testimony from members who worked with us closely during this exercise to confirm this position.

Napo will continue to challenge the operational rationale for the E3 programme and feedback through Napo branches, about its impact on members is encouraged.

Yours sincerely

CHRIS WINTERS & YVONNE PATTISON        KATIE LOMAS            IAN LAWRENCE
National Co-Chairs                                            National Vice-Chair     General Secretary


--oo00oo--

A comment from yesterday - (I think I'd like to know who sat on the original JE panels and what their experience and qualifications were?)

I just heard today that the GS and the NAPO TOP team of who exactly have agreed the VLO outcome with 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.

33 comments:

  1. Government looking to change the SLA set for the CRC so massive changing of goal post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With respect, that is so little information as to be almost useless.

      Delete
    2. In short SL09 and assurance C are going. We've had it confirmed. I see napo members continue to pay into a useless union .

      Delete
    3. SL09 Completion of licence and post supervision periods

      C Allocated person resettlement services accommodation

      Anyone like to expand on the somewhat limited information we've so far gleaned?

      Delete
    4. If that's true they appear to be removing targets that CRCs are struggling to achieve. Certainly mine is, anyway.

      I believe SL9 is % of those on licence/PSS completing it without being recalled/breached/reoffending, and C is % of people in suitable accommodation either on release or at end of their sentence (I'm afraid I'm not sad enough to know the details without checking).

      Delete
    5. Well how is moving the bloody goal posts if CRCs can't meet the targets in any way acceptable in supporting an argument that TR is working fine? Is everyone asleep down at Napo HQ?

      Delete
    6. CRC Service Level Measure 9 – Completion of Licences and Post Sentence Supervision Periods.

      Delete
    7. CRC Assurance Metric C – Allocated Person Resettlement Services - Accommodation.

      Delete
  2. VLOs on the same band as PSOs seems logical. Don't see why the former are deserving of a premium and they are not on a par with the demands of the PO role. It's all got a bit hysterical about VLOs. What is so special about victim work as compared with working with clients?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh for goodness sake... if they pull this trick with VLOs, they will be coming for you next. Show some bloody solidarity!!

      Delete
    2. Too right. Vlo work is admin work it should be band 2 at best as limited skills are needed for this role.

      Delete
    3. 19.20. Fortunately you have obviously never been the victim if a life changing event like losing a spouse, child or sibling to a dangerous, uninsured, intoxicated driver, or been battered by your partner until u require hospital treatment, or maimed in an anonymous assault and then lost your employment, home, relationships due to disability and P.T.S.D after the event. It is difficult to visit any of these victims and try to interview them about their feelings, fears and the effects of their ordeal. This would take place after they have been advised the offender will only serve half of the sentence awarded in custody and may be released very soon. If you have never experienced this you have no idea how emotionally challenging this can be. Sensitivity, empathy, respect and patience are paramount for this work as well as resilience every day, week, month and year. I love my work and feel privileged to deliver this service to victims who choose to participate. Now imagine how you may feel if you or your loved ones became a victim of a Scedule 15 offence and how you would wish to be treated by the VLO visiting you. As colleagues we have strength if we support each other - don't side with the management who are set to destroy all grades terms, conditions and pay. The VLO down grade to 3 is the gateway for the direction management will take all others, with it seems, the agreement of the Unions.

      Delete
    4. This is the usual emotional blackmail. How about families of offenders who have received heavy sentences. VLOs do not have a monopoly on stressful demands. I don't buy it and it's nothing to do with solidarity, it's about fair comparisons and fair differentials. Likewise AP managers at band 5 seems right, too. It always was an anomaly. It's a softer number than being an SPO in fieldwork.

      Delete
    5. Bloom 20.21 is on the money. Too right. I with you brother

      Delete
    6. you 2 fools next for reduced terms you will be emotional when your role is diminished your inadequate in empathy.

      Delete
    7. Aren't SPO posts band 5 ie same as the AP manager?

      Delete
  3. SL09 has been conceded is an ineffective method to measure success. Accommodation metrics cannot be met because of the austerity programme and nothing about the crc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. None of the metrics measure success or quality work in any meaningful way - they measure the ability of people to massage a particular set of figures, more or less within the law.

      Delete
    2. "Accommodation metrics cannot be met because of the austerity programme and nothing about the crc."

      Hang on a minute - didn't Grayling promise accommodation would be available to all those people leaving prison with £46 in their pocket?

      Delete
    3. Yep - if the prison can't get them into a homeless hostel, they'll pay for a B&B for a night! Obviously sorting out the long term problems...

      Delete
    4. All we know is that the removal of these two metrics which incur financial penalties will be abolished resulting in less fines and more profit to keep jobs so this must be a good move by noms

      Delete
    5. "All we know is that the removal of these two metrics which incur financial penalties will be abolished resulting in less fines and more profit to keep jobs so this must be a good move by noms"

      Astonishing....

      Delete
    6. Astonishing why? Because jobs will be saved. It's okay for you jim you're retired. For us at the coalface we are pleased NOMS have done this. Thank you Moj

      Delete
    7. Daft they wont keep jobs that means less profit. It is about the profit not the work.

      Delete
    8. It's about saving jobs fool.noms care

      Delete
    9. "Astonishing why? Because jobs will be saved. It's okay for you jim you're retired. For us at the coalface we are pleased NOMS have done this. Thank you Moj"

      You 20:21 are a fool.

      Delete
    10. sorry bud your wrong the crc will keep cutting

      Delete
    11. Funny that. You would have thought that the people drawing up the contracts wouldn't have been so stupid as to put in a cash linked target based on something beyond the control of providers. That is, the provision of accommodation for all who need it. Must have got carried away by Chris's pipe dream. Remember him saying what he would do (in our shoes) would be to get together some mates and open an HMO as an example of 'innovative practice? Nice idea on paper - whole different ball game to undertake.
      Also, wasn't the whole TR thing predicated on the need to free up cash via privatisation to help
      hitherto unsupported folk rehabilitate? So if this 'brave New world' can't actually now be measured for effectiveness and therefore value for money why are the Govt continuing with it?
      Because, you can bet your bottom dollar that if successful completion of a licence or post custody sentence is no longer a cash linked target, those clients will fall to the bottom of all the CRCs priority list ref proper resourcing. Especially ones like Working Links, who don't seem to understand the first thing about criminal justice.

      Delete
  4. Has the PO role been evaluated yet

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PO's are a generic role, currently Band 4. By next year, who knows!!

      Delete
  5. Erm band 2 pay to work in an AP, evenings, weekends, bank holidays and Christmas. Really! Isnt band 2 band 2 because no contact with clients, eg admin posts?
    How can it be band 2 to work with highest risk? How long before PSO's are band 2 and OM's band 3?
    Why are we taking this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are "taking this" because not enough probation staff stood up to oppose TR (perhaps not you personally)......they can now do almost whatever they want.....Bobbyjoe

      Delete
  6. Disagreements about VLO grading shows how important it is to be trained in the complex area of Job Evaluation. It is an objective calculation, not a subjective one which is proving to emotive and misinformed.

    ReplyDelete