tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post5274309849822876871..comments2024-03-29T13:05:24.150+00:00Comments on On Probation Blog: CRC Dispute Latest 17Jim Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00258147767051200157noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-36990739979079852112016-12-15T07:11:26.036+00:002016-12-15T07:11:26.036+00:00Unfortunate - some might say painful - autocorrect...Unfortunate - some might say painful - autocorrect fail there...<br /><br />LOL, as the kids sayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-73413655343541534892016-12-14T17:38:13.753+00:002016-12-14T17:38:13.753+00:00Dino is doing a good job in difficult circumcision...Dino is doing a good job in difficult circumcisions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-68380675091195687422016-12-14T10:16:28.060+00:002016-12-14T10:16:28.060+00:00Raho is already damaging Napo beyond repair with h...Raho is already damaging Napo beyond repair with his London exodus from national collective that contradicts the AGM motion. But why make this a divide issue Dino and David would be a formidable team as they have different strengths. They both have causes and know how to unite teams and linages in their supporters. They both are able to take on difficulties and work to members needs. The wont get it all right all the time but they are doing their best to be effective. Dino and Dave are two well known activists because they are working in extreme and never been experienced before climate of cuts and attacks on trade unions. Although Napo is weak on unionism and strong on being weak these guys definitely are not that. Lets pull together not apart and at 4:28 in the morning perhaps your bitterness may be better left for some sleep. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-21344200852331440952016-12-14T09:03:03.549+00:002016-12-14T09:03:03.549+00:00Ok 4.28 where are Raho's branch reports and an...Ok 4.28 where are Raho's branch reports and any tangible evidence that he is challenging the privateers as Dino is? We have seen extensive evidence in many branch reports on this blog from South West Chair which is a specific fight. Your throw away comment is laughable Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-3359299092567982692016-12-14T04:28:52.819+00:002016-12-14T04:28:52.819+00:00Peros ain't napo. Only raho can save usPeros ain't napo. Only raho can save us Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-13465886565511201202016-12-13T23:11:43.066+00:002016-12-13T23:11:43.066+00:00Dino and his local Napo teamDino and his local Napo teamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-46290171891696555972016-12-13T23:10:52.516+00:002016-12-13T23:10:52.516+00:00This fight is down to the tenacity of Dino, who ru...This fight is down to the tenacity of Dino, who runs rings around Napo GS and Chairs. He knows his stuff and he has stood up go Napo HQ and made sure they have listened and taking action. If Dino had been Chair at the start of this fiasco, as he should be now, I believe it would have been a much greater fight against TR from the start. Napo members are not blameless in this either. I hope members in Dino's area stick with him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-14806380878638743272016-12-13T23:01:07.787+00:002016-12-13T23:01:07.787+00:00I am pleased that NAPO and UNISON now seem to be p...I am pleased that NAPO and UNISON now seem to be presenting a united front and wish them every success in their fight against the uncooperative Working Links who choose to ignore their own contract with the MoJ and the Health & Safety legislation currently to be observed across the UK. Quite how the MoJ could nominate companies who choose to ignore the law of the land is maybe something the Select Committee could look into. <br />It is just such a shame that all those people in Sodexo operated CRC's were not given the same union support (didn't get any at all ) and were steamrollered by Sodexo. All the current talk of "choice" simply did not exist. The only choice was sign up for the reduced voluntary redundancy or be out of a job. There actually was nothing voluntary about it at all. Sodexo will say they paid for all those staff who left under VR to meet a solicitor and have the "agreement" explained to them. My solicitor did this after first spitting on the floor when I mentioned Sodexo but was baffled why I (and others) did not have a copy of the agreement between MoJ and Sodexo that said they must pay EVR until the end of the contract. There was nothing to compare Sodexo's (utterly) binding agreement with, so the only thing to do was sign. <br />Let us hope that the Unions end up in court with Working Links and their working practices are exposed to the world - newspapers must be alerted to this one when it happens. The whole country should see what a disgrace this privatization is and how excellent staff have been abused - there is no other word for it - abused. