Redundancy Q and A 2

Staffing numbers and voluntary severance QA – Issue 2

Q. Why has the wording changed from Voluntary Redundancy to Voluntary Severance? What are the implications of that change please?

Sodexo has made staff a voluntary severance offer, not a voluntary redundancy offer. Voluntary severance means that employees will exit the business by mutual agreement in return for a financial settlement. The financial settlement Sodexo has offered staff is:

• Two weeks’ actual pay for each year of completed service, up to a maximum of 30 weeks; and
• If you are in an age group that qualifies for early retirement (individuals between the ages of 55-64) you will have the option of either taking the payment set out above as a lump sum, or you can take early retirement. Early retirement will enable you to access your (unreduced) pension with immediate effect. Unreduced does not mean the benefits that you would have received at your normal retirement age, it just means that there is no reduction for early payment.

The cost of the EVR terms is extremely high and if a voluntary redundancy scheme was offered to staff on the EVR terms, the business would be severely limited in the number of applications it could accept. In some CRCs it is possible that no applications at all would be accepted. As a result the CRC would be forced to reach the proposed staffing reductions through a compulsory redundancy process. This is something that we wanted to avoid as far as possible. Sodexo has therefore developed an alternative voluntary severance package.

Q. Is an expression of interest in voluntary severance legally binding?

No. An expression of interest in the voluntary severance offer is not legally binding.

If we were to take the severance package and wished to leave asap is there any additional funding for payment for early severance and how soon could people leave?

There is no additional funding for payment of early severance. CRC CEOs will make the decision as to when employees could take their voluntary severance payment on a case-by-case basis. There may be certain circumstances where an individual would be allowed to leave without serving their full notice period. This will require the approval of the CRC CEO and will depend on a number of factors including operational stability. If granted the employee would receive Payment In Lieu Of Notice.

Q. What is the national agreement on redundancy payment? Is our agreement that says 4.5 weeks per year a local agreement or national and would this be honoured?

You can read the National Agreement in full here.

Sodexo bid for six CRC contracts on the understanding that the EVR terms would be subject to negotiation with the relevant employee representatives following the sale. The Sodexo bid and proposed future operating model has been developed on this basis.

The cost of the EVR terms is extremely high and if a voluntary redundancy scheme was offered to staff on the EVR terms, the business would be severely limited in the number of applications it could accept. In some CRCs it is possible that no applications at all would be accepted. As a result the CRC would be forced to reach the proposed staffing reductions through a compulsory redundancy process. This is something that we wanted to avoid as far as possible. Sodexo has therefore developed an alternative voluntary severance package.

Q. Could we leave early if we secure a new job role?

Voluntary Severance exit dates and requests for early departure will be reviewed by each CRC CEO on a case-by-case basis.

Q. Will staff who agree to Voluntary Severance be eligible to apply for state benefits?

The indication we have received from the Job Centre Plus is that staff that apply for voluntary severance and are accepted would be eligible for state benefits as the severance was agreed in order to reach required staffing reductions. However, since everyone’s individual circumstances are different we would recommend you discuss this with your local job centre.

Q. Will staff who agree to Voluntary Severance be able thereafter (if they wish) to complete agency work either for NSCRC or for NPS?

We do not envision there being any restrictions on staff that apply for voluntary severance and are accepted being able to complete agency work for CRCs, NPS, or any other employer.

Q. Will staff who are subject to Compulsory Redundancy be eligible to apply for state benefits?

Your entitlement to state benefits would depend upon your personal circumstances. We would encourage you to discuss your individual circumstances with your local job centre.

Q. Will staff who are subject to Compulsory Redundancy be able thereafter (if they wish) to complete agency work either for NSCRC or for NPS?

We do not envision there being any restrictions on staff that apply for compulsory redundancy and are accepted being able to complete agency work for CRCs, NPS, or any other employer.

Q. Are there any other significant differences between Voluntary Severance and Compulsory Redundancy of which staff should be aware?

We hope to reach our proposed staffing levels by seeking volunteers to exit the business by mutual agreement through this voluntary severance process. If this is not possible we may need to consider alternative arrangements, and this is likely to include compulsory redundancy.

The details of our voluntary severance offer have been made available to staff and the decision whether or not to apply it is a personal choice. If you have further questions about your own personal circumstances in relation to this package we would encourage you to speak with your local HR contact or trade union representative.

Q. Why Voluntary Redundancy (Enhanced or not) is no longer mentioned in any correspondence? The cost of the EVR terms is extremely high and if a voluntary redundancy scheme was offered to staff on the EVR terms, the business would be severely limited in the number of applications it could accept. In some CRCs it is possible that no applications at all would be accepted. As a result the CRC would be forced to reach the proposed staffing reductions through a compulsory redundancy process. This is something that we wanted to avoid as far as possible. Sodexo has therefore developed an alternative voluntary severance package.

We are approaching our workforce planning in phases and hope to reach our required reduction in staffing numbers through this voluntary severance process. If this is not possible, we may need to consider alternative arrangements, and this is likely to include compulsory redundancy as outlined in the National Agreement.

Q. We have today had the presentation from our Chief Executive concerning the Sodexo Voluntary Severance Package. This includes information to the effect that for people in the age group 55-64 they will have the option of either the voluntary severance lump sum OR take early retirement with an unreduced pension. I am actually over 65 years of age and three years ago reduced my working week to 3 days and collected my pension - as an alternative to redundancy. I have continued to pay into the pension scheme (on my reduced salary) and my question is now:

What may I be entitled to under the Voluntary scheme? I am not in the age category 55-64 so would like to know what I may receive (lump sum/ pension/ neither/ both or any other combination) in order to know whether to register interest for Voluntary Severance or not. 

Employees over the age of 64 will not qualify for the early retirement package as they are over the standard retirement age. They will however be entitled to the lump sum payment. The lump sum payment will be calculated on the basis of the number of days per week an employee works. For further information on pension options please contact the Greater Manchester Pension Fund.

Q. Is the VS payment tax free?

We anticipate that the first £30,000 of your voluntary severance compensation can be paid tax free, subject to there being no previous in-year tax free payments.

Q. I spoke to LGPS today and they advised that as far as they are concerned there is no ‘severance’ – it would be classed as redundancy and your pension would therefore be made without penalty (i.e. no early retirement reduction), this also seems to be the view of the union.

We have made staff a voluntary severance offer, not a redundancy offer. We have spoken with LGPS and they have confirmed the below in writing:

• Where an employee aged between 55 and their normal pension age and a member of an LGPS scheme has requested early retirement, and where the employer has given their consent and made payment of pension strain, that employee can access their pension benefits on an unreduced basis from the effective date of the early retirement. 
• Where an employee is a member of an LGPS scheme and has chosen to voluntarily leave their employment, and the employer has not agreed to pay any pension strain payment by the employer, the employee can: 

o Wait until their normal retirement age to access their full accrued pension benefits.

