Wednesday 5 April 2017

Latest From Napo 143

Napo victory on Harmonisation package

This negotiating update alerts you to an important breakthrough by Napo in the long running negotiations with the NPS on the maternity pay and harmonisation policies.

NPS members will be asked to indicate their agreement to this package in a separate communication that will follow shortly. As the circular points out Napo has been seeking a conclusive outcome on the maternity and and harmonisation package for some time and have had to persevere despite the barriers in our way.

This circular summarises the success for Napo negotiators in these talks and also sets out your unions future objectives around pay and our efforts to push for solutions to the chaos within the Shared Service Centres operation on a host of pay and pension related issues.

More news about these will follow soon, meanwhile NPS members are asked to look out for further communications and ensure that you take the opportunity to respond to the consultative exercise.


--oo00oo--

Members update for all Napo members in the NPS and CRCs

MATERNITY LEAVE VICTORY IN THE NPS - MEMBERS HARMONISATION CONSULTATION – reply required by 17th April

All NPS members should shortly be receiving an e-consultation from Napo on proposals to harmonise several MoJ/NOMS policies, including maternity leave and annual leave for new starters. The proposals are a vast improvement on the initial offers and reflect prolonged and difficult negotiations at national level. Napo is recommending the package as a whole following endorsement by Napo's Probation Negotiating Committee. Members will be asked to indicate their view by no later than 17th April.

Napo is the only union who has consistently pressed for urgent harmonisation of maternity leave since the time of the TR staff split but at various stages this has been prevented. In recent months the hold-up involved the NPS insisting that any improvement in maternity leave should be linked to a cut in annual leave. Napo very forcefully opposed a move that we considered to be discriminatory. Our campaign on International Women’s Day highlighted members’ frustration with the NPS, with hundreds posting pictures online saying #maternitymatters. This helped persuade the NPS to drop the link to leave, although the proposals do harmonise leave for new starters this will not be effective until the new policy commences in September 2017. The harmonisation of leave year for existing staff is March 2018.

NPS still have great concerns about their capacity to actually pay staff on maternity leave without several months lead in. This reflects the chaos and fundamental failings in the SSCL arrangements (see more below). Napo however proposed a compromise which was accepted. This means the package takes effect from 3rd September, except for maternity leave which will apply for members with an EWC of 30th April, 2017 albeit with NPS stating that they may have difficulty paying people impacted properly. This is an honest, albeit shocking admission fro a major government department but Napo’s view was, unless there are major changes to the SSCL contract, we couldn’t be confident they’d be any better placed to pay people accurately in September. An earlier or backdated application of maternity pay however would have been too chaotic.

Members who have not received an e-consultation to their preferred e mail address by Monday 10th April should contact Napo directly. New members in the NPS joining between now and 17th April can also join in the consultation.

PAY CLAIM COMING TO NPS, CRC and RISE

Hot on the back of the consultation about the NPS harmonisation package, Napo is also submitting their National Probation Pay Claim in the next few days. All members will be sent a copy of the claim so look out for it in your inbox over the coming week.

The claim is the same for all Employers, recognising that the same challenges of a broken pay and grading model have been transferred into the CRCs. The claim highlights how uncompetitive probation pay has become as a result of both the government’s prolonged pay freeze and the negative impact on pay progression in probation. Napo’s view is that these problems must be urgently addressed if probation employers are to have any chance of competing for staff or avoiding huge recruitment and retention challenges.

The recognised unions have been involved in pay reform negotiations with the NPS for some months and we remain hopeful that reform supporting the aims of the pay claim will be possible. The creation of HMPPS adds further pressure on the NPS, as staff being expected to move into a custodial setting could be asked to provide support and quality assurance for prison staff. We are also conscious however of the huge risk to the CRCs’ capacity to compete for staff if NPS unilaterally introduces a significant pay gap. The same principle applies regarding softer terms such as maternity leave. For this reason, Napo are lobbying government to make sure that the Probation Services Review (which is reviewing CRC contracts) recognises this risk and allows for a price adjustment so that CRCs can compete and members working in CRCs are protected. This is in line with our mandate to defend collective bargaining.

