Latest From Napo 214

Here we have the latest mailout from Napo:-

Working with and for our members

In the Member mail outs that we have issued since the start of the C-19 lockdown we have tried to explain the work that Napo has been undertaking to help ensure the safety of our members in these extraordinary times.

We absolutely recognise the pressures and fears that our members (including those who hold management roles) are having to contend with, whether your work involves Face to Face contact or working remotely with Clients or in management or support roles. This why we value the feedback about how you are coping with the many challenges that have emerged during this period. This has reached us at Napo HQ via the Napo Homeworking Survey, and through the info@napo.org.uk inbox, as well as from your contact with Branch activists, NEC reps and National Officers.

The Government announcement yesterday to ease the Social Distancing measures are designed to allow different sectors of the economy to reopen with certain conditions, and we have been quick to engage with senior leaders in the employers we cover to lay down the benchmarks that we believe you would expect of us in this regard.

The correspondence attached to this mail out makes our position clear on issues that are understandably causing anger and concern and add to the imperative that we cannot afford to see any relaxation of the Social Distancing measures which result in an increased risk to members. They also provide a further example of how we are trying to work in partnership with employers to obtain the best outcomes.

Please keep up contact with Napo through the above channels as we enter a new phase of the C-19 emergency, your views will be considered carefully and acted upon.
NEC take action on NPS Special Payments Scheme

The divisive NPS special payments scheme was the subject of an emergency motion to our NEC last week. As a result we have made final attempts to seek a resolution to the issues as can be seen in the ATTACHED LETTER. The strength of feeling was clear at NEC and we will now prioritise work to address this.

Social distancing and safety

Many members will have understandable concerns in relation to the announcement made by Government yesterday. It is worth examining the text of the statement which has been published.

“Where it is possible to keep 2 metres apart people should. But where it is not, we will advise people to keep a social distance of ‘one metre plus’, meaning they should remain one metre apart, while taking mitigations to reduce the risk of transmission.”

Therefore it remains the Government position that, where possible, the 2 metre social distance should be maintained. In our discussions with HMPPS today we have agreed with the employer that there will be no change to the guidance on social distancing, PPE and hygiene that has already been issued and the plans for recovery will continue to use this guidance as the standard to be met. We expect that all CRC employers will adopt the same approach.

Members who are shielding

The Government also made an announcement on 22 June about those who are shielding. Again the relevant section is worth examining:

“Those who need to work and cannot do so from home will be able to return to work as long as their workplace is COVID secure, adhering to the guidance available.”

In response to this HMPPS are consulting us on guidance that will be issued in the coming days to staff which contains the following principle:

“In the first instance, if the employee can work from home they should. If not, they can return to work from 1st August onwards, providing they can comply with social distancing. Individual risk assessments will need to be completed to help identify what adjustments can be made to support staff with this.”

If you are concerned about your safety in returning to the workplace please contact your local rep in the first instance for help and support.

Napo HQ

--oo00oo--

Dear Amy and Sonia, 

Re: Special Payments Scheme and Annual Leave Buy Back 

We have raised concerns with you and colleagues over the recent months about the special payments scheme. We have now been consulted further with regards to the guidance on the annual leave buy back elements of the scheme. We write to highlight some of the most significant concerns that members have shared with us about both issues. At last week’s meeting of our National Executive Committee a motion was passed in relation to the special payments scheme which made clear the anger, upset and division it has caused. 

Special Payments Scheme 

We welcome the desire to reward the hard work involved in facing the additional challenges that the Covid-19 pandemic has brought. From the start however we have raised concerns about the design of the scheme and some inherent flaws which we detail here. 

The special payments scheme introduces a bonus (special circumstances payment) for those working in “offender facing roles” “in recognition of the unprecedented circumstances” and reflecting “that some aspects of the role will be temporarily more challenging”. 

It is hugely problematic that the NPS has chosen to define “offender facing” as being physically present in the room with a client or undertaking doorstep visits only. Those staff who are working at home but supervising clients, interviewing clients and undertaking assessments, carrying out victim liaison work, or maintaining contact with clients in the absence of an accredited programme by phone or video calls, are all working in a client facing role in very challenging circumstances. 