§ OR

o At any point from age 55 to their Normal Pension Age, opt to take their pension early on a reduced basis (http://www.gmpf.org.uk/retiring/choice/factors.htm).

• Where an employee aged 55 or over and a member of an LGPS scheme is made redundant, they are entitled to access their unreduced pension from the effective date of their redundancy.
• There are no early retirement options for staff over their normal pension age. If the member has already reached their Normal Pension Age and wishes to retire they are entitled to access their unreduced pension immediately from the effective date of retirement.
• Whenever a member of an LGPS scheme first takes their pension, any lump sum which that member might be entitled to from the pension fund is separate from, and unaffected by, any lump sum payment they may receive from an employer as part of a severance or redundancy package.
• The GMPF has confirmed that the bullet points detailed above are within the LGPS guidelines.

Q. Will the pension estimates be available to staff so that they can make an informed decision? this is for those over 55 who need to make an either/or choice regarding pension/severance. As without the figures for the pension I cannot make an informed decision. Is ‘pension strain’ the same figure as the reduction in pension or is this something different?

Each CRC has requested pension estimates and we should be in a position to provide employees with these shortly. Pension strain refers to the additional strain on the fund pension benefits becoming payable earlier than assumed, pension benefits being paid for longer and employer and employee contributions being paid for a shorter period than was
assumed. The cost of providing these additional benefits is calculated and recharged in full to the employer.

Q. If you apply for severance and the pension with penalties, will they take the pension lump sum off the severance figure?

The pension lump sum is paid by the pension fund and separate from the severance figure.

Q. If you take the severance but do not take your pension at the same time Would you be allowed to leave your pension or must you take it?

Employees may opt to take their voluntary severance lump sum payment and leave their pension until retirement age if they so wish.

Q. If you leave it – can you apply to LGPS to take it in say 6/12/18 months?

Employees may opt to take their voluntary severance lump sum and leave their pension until a later date. However, if they opt to take their pension before their normal retirement age they would receive a reduced pension payment.

Q. If you are made compulsorily redundant, my understanding is that at that point you could take your pension without penalty. Is this correct?

Under the voluntary severance offer if you are in an age group that qualifies for early retirement (individuals between the ages of 55-64) you will have the option of either taking the voluntary severance offer as a lump sum payment (two weeks’ actual pay for each year of completed service, up to a maximum of 30 weeks) or you can take early retirement. Early retirement will enable you to access your (unreduced) pension with immediate effect. Unreduced does not mean the benefits that you would have received at your normal retirement age, it just means that there is no reduction for early payment.

We hope to achieve our required staffing reductions through this voluntary severance process. However, should a compulsory redundancy situation occur and an employee aged between 55-64 is selected from the pool of at risk employees, they would then be entitled to both a statutory redundancy payment and an unreduced pension.

When making the decision whether or not to apply for voluntary severance you may wish to consider the following:

• Currently all employees of the CRC can apply for voluntary severance, not only those in staff groups who are at risk of redundancy. 
• If sufficient numbers of voluntary severance applications are approved there may not be the need to make compulsory redundancies. 

Selection for compulsory redundancy will be made on agreed and published local criteria, which may include cost.

• An employee in an at risk group who is eligible for both the statutory compulsory redundancy payment and the unreduced pension may not be the person selected for redundancy from the at risk pool. 

Q. If you are made compulsorily redundant would you be allowed to leave your pension or must you take it?

Employees may opt to take their compulsory redundancy payment and leave their pension until retirement age if they so wish.

Q. If you leave it – can you apply to the LGPS to take it in say 6/12/18 months?

Employees may opt to take their compulsory redundancy payment and leave their pension until a later date.

Q. Will the pension lump sum be taken off the redundancy figure?

The pension lump sum is paid by the pension fund and separate from the severance figure

Q. Can we please be given the process via which any compulsory redundancies will be upon? Also QA says: "While we hope to accept as many applications as possible all applications for voluntary severance will be assessed on a case-by-case basis against our published criteria". Where is the published criteria?

The process for determining voluntary severance applications and, if necessary, selecting compulsory redundancies will be in accordance with local policies. Please contact your local HR team for details of these criteria.

Q. Who I need to contact to find out what my Early Retirement figures?

Each CRC has requested pension estimates and we should be in a position to provide employees with these shortly. Please contact your local HR team for more information.

Q. Please could you let me know if my temporary contracts or permanent contract counts for the purposes of voluntary severance?

The value of the voluntary severance package that you would be entitled to receive depends upon your personal circumstances and the dates of your temporary and permanent contracts. Please contact your local HR team to discuss your specific circumstances.

Q. I joined NSPT on November 9th 2010 after I had been at Suffolk County Council since May 2006.I brought my time spent at SCC across to NSPT as continuous service so to date I have 9 full years Continuous Service. Will my Continuous Service all the way back to May 2006 be part of any calculation in Voluntary Redundancy application?

I reduced my working hours from a 1.0 contract to 0.4 in March 2015.Would any Voluntary Redundancy package offered to me honour the fact that I was 1.0 right up until March of this year and be calculated accordingly?

Yes. Your completed years of continuous service will be included in your voluntary severance calculations and will determine the number of weeks’ pay you will receive (up to a cap of 30 weeks). If your application for voluntary severance is accepted, the value of your voluntary severance package will be calculated by multiplying this number of weeks by your average salary over the past 12 months prior to your agreed exit date.

Q. Would the settlement be pro-rata according to my fulltime/part-timework history, all the way back to May 2006?

You will receive two weeks’ actual pay for each year of completed service (up to a cap of 30 weeks). The value of your voluntary severance package will be calculated by multiplying this number of weeks by your average salary over the past 12 months prior to your agreed exit date.

An Open Letter

As decision day rapidly approaches for staff in the six Sodexo-owned CRC's, it's clear that much of the profession has descended into sombre mood. I'm grateful to the reader for sharing the following open letter sent recently to all Napo members in Cumbria and Lancashire. It eloquently outlines the dreadful position many colleagues find themselves in and should be food for thought for all of us.

In case you were wondering, for completeness, the benefit of staff in non Sodexo CRC's, and the historical record, I intend to publish the two remaining parts of the lengthy Q & A document referred to later today or tomorrow.