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-23988894817979528022016-12-13T22:15:51.101+00:002016-12-13T22:15:51.101+00:00NAPO in Northumbria didn't have any impact on ...NAPO in Northumbria didn't have any impact on VR when we went through it. Railroaded with no representation.......unless I missed something!!!! I feel let down by NAPO and have no confidence in them. I do not even know who our Rep is?.....or is all the effort put into the NPS. Disallusioned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-83022056663572027542016-12-13T21:48:44.453+00:002016-12-13T21:48:44.453+00:00You raise a valuable point, 18:32, in that CRC sta...You raise a valuable point, 18:32, in that CRC staff were directed ("sifted") into their new roles and had no choice (just like the transfer to Trusts) in signing new contracts if they wanted to continue with their employment. More grist t'mill for constructive dismissal's near relative?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-15256037003729684532016-12-13T18:32:54.789+00:002016-12-13T18:32:54.789+00:00I thought there was no choice in signing the contr...I thought there was no choice in signing the contracts, it was either sign them or be out of work. I thought that was deal with all the CRC's. It was the same when we were made into trusts. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-57929543268707301632016-12-13T17:52:48.570+00:002016-12-13T17:52:48.570+00:00The get-out clause 'unless agreed between the ...The get-out clause 'unless agreed between the contractor and the employee', when did those who signed the framework agreement become aware of this killer clause? Did they sign up knowing it was there or were they literally deceived? It's important, because it's what Sodexo used to outfox the an otherwise sound collective agreement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-8102414367370261852016-12-13T17:37:35.210+00:002016-12-13T17:37:35.210+00:00That briefing was issued at the end of March 2015....That briefing was issued at the end of March 2015. The agreements referred to were ratified in January 2014 but not much was said about any loopholes at the time save for a fanfare about the protections secured for staff. Subsequently Sodexo CRC staff were under threat & under pressure and could not get any responses from Napo HQ to queries via branch reps and so, at a time of great anxiety, that was a key reason many felt abandoned/ignored/ discarded by Napo. They left Napo then left the profession. The briefing quoted was more detailed:<br /><br />"Each CRC has been given a sum of money by NOMS, known as the ‘modernisation fund’, which was originally intended to be used to fund voluntary severance in line with the NNC VRS Scheme. It would appear that following the share sale, NOMS has indicated to the new CRC owners that the modernisation fund can be used as the CRCs see fit and that the money does not have to be spent on redundancy costs. This is regrettable, but it does not change the fact that if a CRC wishes to make any staff voluntarily redundant at any time during the term of the contract, the terms of the NNC voluntary redundancy scheme have to apply.<br /><br />However, the MOJ has provided the CRC owners with a potential get-out clause in the Services Agreement (see 1.3 (e) below) which allows the CRC to try to negotiate inferior voluntary redundancy terms with individual employees. This must be avoided at all costs and branches should make it clear to CRCs that any attempt to avoid paying voluntary redundancy terms outside of the terms set out in Appendix B to the NNC Staff Transfer and Protections Agreement will be strongly resisted.<br /><br />Branches should also advise members not to enter into any personal talks with the CRC in respect of any voluntary redundancy offer which undercuts the NNC voluntary redundancy package in any respect, and to report any such approaches by the CRC to their union as soon as possible.<br /><br />The following references are relevant:<br /><br />• NNC Staff Transfer and Protections Agreement<br />- CRC and NPS Terms and Conditions<br /><br />16. In addition, the commercial contracts will specify that, other than where more beneficial terms exist, where voluntary redundancy is offered, the enhanced terms set out in Appendix B should apply to any member of staff in a CRC employed by a Probation Trust on 31 May 2014.<br /><br />• Services Agreement<br />- 1.3 Employee Protections<br /><br />(d) The Contractor acknowledges that since the Employee Transfer Date, the voluntary redundancy terms (the Voluntary Redundancy Terms) set out in Appendix B to the National Agreement on Staff Transfer and Protections dated 29 January 2014 (the National Agreement) a copy of which is contained in Part 2 of Schedule 25 to this Agreement have been applied in all cases of voluntary redundancy of Employees (save where more beneficial terms exist)<br /><br />(e) The Contractor shall be entitled to effect voluntary redundancies of Employees from the Employee Transfer Date in accordance with Applicable Law. Other than where more beneficial terms exist, in all cases of voluntary redundancy of Employees the Contractor shall give effect to the Voluntary Redundancy Terms, unless agreed between the Contractor and the Employee."<br /><br />Its clear from that briefing, but too late for any employee security, that MoJ/Noms were keen & eager to place all favours with the CRC owners. Given that the MoJ effectively owned the CRCs prior to share sale, that they specified the contracts & selected the new CRC owners, and they retained a "golden shareholder" privelege, doesn't this one-sided favouritism add up to a close cousin of constructive dismissal?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-29118524056197556252016-12-13T13:39:29.690+00:002016-12-13T13:39:29.690+00:00http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/reactionary-c...http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/reactionary-chris-grayling-doing-railways-9447900Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-23213765597048839442016-12-13T12:46:43.076+00:002016-12-13T12:46:43.076+00:0011:21 Anyone can waive their rights.