These members of staff are bringing their work and their clients into their home (albeit virtually) and are processing difficult and distressing information about the offences their clients have committed or been victim of. They are often having difficult and challenging conversations with clients all in their own home, often with other family members including children within sight or sound. 

For Probation staff one of the key ways to maintain emotional wellbeing and manage the impact of the work is to build a support network in the workplace and ensure that they keep work at work, leaving their home and family life separate. Bringing work into their home, which is their refuge from the pressure of work, is a special circumstance that is more challenging than usual. 

The design of the special payments scheme means that staff who are shielding due to underlying health issues (who are likely to be disabled) or who are caring for someone who is shielding and those who face additional vulnerabilities due to age or those from BAME backgrounds are not entitled to the special circumstances payment despite working in an offender facing role in circumstances more challenging than usual. This is manifestly unfair and is not covered in the equality analysis which was only shared with us today. 

Earlier in our discussions on this we asked you to consider defining “offender facing” to include those staff working at home but having a direct interface with clients.

The scheme also introduces bonuses for those in bands 1- 6 who commit to working overtime with a distinction made between committing to 4 weeks worth of overtime (£500 bonus paid) and committing to 12 weeks (£1750 paid). In one division we are aware that managers have sought to save money by redefining 12 weeks as 3 x 4 weeks and paying only £1500. This bonus in any case pales into insignificance when compared to the bonus for senior managers which is £1500 per month. While we accept that those senior managers are not eligible for paid overtime, the discrepancy is stark and creates further unnecessary division. 

We have only today had sight of the equality analysis completed on the scheme but the analysis is sadly lacking in that document. The fact that the scheme is designed in a way that prevents some staff from accessing the special circumstances payment solely due to their disability, age or BAME background making them more vulnerable to a virus is direct discrimination against staff on those grounds and this should have been highlighted during the development process. The fact that those with caring responsibilities are more likely to be excluded is likely to be indirect discrimination because women are more likely to have caring responsibilities. The fact that Napo’s representations on this, and our proposed solution (defining the term “offender facing” as detailed above) have not been captured anywhere in the analysis is deeply disappointing and evidences that this has not been treated as a live document. 

Those staff who are shielding or additionally vulnerable now face the prospect of returning to the workplace on 1 August despite the risk to their health in doing so as the virus has not been eradicated and no vaccine is available. They will not be entitled to the special circumstances payment because that part of the scheme has ended. They will face higher risks than their colleagues but will have been excluded from any benefits because of their disability, age, caring responsibilities or BAME background. 

Annual Leave Buy Back 

We discussed today in the weekly meeting the issues that the guidance on this has raised. We are very grateful to our colleagues from Unison in raising the concerns relating to statutory leave entitlement and that this has now been addressed. 

We are in agreement that annual leave is important, especially at times of high workloads and work pressure, but we appreciate efforts being made to compensate members for giving up some of their entitlement where this benefits the employer by creating additional resource. 

That said, we have concerns relating to the conditions being attached to the buy-back of annual leave. Many members have faced unacceptably high workloads, well in excess of their capacity for some time (some for years). With the current crisis and exceptional delivery models those members are facing unprecedented challenges in maintaining service delivery. At a time when many are stretched beyond their limits, suggesting that any annual leave sold back to the employer will bring an expectation that the staff member will contribute yet more additional work, is unthinkable. 

If annual leave is sold back to the employer by members who are working over their capacity or already absorbing additional work, it is our expectation that the additional resource this offers to the employer will be used to spread the burden fairly and not for it to simply land back on the individual. 

Morale and Wellbeing 

We cannot stress enough the impact that the implementation of this scheme is having on members who report low morale and division between colleagues as a result. Our aim in raising these issues is to avoid a situation where members need to individually and collectively take action, but all of our attempts to find resolution have so far failed. 

We remain committed to working with you to resolve the issues on behalf of members, however we are approaching the point where, unless we are able to make progress, we will have no choice but to escalate the matter. 

Yours sincerely 

Ian Lawrence General Secretary

Katie Lomas National Chair