NAPO Cumbria and Lancashire Branch – open letter to CRC members considering the Voluntary Severance Package and Early Retirement

Members will have seen the Q & A document distributed on Penny Barker’s behalf last week and will have also seen NAPO HQ’s emails regarding a vote for or against accepting the Sodexo Voluntary Severance package and an indicative ballot for industrial action in the event that it is rejected. Despite these attempts to ‘clarify’ some of the issues, our discussions with Cumbria and Lancashire Branch members would suggest that many individuals are still not sure what to do for the best in terms of their own decisions on the issue. Important questions that should inform our decision making remain, in the main, unanswered (Where would I be working? What would I be doing? What would my job look like?).

There is a fundamental principle at play here. CLCRC management are trying to make this process as fair and transparent as possible. Despite their best efforts, however, and the best efforts of NAPO’s officers both locally and nationally, this process remains unfair and opaque. Branch Officers and Members alike are trying to make sense of it in order to provide advice but, given the timescales, the pace and the nature of the ‘modernisation’, many of the decisions relating to roles and locations have not yet been made. Just as was the case with last year’s ‘sifting’, members are consequently being expected to make decisions regarding their futures without all of the necessary information. The simple choice of ‘do I want to stay or go?’ is compromised by the need to establish whether, if an individual chooses not to volunteer for severance, they will be forced out anyway with an even lower severance payment and whether, if they choose to stay, they will be required to undertake a much longer commute and to work in ways and locations unfamiliar to them. The decision to put oneself forward for voluntary severance is being taken, by many, not on the basis of ‘choice, but on the basis that they cannot see themselves in the proposed operating model and need to accrue as large a severance payment as possible in order to meet their needs whilst they seek alternative employment. It is an appallingly unreasonable position to put employees in and, I think it is fair to say, many members are seeking to leave simply because they do not wish to work for a company that treats it’s staff this badly.

Under the above circumstances, NAPO’s vote on the offer and it’s talk of industrial action in the longer term, does not make sense to most members. A vote to reject when you have expressed an interest in the severance offer seems, to many of us, to be a contradictory position. Also, members will be aware that a formal (as opposed to an indicative) ballot would take time to organise and the initial stages of the VS/compulsory redundancy processes are likely to have been completed before the ballot even takes place, never mind before an actual strike can be arranged. Whatever the consequences of the union’s strategy, many of those at risk will not be around to see them.

The important thing to note here is that applying for voluntary severance does not put you in conflict with NAPO’s national position. By voting to reject the severance offer nationally, you are making a point that it is all but impossible for you to make locally; that your decision to apply for and accept a considerably lower offer than that negotiated in the National Framework agreements is made under duress, just as your ‘choice’ to be sifted was made under duress, and that your decision to ‘accept’ this offer is made because you have been manipulated into this position by an unscrupulous employer and without reference to the established national negotiation machinery.

So, where does this leave us? There are those who are wondering whether there is any merit in holding out for a ‘better offer’. Sodexo have made it clear that there will be no better offer. There is still a slim chance that the outcome of the indicative ballot by NAPO and UNISON could secure improvements to ‘the offer’ but, equally, it may achieve nothing. In the meantime, the simple fact is that members need to make a decision based on their own circumstances.

Each member will need to gauge their own priorities and their own perceived vulnerability to redundancy based on grade, location, eligibility for early retirement, age and length of service. The lack of clear detail means that this is in no way an exact science and that advice needs to be tailored to individual circumstances. By applying for voluntary severance, each of us will at least be able to establish the figures we will get if we gain voluntary severance or are released compulsorily and, with that information, do the sums. If you wish to remain in the employment of CLCRC and think that the difference between the two figures is small enough to make it worth the gamble, so be it. If not, you may feel it more appropriate to put your name forward for a severance payment and, assuming that is secured, walk away.

NAPO Cumbria and Lancashire Branch would very much prefer to give each of you clear guidance on the ramifications of each potential outcome of this process but this is all but impossible in advance of the decisions taken post 10th August. All we can suggest is that you talk to your colleagues. Talk to your managers, Talk to your union reps. Gather as much information as you can. Most of all, talk to your families. No-one has the answers but many of us have our own thoughts on the issue and will willingly share them. It is important to remember that the position you are all in is unreasonable and unfair but knowing that does not offer you any answers.

If anyone wants to run things past me or any other Branch officials, please feel free to do so. We will do anything we can to help you make the choice that is right for you and will support you in whatever decision you make but, ultimately, the choice over whether or not to apply for voluntary severance or early retirement will be yours.

Jeremy Sharples
NAPO Vice Chair and LJNCC Convenor

Trouble in Court

It will come as no great surprise that yet another bad idea by former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling is beginning to unravel. This from the Guardian:- 

Magistrates resign over court charges that encourage innocent to plead guilty

Magistrates have begun to resign in protest at punitive court charges of up to £1,200 that they claim can never be collected and encourage the innocent to plead guilty. The criminal court charge came into effect in April as a means of ensuring that convicted adult offenders pay towards the cost of running the criminal justice system.

The hefty range of penalties is levied on top of fines, compensation orders, victim surcharges or prosecution costs already imposed on those who plead guilty or are convicted at magistrates’ or crown courts. When the criminal court charge was introduced by the last justice secretary, Chris Grayling, there were warnings the money could eventually prove to be uncollectable, particularly from those on benefits.

The Magistrates Association, which represents most magistrates in England and Wales, has confirmed that a number of experienced magistrates have resigned in protest at the charge.

Richard Monkhouse, chairman of the Magistrates Association, said: “Our members have expressed concerns about the charge from the outset and it shows the strength of feeling when experienced magistrates resign from the bench because of it. The law is the law and we have a sworn duty to apply it, so we’ve made our views known to the lord chancellor and will continue to do so. A six-month review is needed with a view to granting judges and magistrates discretion in applying the charge because we know the majority of offenders will never be able to pay, and worse, that it may influence their pleas.” Some reports suggest as many as 20 magistrates have now stood down.

The criminal court charge ranges from £150 for anyone who pleads guilty to a summary offence at magistrates’ court up to £1,000 for those convicted after a trial of a more serious offence at magistrates’ court. In the crown court, the charge ranges from £900 for a guilty plea up to £1,200 for conviction after trial. Because it costs far less to plead guilty rather than be convicted after a contested trial, some allege it creates a perverse incentive for the innocent to plead guilty rather than run the risk of failing to convince the court.

Bob Hutchinson, who was deputy bench chairman of the Fylde Coast magistrates, has resigned after 11 years. “People are expected to pay off their fines over a 12- to 18-month period,” he explained, “but 85% of people [who come before us] are on benefits and can only afford £5 a week. The criminal court charge – on top of victim surcharges, fines and compensation orders – makes a mockery of trying to pay money back over that period.”

Hutchinson said: “It’s a farce. I don’t think the government has thought this through. A lot of colleagues are imposing fines they know will never be collected. It will create a lot of resignations.”

