CRC Dispute Latest 25

Once again, thanks to the Napo member for forwarding the latest communication relating to the on-going dispute with Working Links:-

To J Wiseman Ceo DDCCRC
SSW Branch Correspondence.

Date 07 September 2017

Dear John

In our recent branch meeting and from wider discussions with NAPO members there have been some concerns raised that leads to this letter. It is important to formally place on record NAPO SSW members’ concerns. Despite the ongoing differences and issues, we remain in dispute over some of the matters noted below. The list is not exhaustive:-

• Issues arising from the trapped staff. 
• The failure to observe agreed and contractual obligations. 
• Offering inappropriate and unfair terms in order to reduce staff by voluntary severance arrangements.
• The continued failure to implement a realistic workload weighting tool in line with the national and required Workloads employee care agreements. 
• Failure to harmonise all staff policies upwards regionally and locally. The dispute continues over implementation of the staff transfer arrangements.
• The cuts to staffing numbers and the continued Trade Union objections to your working model which was claimed to be safe and fit for purpose by your in house company Innovation Wessex team. 
• Lack of proper staff surveys in both well being and health and safety as requested by the joint trade unions. 
• The attempts to vary terms and jobs without meaningful consultation and formal agreements. 
• The continued attempts to reduce staff without their entitlements or agreed procedures, despite recent significant additional public funding of several millions of pounds. 
• The lack of understanding the national protections of staff transfer arrangements for the life of the contract. 
• The NNC collective terms and recognition agreements. 
• The attempts to vary terms of reference and undermine existing entitlements. 
• Failure to engage in meaningful consultation
• Failure to provide financial accounts, outcomes of alleged staff surveys, and necessary document materials. 

The SSW branch does not speak for the Gloucestershire area. However, what cannot be ignored is the incredibly damning report released from the HMIP. This report partly covers the DDC area. The model in BGSW is the same in DDC and you have continued an agenda to merge the areas despite the CRCs supposedly being separate entities. Ian Lawrence NAPO General Secretary, and the wider Unions, will be preparing a detailed response to the issues which the report illustrates. No doubt there will be a range of issues that will need further examination. The indications from the report make it clear the Working Links model and what has been implemented is neither fit for purpose and is just not working. This exposes the public to greater risk of harm.

The NAPO branch membership want questions raised as to what the MOJ contract managers are actually doing to have not realised the absolute failures of the working links model in the Gloucester area? What, if anything, did they know about such a situation developing from their contract management assessments? How have their observations and auditing missed such important detail in the first place and what in fact have they been measuring?

NAPO locally and nationally have maintained the current dispute and warned of the obvious failures. These were clear to us that they were inevitable, yet you and your whole team denied any likelihood of failure. You will recall the JNCC meeting NAPO criticized the BRAG introduction and from which your working document had completely omitted to describe the process of Amber caseload management. It was astonishing to us that you had not noticed this until the trade union sides pointed it out.

The Inspection looks at the same operational model that was also imposed within the DDC area. The Union branches have continued to oppose the model. To this date we have still not received the working proposals. Napo are seeking to ensure you are prompted to look beyond the response of the Working Links Spokesperson. These was not a properly constructed response that should have looked to reassure the public and staff in all Working Links contracted areas. We want to encourage you to formulate an action plan of remedial steps and engage appropriately skilled staff and ensure they are equipped and qualified and that support staff are properly and critically trained.

Staff in Gloucester will be concerned in continuing in the current working model, and of those in DDC where the implications impact negatively on our members morale, which is at an incredible low point given the feedback we have been receiving. The report describes high staff sickness absence across all grades. The differentials of staff on reduced terms have led to a two tier working arrangement for new staff on poorer terms. You will be aware as we are of the number of POs leaving for the NPS from the CRCs.

I appreciate you will not welcome any further criticism, however the report is of serious concern to anyone who reads it, especially for those within criminal justice services. Working Links and Aurelius will find the issue impossible to defend with any credibility. The way they have set about deconstructing what was an outstanding performing probation area when we were a trust, under proper care of the public sector ethos. NAPO SSW Branch remain concerned about your continued race to the bottom and must not go unchecked. We require that all remaining working links Aurelius contract areas are inspected to ensure this territory and the model is thoroughly assessed to avoid any further risks to the public and further damage of reputation of the good intention of probation work.

While the authors of the report will have already considered this aspect, we shall call on you as the responsible officer and our General Secretary to invite such an inspection.

Dino Peros Chair Napo SSW Branch
Denice James JNCC Rep

CC Ian Lawrence NAPO General Secretary

All NAPO Members.

Unison.

--oo00oo--

In conjunction with the above, I've included the following from early August that somehow was missed in amongst blog posts on a number of other issues:- 

To John Wiseman Re - Open letter

Hi!

As usual we seem to be at odds with our perspectives about where we are in the process of the implementation of the operational model.

In reference to your open letter about Denice's email to Napo South Western branch members, I feel it is necessary to inform you that I do not agree with everything you have said. I have confirmed my support to Denice about her communications which, in my view, have only been realistic and context based during the ongoing period of the dispute. For your information, prior to drafting this email I have consulted the members of Napo Western branch, who wish to convey that they support South Western branch and exec.

Napo Western Branch members are disappointed that CRC senior management are arranging local meetings in relation to the operational model implementation, when Working Links and the CRC's have yet to resolve the dispute. I have recently explained to the various parties why it is inappropriate that JNCC reps attend these meetings. I have also stated that our absence should not be marked as disinterest of very important matters which should be negotiated through the dispute/ACAS meetings, or that our lack of comments on the matters be seen as reason to for the CRC and Working Links to carry on regardless.

In conjunction to this I have to re-iterate the fact that sending JNCC reps important documents at short notice is not acceptable. In this case I am referring to the 2 week time slot the union reps were given to respond to the Workload Management Indicator documents. This was hardly sufficient time for the reps to view the contents and give a professional opinion, due to the fact that there was no WLM tool in use at the time, the JNCC reps are practitioners and our caseloads are ever increasing. The latter is my valid reason for not responding sooner as the workload indicator, which the joint unions have not agreed to, fails to represent the work load weighting of our caseloads and duties.

Kind regards

Ceris Handley PSO
Napo Western Branch Chair
JNCC rep
Member rep
Vice Chair of The Forum and PSO rep