To support the claim and the campaign around it Napo Branches will be asked to organise a series of meetings and briefings for members. Please look out for details of these.

Ongoing pay and processing problems in the SSCL

Napo has had real difficulties trying to resolve the many different processing failures in NPS HR. These currently include some new starters not being paid at all; continuing problems with staff not having the correct PAYE amounts deducted leading to tax issues; staff changing their working pattern (e.g. maternity leave; going part time; increasing their hours) not being paid or taxed correctly; pensions contributions not being correctly collected; staff moving roles being issued with the wrong contracts; etc. We are extremely conscious of the increased risks arising from more staff being moved towards working in HMPPS.

The SSCL contract is clearly another example of the failed, rushed TR sell off. Put bluntly, any shared-service model can only work if all those covered are on shared terms and conditions. The insistence from HM Treasury that the split was dependent upon probation staff remaining in the local government pension scheme alone means this isn’t possible. Failures to address pay issues just exaggerate the differences whilst differences in maternity and leave have further highlighted the problem. Napo has been willing to address harmonisation to try and solve members’ problems but as we close the gaps the scale of the problem becomes ever clearer.

Napo is now of the view that this cannot be fixed without starting over. We are now lobbying Ministers and the Justice Select Committee to call for an enquiry into TR and asking them to call in the SSCL contract.

PLEASE SHARE THIS NOTE WITH COLLEAGUES WHO MAY NOT BE MEMBERS OF NAPO.

Remember you can get cheaper subs by paying directly through Direct Debit and can also access our extensive new Napo members’ Benefits Package and save the cost of membership in full.

Ian Lawrence (General Secretary), Dean Rogers (Assistant General Secretary
Yvonne Pattison, Chris Winters (Co-Chairs)

23 comments:

  1. I am not sure if I understand the implications for new starters, but does it mean their leave will be reduced as payback for improved maternity arrangements?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sadly thats how I read it Anon 7.50.Hopefully we'll get more info soon. If leave for new starters were to be reduced (which I hope is not the case) its even more argument for better pay to incentise recruits

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's how I read it too. Also, it says "the harmonisation of leave year for existing staff is March 2018" which sounds like we will all have our leave reduced next year?

    I fail to see how this is a "victory" or "important breakthrough"?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This 'victory' has an awful lot in common with a defeat. Who does Napo think it's kidding with this hyperbole?

      Delete
    2. To 08:36 harmonising leave year means frm when leave yr starts ie 1st March thru to end Feb following yr as opposed to staff having varying dates

      Delete
  4. No it out is not. Hardly equality based either. New starters on less. What's good for them will become good for all wait and see.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Off topic. A story in a local paper forced a double-take (I've anonymised it):

    "Magistrates sitting at the city's courts complex heard how X committed the crime after walking into the shop in the city on March 31 and asking the owner if he had an R10 rifle for sale. When he was shown one, he took it, and then simply ran out of the shop and got into a waiting getaway car which was driven off with him and the stolen gun, the court heard. The defendant's lawyer said his client had experienced problems with cannabis and cocaine and he wanted the gun to sell so he could pay off a drugs debt that he had amassed in prison. The lawyer said: "He had wanted to start with [a local drug and alcohol charity] on his release but he waited and waited but received no information from them." A Probation Service worker in court told magistrates that the defendant no longer had any issues with drugs or alcohol and that he would remain under supervision until December.

    Magistrates imposed 100 hours of unpaid work, together with £85 costs and the same amount as a victim surcharge. The defendant must also pay the owner of the gun shop compensation to the amount of the stolen gun's value - £719."