George Lyons, who was a magistrate in North Tyneside for 15 years, has also given up his place on the bench. In a resignation letter to the Magistrates Association’s magazine, he warned that the charge puts pressure on people to admit crimes they have not committed in order to avoid a larger fines. This is a terrible piece of legislation introduced through the back door,” he wrote. The rules, over which magistrates have no discretion, would, he added, “criminalise many people because that is the option” for them. “Justice is only going to be for those who can afford it.”

Parliament has decided the matter needs looking at urgently:-

Justice Committee announces inquiry into courts and tribunals fees and charges.

Background

Over the course of the last Parliament the Coalition Government pursued policies aimed at decreasing the cost of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) to the public purse, through the introduction of and increases to various fees and charges. These included the introduction of fees for employment tribunals, a regime of enhanced fees for civil proceedings, and a mandatory charge imposed on anyone convicted of a criminal offence.

The Justice Committee has decided to hold an inquiry into the effects of the introduction and levels of these fees and charges. The Committee welcomes views on any aspect of this subject, but would be particularly interested in submissions addressing any or all of the following questions:

• How have the increased court fees and the introduction of employment tribunal fees affected access to justice? How have they affected the volume and quality of cases brought?
• How has the court fees regime affected the competitiveness of the legal services market in England and Wales, particularly in an international context?
• What have been the effects on defendants of the introduction of the criminal courts charge? Has the criminal courts charge been set at a reasonable and proportionate level? Is the imposition and collection of the charge practicable and, if not, how could that be rectified?

The deadline for written submissions to be made is Wednesday 30 September 2015.

And now the redoubtable Frances Crook of the Howard League is on the case:-

Howard League launches campaign for urgent Criminal Courts Charge review

A teenager who stole sweets and ice cream worth £5, a woman found begging in a car park and a man who kicked a flower pot after being stabbed are among thousands of people who have been ordered to pay a controversial new charge which penalises the poor and encourages the innocent to plead guilty.

Since April, magistrates and judges have been told that they must impose a mandatory Criminal Courts Charge of up to £1,200 on anyone convicted of an offence – whatever the defendant’s circumstances might be – on top of other levies such as fines, compensation orders, victim surcharges and costs. Defendants who fail to find the money risk being sent to prison.

The government has said it will review the charge after three years, but today (Wednesday 5 August) the Howard League for Penal Reform has begun a campaign calling for the review to be brought forward to this autumn.

The charge puts pressure on people to plead guilty, as it rises from £150 for a guilty plea for a summary offence in a magistrates’ court to £520 for a conviction after a not guilty plea. The charge at crown court is £900 for a guilty plea and £1,200 for a conviction after a not guilty plea. There are even plans to charge interest.

The charge removes discretion from magistrates, some of whom are reported to be resigning in despair. In many cases, money will be wasted on pursuing debts that people simply cannot pay.

The Howard League has compiled a list of more then 30 cases, all reported by local media, which show why the Criminal Courts Charge is unfair and unrealistic. They include:

• A 26-year-old homeless man who stole a can of Red Bull worth 99p from a supermarket in South Shields, Tyne and Wear, was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge and a £15 victim surcharge.
• A 30-year-old homeless woman was convicted in her absence of begging in a car park in Coventry, West Midlands. She was ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge, a £30 fine and a £20 victim surcharge.
• A 20-year-old man who was living in a hostel in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, kicked out at a flower pot after being stabbed with a needle by a fellow resident. He became homeless. He admitted criminal damage, which placed him in breach of two conditional discharges that were imposed on him for thefts. He was fined £70 and ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge, £85 costs and a £20 victim surcharge.
• A 37-year-old woman who stole shampoo worth £2.39 from a shop in Banbury, Oxfordshire, was given a six-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge, £35 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.
• A 41-year-old man who stole two tubs of ice cream worth £9.58 from a shop in Coventry, West Midlands, was given a six-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge, £85 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.
• A 27-year-old man who “trespassed” at a shop in Poole, Dorset, and stole three cans of drink to a value of £6.64 was ordered to pay £6.64 in compensation, a £15 victim surcharge and a £180 criminal courts charge.
• A 26-year-old homeless man who admitted stealing drinks and chocolate worth £4.80 from a shop in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, was jailed for four weeks because of his lengthy record and made to pay a £150 criminal courts charge and an £80 victim surcharge.
• A 19-year-old man admitted stealing sweets and ice cream to the value of £5 from a supermarket in Torquay, Devon, whilst subject to a conditional discharge imposed for two thefts. He was ordered to pay a £35 fine, a £180 criminal courts charge, a £20 victim surcharge and £85 costs.
• A 38-year-old homeless man admitted persistently begging in Oxford, Oxfordshire, and breached an Asbo prohibiting him from sitting within 10 metres of a cash machine. He was jailed for 30 days and ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge.
• A 31-year-old woman from Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, admitted stealing shower gel worth £2.39 from a pharmacy. She was jailed for 14 days and ordered to pay a £150 criminal courts charge, a £20 victim surcharge and £2.39 in compensation.

One of the most troubling cases is that of a person who wrote to their local newspaper, the Shields Gazette, for advice about the charge.

In a letter published on the newspaper’s website in July, the person wrote: “I am due to appear at Newcastle Crown Court in two weeks for an offence that I did not commit. I had planned on pleading not guilty, however I have been told that if I am found guilty I will have over £1,000 in costs to pay. Is this true?”

In June, the Exeter Express & Echo reported on a case where a judge was required to impose a £900 charge on a homeless man who had admitted shoplifting.

The newspaper reported that, as the defendant was led away, the judge asked the courtroom: “He cannot afford to feed himself, so what are the prospects of him paying £900?”

Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said:

“These cases are a snapshot of a failing criminal justice system. Up and down the country, people are being brought to court for minor misdemeanours and being ordered to pay a mandatory charge regardless of their circumstances.

Some are homeless. Some have addictions. Many will be unable to pay. But the Ministry of Justice is poised to waste money it does not have on pursuing the debts. With more budget cuts on the way, ministers should be looking to shrink the system, not trapping more people in it for absurd offences.

It was the French writer Anatole France, more than 100 years ago, who wrote that ‘In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread’. Now the law seems hell-bent on exacting charges from rich and poor alike for the privilege – but it is the poor who will find themselves entrenched in their poverty by these criminal charges.

We do not want to see the return of debtors’ prisons. It is time for an urgent review of this unfair and unrealistic sanction, which is doing nothing to tackle crime and, in all likelihood, is making matters worse.”