It's al...11:21 Anyone can waive their rights. <br /><br />It's all spelt out in Napo Briefing BR-2015. <br /><br /><br /><br />'However, the MOJ has provided the CRC owners with a potential get-out clause in the Services Agreement (see 1.3 (e) below) which allows the CRC to try to negotiate inferior voluntary redundancy terms with individual employees. This must be avoided at all costs and branches should make it clear to CRCs that any attempt to avoid paying voluntary redundancy terms outside of the terms set out in Appendix B to the NNC Staff Transfer and Protections Agreement will be strongly resisted.'<br /><br />It was not strongly resisted by staff in Sodexo as 600 of them applied for inferior terms. And WL are banking on similar enthusiasm. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-66705120464903375862016-12-13T11:21:49.106+00:002016-12-13T11:21:49.106+00:0010:08 You do not seem to acknowledge what is writ...10:08 You do not seem to acknowledge what is written gives the employee and non union members some choice to waiver their actual rights. The facts that most employers have tricked staff cruelly is by saying it is a short term limited offer to choose or what ? Go now on these terms minus your pensions. That will cost those staff scared into taking a substandard offer and this is being held up as a deceit from the single worst employer who could not have legitimately had enough money to have got this contract. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-27703382457505540012016-12-13T10:23:48.485+00:002016-12-13T10:23:48.485+00:00In Napo 69 there is reference a clause that was sn...In Napo 69 there is reference a clause that was sneaked in. Was that the cruel trick?<br /><br />'NOMS Commercial appear to have inserted an ambiguous clause which Sodexo is now relying on to vary the NNC EVR terms. This is clearly unacceptable. We are seeking to resolve these difficult matters via the NNC'.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-58515287853026379972016-12-13T10:08:24.460+00:002016-12-13T10:08:24.460+00:0009:10. I take your point in that there are always ...09:10. I take your point in that there are always eventualities that may require an individual agreement. <br /><br />Given that the whole thrust of the main clause was about EVR on beneficial terms, I am not so sure it needed to be an express term and would have been better left implied. Hard to see, though, how inferior EVR was implied in an agreement that is very specific about beneficial terms.<br /><br />I would say that as an express term it does explicitly negates the collective agreement and expressly supports the position of the employer. I still don't know why it's described as a cruel trick if it was standard wording in these types of agreements.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-73825324183969032162016-12-13T09:16:24.613+00:002016-12-13T09:16:24.613+00:00Yes exactly but there in lies a point the previous...Yes exactly but there in lies a point the previous napo losership had failed to inform their members properly. Perhaps those that run at any offer might then have held on for their jobs and retain their terms. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-20403480008713874342016-12-13T09:10:00.698+00:002016-12-13T09:10:00.698+00:00Because that is a perfectly legal position, it wou...Because that is a perfectly legal position, it would be very hard to argue against its inclusion - as an option always available whether expressed or not. Also, NAPO would not necessarily agree to every phrase and nuance in a strategy they sign off. It is a difficult line but the reality of being involved in negotiation processes. The issue is, surely, not that this phrase was included, but that members did not make themselves sufficiently aware of the COMPLETE legal position as outlined elsewhere in the relevant documents, before deciding on their course of action. (Or maybe they did - people are so worn out with it all).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8578343158425987632.post-79396639293847124742016-12-13T08:28:59.206+00:002016-12-13T08:28:59.206+00:00Reduced EVR terms where agreed between the contrac...Reduced EVR terms where agreed between the contractor and employee can be paid. The clause highlighted in red may be cruel, but it's part of the framework agreement agreed by the unions. This devilish phrase is how the employers are undermining collective union action. As with Sodexo, individual employees strike agreements to leave on inferior terms and each of these individual agreements weakens the union's collective position. It is a cruel trick but that was noted before the ink was dry on the document. A question for the union is why they consented to this clause in the framework agreement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com