    * Some thoughts here. On the basis of full compensation being ordered for the weapon, where is the gun? A pre-meditated theft of a firearm whilst under supervision on release from prison merits a verbal report & 100 hours unpaid work?!?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's oral reports for you!!

      Delete
    2. What does it matter where the rifle is? It isn't a firearm in legal terms.

      Delete
    3. over 700 that is not an air rifle is it ? Shall we try and consider the full range of facts in the article . I don't think a wishy washy report would have missed the details 1420

      Delete
    4. An R10 is an air rifle but with a cited power of "11+ ftlbs". Any air rifle with a power of 12 ftlbs and over requires a firearms certificate. It also has a bolt action 10 shot magazine. Not as a scary as a MAC10 but you still wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of it.

      Delete
  6. Oral report perfectly defensible. Swift justice. Cut out the wishy washy probation sympathy report taking 3 weeks to do. Probation reports are thing of the past. Don't like it then resign.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whatever the method of report or speed of court procedure it still doesn't address the rather casual sentence for the pre-meditated theft of a gun from a registered firearms dealer whilst subject to an existing period of supervision.

      Delete
    2. You don't happen to be a CEO from interswerve.

      Delete
  7. 14:20 Oral and fast reports are exactly what's wrong with the criminal justice system at present - I'm in CRC and grow increasingly tired of getting complex cases with very little information from court - I do sympathise with NPS court staff as this is their directive ( I have friends who work in court who are equally concerned at the expected quick turnaround of reports ) - this is another reason why vulnerable offenders and offenders that shouldn't be in custody and up there because we no longer have the in-depth " wishy washy " reports you describe - we also spend a great deal of time 're allocating cases to the correct officers once we've assessed the case and gathered all the required info we used to be provided with .

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why do commenters go off topic it ruins the debate on the published blog which was about Napo negotiations not oral reports !! Very frustrating and boring

    ReplyDelete
  9. 22:30 - if so continue with the debate adding your opinion on it ?? People tend to comment on what frustrates , upsets and absolutely concerns them regarding the whole debarcle that is TR

    ReplyDelete
  10. Napo couldn't win a fight with a paper bag. Top table all need to be got rid of

    ReplyDelete
  11. Back to the maternity arrangements.....can anyone explain in more detail what this would mean for women who are now pregnant? I'm confused by the dates mentioned...Sept and April......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's more detailed explanation been sent out to members. Basically,if members vote to accept the following applies:for those with EWC on or after 30/04/17 they will get full pay for 26 weeks instead of current 90% average pay for 6 wks and 12 wks half pay. Anyone with EWC on or after 30th April who begins mat leave before 30th April gets existing terms till 30/4 then improved terms after.All aspects of the package of proposals apply from 3rd Sept except for improvements to maternity pay that will apply if you have EWC on or after 30/04

      Delete
  12. This looks like yet another example to add to the long list of NAPO selling us out. We gave already lost 3 days leave to pay harmonisation that was supposed to reduce the pay scale progression to eight. That didn't happen so we list 3 days leave and increase the home it takes to reach the top of the scale to 22 Years!!!

    Looks like they have again colluded with the employer to reduce leave again. Whose bloody side are they on?

    It's about time members started kicking back. Ian Lawrence needs you, you pay his huge salary. Do you need him? What is he doing for you? Buggar all, me thinks. Wake up, smell the coffee. We are being shafted...... again!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Errm... If you're going in a crc you don't get a sniff of the improved maternity deal. Great.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nb above states "We are also conscious however of the huge risk to the CRCs’ capacity to compete for staff if NPS unilaterally introduces a significant pay gap. The same principle applies regarding softer terms such as maternity leave. For this reason, Napo are lobbying government to make sure that the Probation Services Review (which is reviewing CRC contracts) recognises this risk and allows for a price adjustment so that CRCs can compete and members working in CRCs are protected. This is in line with our mandate to defend collective bargaining."

    ReplyDelete