Postscript

It's been brought to my attention that certain Benches and DJ's are so fed up with having their hands tied by the lack of discretion that they've resorted to creative means in order to frustrate things, eg Sec 135 of Magistrates' Courts Act 1980:-

135 Detention of offender for one day in court-house or police station.

(1) A magistrates’ court that has power to commit to prison a person convicted of an offence, or would have that power but for section 82 or 88 above, may order him to be detained within the precincts of the court-house or at any police station until such hour, not later than 8 o’clock in the evening of the day on which the order is made, as the court may direct, and, if it does so, shall not, where it has power to commit him to prison, exercise that power.

(2) A court shall not make such an order under this section as will deprive the offender of a reasonable opportunity of returning to his abode on the day of the order.

Redundancy Q and A

All staff in the six Sodexo CRC's have been sent lengthy e-mails regarding the 'offer' to jump ship and thanks go to the colleague for sending them to me. This is the first and although relating to Cumbria and Lancashire CRC, I guess all will be similar. The second will have to be split in two due to length and will follow tomorrow. 

As an aside, I really don't know how CEO's sleep at night, but maybe I'm just getting too sentimental.

--oo00oo--

Please find below information regarding:

1. Timetable for Voluntary Severance Package
2. Questions and Answers from Ask the Chief mailbox
3. Compulsory Redundancy Timetable and information

Timetable for Voluntary Severance Package

This is the proposed timetable for the staff restructuring process. These are the dates we are working to, but they may change slightly as we get into the process. If you have any further questions or issues regarding the information contained here please contact Sue Hall, HR & Development Manager.

Date / Phase / Activity 

16th July 2015 / Staff communication of VS arrangements / CE email and staff briefings 

Monday 20th July until 12 noon on Monday 10th August 2015 / VS Application window (3 weeks) / Individuals submit voluntary severance application for consideration 

10th August 2015 / Voluntary Severance approval panel / Senior Management will meet as a review panel to consider applications and agree which applications we can accept based on business need / Severance decisions will be forwarded to Sodexo for final agreement/sign off

17th August 2015 / CRC will receive confirmation of Sodexo’s ratification for staff to be released under the VS package

18th August 2015 / Outcome letters issued and staff consideration period / Outcome letters issued to applicants. Staff have 2 weeks in which to confirm/decline offers, subject to leaving dates being agreed. 1:1 meetings will be held with individual staff members who have been offered VS

1st September 2015 / Applicants confirm or decline offer / All applicants must confirm or decline their VS offer by 1st September

NEXT STEPS

Once the voluntary severance process is completed, we will know what the current staffing numbers are compared to the staffing numbers we need to move to in the new structure. The next step will be to look at where we can match people into a role, if this not possible we will go through a competitive selection process. What this means is if we have:

Number of jobs in the new structure: Current staffing numbers: Action 

10 roles                                  10 staff                        Matching process
10 roles                                  15 staff                        Competitive selection process
10 roles                                    5 staff                        Vacant positions will be advertised across the business. For example, you may currently be a case administrator and have the opportunity to apply for a PSO post following assessment process if there are vacancies within this job area. If we need to go through the competitive selection process, we will let you know what the criteria for this will be nearer the time. The compulsory redundancy timetable is detailed in the Q&A should we need to move to this.

Ask the Chief Questions & Answers

As promised, please find below the general questions received following the staffing reduction announcement on Thursday 16 July and my answers to those questions. The questions relating to personal information have been answered directly.

SEVERANCE

Q. Is it possible to get advice about calculating what the severance figure would be, if it were offered?

The severance figure is your yearly gross wage divided by 52 to give your weekly pay. Then it is two weeks’ actual pay for each year of completed service, up to a maximum of 30 weeks. For example:

Annual Salary £30,000 divided by 52 = £576.92 a week - if you have worked 10 years in the service you would be entitled to 20 weeks pay which would equate to £11,538.46. The maximum you are allowed to claim for is 15 years which is 30 weeks pay. You do not pay tax on anything under £30,000.

Q. Why is this process being so rushed so that staff do not have time to digest the information? The timing of the announcement is either unfortunate, ill considered or worrying orchestrated to clash with the start of the school holidays and consequently staff leave.

As you may know the unions (NAPO, Unison and GMB) nationally have been meeting with Sodexo Justice Services to discuss the offer. Information was provided to the unions in early June and this was discussed further at a meeting at the end of June. It was hoped that we would have been in a position to provide staff with information at that point. However, this was not the case and I wrote to staff on the 3rd July explaining this and advising everyone that the information would be provided on 16th July.

I am aware that this coincides with the commencement of school holidays which is why the response time is for three weeks from Monday 20th July. The purpose of this being to enable everyone sufficient time to read the information, consider the implications for themselves and make a decision.

If individual staff feel disadvantaged they can of course contact HR explaining their concerns which would be considered before any decision was made regarding allowing additional time. As you will appreciate allowing one person additional time will have an impact on overall decision making and all staff in the CRC.

Q. Where can I get the information regarding figures for early retirement / severance.

The CRC has applied for this information for all staff aged 55-64, however, we have yet to receive it. You are able to contact Greater Manchester Pension Fund directly who will be able to advise you on personal matters. For anyone expressing an interest in ER we will get this information to you as soon as possible.

Q. The expression of interest form has an additional information box, is there any guidance as to what additional information is considered to be helpful?

There is no specific guidance regarding additional information. It should include whatever you feel you wish to share that is relevant to and supports your application.

Q. If a staff member's application for severance is accepted how will the point of their departure be agreed and arranged?

Staff are requested on the form to indicate the earliest date they wish to depart. This request will be considered alongside business need. There will be a discussion with the staff member by either HR or a senior manager to agree the actual leaving date.

Q. In the information provided to us on 16th July, it says that "all" applications will be assessed on a case by case basis in accordance with the published criteria. Where is the criteria?

The criteria for voluntary severance will be as follows:

• Organisational/Business Need
• Overall Cost
• Individual circumstances including DDA

Q. With regard to accessing legal advice in relation to any severance deal that may be negotiated, will the CRC pay towards costs for the employee to get their own legal advice.

Yes.

Q. According to the pensions guidance issued by GMPF, if you are over 55 and your employer makes you redundant or retires you in the interests of efficiency GMPF will pay your pension benefits immediately. If you retire in this way there will be no early retirement reduction in your ordinary benefits.

In the circumstances why are you preventing people in this age group from accessing severance payments if they leave the organisation by taking the early retirement option? According to the guidance from GMPF no pension penalties would be imposed if a member of staff leaves on the grounds of efficiency.

The offer for someone over 55 is either to take severance pay or to access their immediate pension, but not both.

You can apply for severance and then choose to access your pension. However, if you do so there will be financial penalties related to accessing your pension early. Please discuss this with GMPF directly as they can provide individual support and guidance should you be considering this alongside a voluntary application.

Q. Where will the 2 CP Practice Manager roles be based? I assume that there will be one per LDU but was wondering if the roles will be office based or mobile/working from home etc? Is there an expectation that one will be based in Cumbria?

Also, in terms of the specific storage/parking facilities accommodation for CP, are we any nearer to deciding where this will be? Also, will CP supervisors pick up offender from pick up points in local areas or will offenders be expected to travel? i.e. Chorley to Preston.

There will be a CP practice manager for each LDU, one covering Cumbria and North West Lancashire, one covering East and South Lancashire. The office location will be agreed with the individuals in post and will require mobile working and could include home working.

There is no expectation that one will be based in Cumbria or any other specific area of the CRC, but that Cumbria will be properly covered. The locations for premises for CP are still being procured.

The methods of future working arrangements will be developed within CP, this could include a greater reporting direct to site and pick up points. It is proposed to have specific CP development events to look at how CP will operate in the future. Dates to be advised.

Q. I was just wondering where people on Fixed Term Contracts stand.

The information regarding severance package and compulsory redundancy is only for those staff who have a permanent contract of employment. If you are on a fixed term contract it will come to an end. If there were any vacancies externally advertised you would be able to apply and we would encourage you to do so.

Q. I have been asked by staff from the Penrith office why they do not feature in the table 'allocation of OM's'. Is it to be assumed that Penrith numbers are included in the current Carlisle figures and therefore Kendal are included in the Barrow numbers - or does this already indicate that these posts are redundant?

The table shows the total number of offices there will be in the new operating model and the number of staff who will be based in each office. Current staffing numbers exclude all fixed term and agency staff and are a snapshot at the end of June. The Kendal and Penrith current staffing numbers are shown in Carlisle figures.

When looking at where staff are located we will consider where staff live and work now, their preference for where they would wish to work and the needs of the business. The closure of an office at a particular site does not mean that staff are all redundant.

Q. If a staff member does not apply for the severance package when will we find out what the compulsory package is - will this information be known before the closing date of the severance offer?

The compulsory package will be: 1 week for every full year of employment up to age 41 and 1 1/2 weeks for every full year of employment over 41 to a maximum of 20 years paid at actual salary (a full year being 12 full calendar months).

Q. The severance package talks of 2 weeks pay for each year - if someone was initially full time then reduced their hours to part time what salary is used to calculate their package - is it based on their current part time annual salary?

This has now been clarified by SJS and is:

You will receive two weeks’ actual pay for each year of completed service (up to a cap of 30 weeks). The value of your voluntary severance package will be calculated by multiplying this number of weeks by your average salary over the past 12 months prior to your agreed exit date.

Q. There was a mention of payment for business miles should you be directed to work somewhere else - how long will this be paid for - a set period of time or for the life of your employment?

If the CRC directs a member of staff to work at another location excess mileage will be paid for a period of two years. The calculation is: new home to office mileage - minus current home to office mileage = excess mileage to be paid for each day working in new office location. It must only be claimed when actual travel occurs to the office.

Q. Does taking severance pay mean I would be unable to apply for positions within the CLCRC in the future?

Once you leave the CRC with a severance package, there will be a period where you cannot apply for posts. I am seeking further clarification of this point and will let you know once I have the information.

Q. If it turns out there will be compulsory redundancies will the figures stated in the 05/2009 policy, at point 13.1 be honoured?

Our organisational change policy and procedures has been reviewed and changed. The payment will be in line with the statutory calculator which is 1 week for every year worked when aged under 41 and 1 1/2 weeks 41 and over to a maximum of 20 years paid at actual salary.

The unions have not agreed with the decision to change but the new policy is the one that will be implemented when calculating compulsory redundancy payment. The National Negotiating Agreement is available on the intranet and the revised organisational change policy and procedures are available on the intranet.

Q. How do I challenge a severance decision?

You will not be able to challenge the decision once it has been made. The senior management team will meet to discuss all the applications and will take into account, business needs, costs and individual circumstances before reaching a decision. The final decision rests with myself as Chief Officer.

Q. Will there be any assistance with car loans, pool cars?

This is something we will investigate with Sodexo Justice Services but at present we do not have these schemes in the CRC although we have had both previously.

Q. Can you advise what training will be provided for staff who are leaving and will it be mandatory?

Training opportunities will be offered and we will work with individuals to assist them in seeking jobs and into moving into a new sector. Where someone is made compulsory redundant they are entitled to take paid time off to attend job interviews.

Q. Is the organisational change policy a contractual requirement that cannot be changed to the detriment of staff without agreement from JNCC – not after consultation with LJNCC?

Sodexo Justice Services have sought legal advice on this and the advise is that it is not contractual. Staff who currently have savings that are automatically paid at source into Blue’s and Two’s accounts – will this continue when transferred to Sodexo?

Yes it will

Q. If I apply for a lower grade post will my pay be protected for three years?

Yes this is in line with NNC

Q. Can you clarify how the current spilt roles in Cumbria between operational PSO and programmes have been counted in the current staffing figures and whether there will be spilt roles in the future.

There are currently 11.6 dedicated Band 3 facilitators for Cumbria and Lancashire and 1.6 Women Safety Workers. There has been an additional 4 FTE nominally attributed to the programmes staffing to account for those staff engaged in split roles in Cumbria. There is currently a Review being undertaken regarding programme delivery and the question of split roles will be covered in that review

Q. Can you provide some general information on the new operating model?

Details of the framework are contained in the Service Delivery Solution previously circulated to Team Managers and union colleagues. The underpinning principles and some of the content of Positive Futures will remain. However, a significant change will be the creation of a Hub which will deliver the administrative function across Cumbria and Lancashire. The Hub will undertake allocation, enforcement, risk escalation and eventually the management of some cases that meet certain criteria regarding risk of serious harm and reoffending. There will be a new supply chain of partner organisations designed to deliver a community integration function focusing around accommodation, employment, mentoring provision and family support.

In addition, there will be a new assessment tool called Justice Star, which is a strength based sentence planning tool designed to be used in a collaborative way with service users. A new risk assessment tool is in the process of being developed which will be similar in any ways to the current OASys RoSH. There will also be a new case recording system, which should be less complex and more intuitive than NDelius and a new mobile working solution which will provide more flexibility in regard to where service users can be seen.

Work is being undertaken with colleagues from across the CRC regarding the operational design led by Joanne Dann, ACE. We want to encourage as much involvement as possible for those staff wanting to have an input over the coming months.

Q. Can our references be fuller than just factual information confirming we worked in the CRC?

Our usual policy has been to offer the factual information with a disclaimer that this in no way implies anything untoward. Line managers can do references but NOT on letter headed paper - more of a character reference.

Q. If PSOs are less likely to go on compulsory redundancy, how can other grades apply for PSO posts?

If we have more PSOs than we need to lose apply for severance and if we are able to support the applications, then because we are losing posts under severance it will be possible to advertise these to the admin grade (including Corporate Services), and potentially the PO grades should anyone wish to move down a grade, who are at greater risk. If we lose posts under redundancy then there is less flexibility. However, all of this will depend on who wishes to put forward an expression of interest and how many of those we are able to support.

Q. How can you have a policy of not requiring any one staff member to move 30 miles but then ask for expressions of interest?

Everyone has a different approach to how far they are prepared, able to travel to work and also may have a wish to work in a particular office. We would not know this unless the question is asked. This will assist in making decisions about where people will be located.

COMPULSORY REDUNDANCY

The decision regarding whether we have to move to compulsory redundancy will be affected by the number of expression of interests for voluntary severance and the number we are able to accept.

Given the numbers of staff we need to lose, we anticipate we may need to progress to compulsory redundancy. However, there are two grades, Band 5, operational middle managers and operational Band 3 staff, where given the numbers of staff we need to lose and the current level of interest shown, it seems probable that compulsory redundancy will not be required.

Please find attached the proposed timelines for the compulsory redundancy process should it be required. The dates may change, if ratification of VS decisions is not received by the 17th August. The following criteria will be used when decision making for compulsory redundancy:

• Performance in a competency based interview 
• Attendance records (discounting DDA/maternity) 
• Capability Issues 
• Disciplinary record – current on record

Where we move to interviews all those at risk will be provided with the current job description and a guidance note on competency based interviewing. Please don’t forget that the CIC helpline is available for all staff for anything to do with financial and legal advice as well as confidential counselling.

COMPULSORY REDUNDANCY TIMETABLE

Date / Phase / Activity

17th August 2015 / Ratification decision from SJS re: VS / SMT clarify who will be offered VS and review whether we need to move to compulsory redundancy

18th August 2015 / Letter to successful applications for VS / Letters sent out acceptance to be confirmed by staff by 1st September. Provide information to CRC.

w/c 17th August / Commence 1:1 CR interviews / Meetings with individual staff in the at risk groups. Meetings will include HR and a manager. Individuals can be accompanied by either their union rep or a colleague

w/c 17th August 2015 / Adverts for potential vacancies / From information re: VS decisions opportunities identified and ring fenced for at risk staff.

1st September 2015 / Closing date for applications /

1st September 2015 /Final VS acceptance date / All letters re: decisions to be received

2nd September 2015 / Review overall staffing needs / Advise CRC of actual staffing numbers and confirm any CR requirements and job vacancies

w/c 7th September / Job interviews / Interviews for vacancies arising from VS

7th September 2015 / Complete 1:1 CR interviews / Information from 1:1s collated and final decisions re: compulsory redundancy requirements

7th September 2015  Issue information to at risk group and interview dates /Provision of guidance notes on how to be successful in a competency based interview and job specification

w/c 14th September 2015 / Competency based assessment centres / Selection of staff in at risk grades to remain in CRC

w/c 25th September 2015 /Final decisions confirmed / Information to staff re: Assessment Centre outcome Letter to successful candidates Letters to unsuccessful candidates with exit date

29th September 2015 / Completion of process / Confirmation to CRC and SJS that process is complete

Napo Elections 2

I notice that Napo London Branch continue to break new ground by using Facebook in order to publish a short interview with one of the candidates for Napo Vice Chair. The piece by David Raho quickly flushed out another candidate, so in terms of balance, it's to be hoped the third will be forthcoming shortly:-

Former Napo London Branch Officer and Napo National Vice Chair candidate Charron Culnane has been answering questions put to her by members who are unsure whom to vote for in the election of national officers. We decided to interview Charron and asked her the following questions.

Who is the best candidate for National Vice Chair?

We are very fortunate that we have 3 candidates standing for the same posts in each election this time. I think having a choice is excellent for our members and ensures we remain a democratic organisation. You have 3 very different candidates to choose from for the National Vice Chair role. We each have our strengths and I think members have a difficult choice this year which is brilliant.

Why is NAPO important?

Since the split I think we need our Union more than ever. In NPS we are civil servants and cannot be seen to criticise our employers (current government). In CRC's our numbers have been divided between numerous employers and our voices diluted. We can only speak out safely through our Union. As I said in my candidate statement: alone we are one voice in the wilderness and as such we can be picked off one by one. For this reason alone I think everyone should be in a union. I personally think NAPO, being a professional organisation as well as a Trade Union is better placed to represent members. Especially when negotiating about complex practice issues.

I make no secret about being Equality driven. Since the split staff on all sides of the divide have been expected to change roles, offices, work practices etc with little regard for reasonable adjustments, mobility, caring issues or travelling difficulties in general. I want to ensure these discussions are at the top of the agenda before further changes happen. It goes without saying that I will fight redundancies with everything I have but I am a realist. I tend to plan for the worst so in the case of non voluntary redundancies I also want to try to ensure that staff with protected characteristics are not discriminated against by any process imposed. NAPO members are inspirational.

What can members do to help NAPO?

We are the members after all and the person I am aiming to represent are all members. How can I represent you if I don't know what you want me to do? I think communication between members and National NAPO needs to change. The NEC meetings don't cascade enough information back to the branches and the grass roots members and many emails from Chivalry Road just don't get read. I think we don't utilise the NAPO Web Site well enough and we also need to get better at using Social Media to keep the message out there about how dangerous the changes to our service are. I would like to see more joint action throughout the Criminal Justice System and more organising with local branches to empower you in your campaigns at local level. Due to the fact I use a crutch and can't stand up for very long or walk very far you won't find me on many marches but you will find me organising them and enabling other members to join in.

Charron Culnane

--oo000oo--

Thank you very much Charron and best of luck to you and the other candidates. At the end of the day it is for the membership to decide and we would encourage everyone to read the candidates statements and vote according to who you feel will best represent you at national level. 

David A Raho

--oo000oo--

Q. Will you be interviewing the other candidates?

We would love to. As Charron says all the candidates have their strengths. I know Chas Berry is on here so he might choose to answer the same questions as Charron Culnane but there is no obligation. Of course there is no pressure at all to do so as candidates have already made their statements. I don't know about Barry Adams but if anyone on here who knows him would like to extend an invitation then that would be excellent. All Napo members have the election statements and non members can always check them out on Jim Brown's On Probation website.

David A Raho

--oo000oo--

Thanks for the invitation David A Raho. My answer to the same questions are as follows: 

Who is this best candidate for National Vice-Chair? 

The skills required are an ability to work as part of the leadership team while holding the General Secretary and the Officials to account. At the same time it is important to have a clear sense of purpose and direction for the union. I commend the other candidates for entering the contest but I think my extensive experience as a trade unionist and as a campaigning socialist provides me with the qualities that make me the best candidate. 

Why is NAPO important? 

NAPO is unique as both a trade union and a professional association as it defends the values of an integrated probation service. No other union or professional body can claim to do the same. We have a proud record and a bright future if we can rise to the challenge of the twin threat posed by Government cuts in the NPS and the slashing of services in the outsourced CRCs. Members are understandably downcast by the loss of the battle against TR but this mood can quickly turn into its opposite with a bold campaign that links up with our sister unions in the public sector and beyond. The campaign against the Trade Union Reform Bill will be a key battleground for us as we attempt to stop this Government's attempts prevent unions from organising any type of effective action. 

What can members do to help NAPO? 

If you work in the NPS the most important thing you can do right now is sign up to direct debit and encourage your colleagues to do the same. We stand to lose nearly half our income unless the 4,000 or so NPS members make the switch before the end of the year. If you work in the CRCs you can support your colleagues bearing the brunt of the onslaught from some of the private providers; I'm thinking in particular at this stage of the six Sodexo areas where nearly 500 redundancies are threatened but colleagues in RRP and elsewhere are facing similar threats. You can do this by sending a simple message of support to those going through the consultation at the moment, but be prepared to show them more concrete support should they have recourse to take industrial action. This is the true meaning of the word solidarity and it is what will ensure we prevail and emerge from the current crisis as a stronger organisation than ever.

Chas Berry

A Tragic Waste

Firstly let me start by saying I am one of those that are usually a reader and not a speaker.... however, recent events have gotten under my skin so I feel I have no other choice but to be vocal about my feelings. I feel that I was shafted into the CRC and not sifted!! Then I feel I was shat on from a great height by my SPO and ACE telling me I had a future in the CRC and that my experience and knowledge were valued and that there was a place for me long term. It transpires however, that my CRC just needs me in the short term to keep the service going until they can replace me with unqualified staff.

The union UNISON have done nothing to protect me, instead they have ensured their own jobs in NPS and have now reduced my mileage allowance just as we in the CRC are supposed to be going mobile working!! Hence my decision to withdraw from the union and go it alone, why put my head above the parapet for them when they wont do it for me?

I am managing 'high risk' cases in the CRC because my SPO wont refer to NPS in case there is a financial penalty on refusal... laugh... I could cry!! I am a fully qualified PO, I am trained in risk assessment but my decisions are overrun by arseholes more concerned with keeping their jobs than with concern about public safety, what does that say? The whole TR agenda has been a shambles which is why I have rendered my resignation today as I can no longer be party to such a debacle.

Good luck to those of you who remain, just remember that the whole point of this job was to reach out to people and help them to recognise their risk and to self manage it, to reduce future risk of reoffending and of causing harm to others. The goal posts have moved, payment now is my manipulated results and I am relieved not to be a part of this fucked up process that will result in profit for private companies, but increased risk in our communities. Sleep well those of you that choose to stay. xx

Pay and Expenses

BR83/2015 (N 13-2015)
il/mp 

To
Probation Branches
NEC
Probation Negotiating Committee
Cafcass SEC (for information only)
Officers, Officials & Staff (for info)

PROBATION PAY UPDATE

Despite every effort to maintain the earlier engagement with NOMS via the offices of ACAS, it is unfortunate that the NNC Employers have refused to continue our talks which were being held in an effort to resolve the outstanding Napo and Unison disputes over the 0% pay offer that was imposed without negotiation.

Unison members have taken industrial action this month and feedback suggests that a number of Napo members showed solidarity with their UNISON colleagues in a number of locations.

Napo and UNISON have been participating in these talks in good faith, but the NOMS officials representing the Employers Side were unwilling to continue the negotiations. The unions have tried to agree an agenda with the Employers that would have included discussion on the future of national collective bargaining, the potential reform of the pay and grading system, as well as trying to find a resolution to the 2014 pay dispute. 

Here are the key issues which we were prepared to discuss with the Employers:

• Resolution of the 2014 NNC pay dispute.

• All staff covered by the 2014/15 NNC pay settlement, including any outcome agreed via the ACAS talks, to receive appropriate payment, whether they are employed by the National Probation Service (NPS) or one of the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs)

• All parties to the NNC commit to entering into talks in relation to reviewing the NNC pay and reward system as a matter of priority.

• NNC pay bands need to be addressed as a priority in the review of the pay and reward system, in particular, the need to shorten pay bands in order to aid recruitment and retention and to address potential pay discrimination issues.

• The harmonisation of key and still outstanding terms and conditions in both NPS and CRCs including Maternity pay, parental leave provision and the privilege day associated with the Queen’s Birthday, and the addressing of these as a matter of urgency.

• In line with the NNC Staff Transfer and Protections Agreement, all parties to the NNC to work together to review the current national bargaining machinery

• All parties to the NNC to discuss how the Probation Consultative Forum can be developed as a mechanism for discussion of professional standards, and associated matters, across the NPS and CRCs.

What next? 

NOMS has now dismissed ACAS and have indicated that they no longer wish to use them to seek to resolve the 2014/15 pay dispute. UNISON’s National Probation Committee is due to meet on 5 August to review their industrial action strategy and Napo’s Probation Negotiating Committee meets again for a special meeting to discuss our future pay strategy early the following month. 

The frustration of Napo members for the interminable delays in making any progress on pay are well appreciated, but I hope that this update will provide some important context as to the reasons for this. 

The lack of respect for staff in the post-TR world, whether they are working in the NPS or a CRC, is all too apparent.

Yours sincerely

Ian Lawrence           Chris Winters          Yvonne Pattison 

General Secretary   National Co-Chair    National Co-Chair

--oo00oo--

31 July 2015
BR 84/2015

IL/CG

To: Branch Chairs, Vice Chairs, Secretaries and Convenors
NEC Co-Representatives
Probation Negotiating Committee
Family Court SEC (for information only)
Officers, Officials & Staff (for information)

Dear Colleague,

NAPO INSIST ON NNC ENDORSEMENT OF NEW CAR MILEAGE
AND SUBSISTENCE RATES FROM 1 AUGUST 2015

This circular explains why NOMS is intending to introduce new car mileage and subsistence arrangements with effect from 1 August. We also set out some of the background as to why this decision has been taken and our agreement that the policy will be taken to the National Negotiating Council NNC for endorsement and that further guidance will be issued including a Probation Instruction (PI).

Meanwhile we have attached the explanatory letters and appendices which NOMS have issued to managers about the intended changes. We are taking up the issues that members are already raising with NOMS senior management and we will issue more news as soon as we can.

Meanwhile the following response has been received from NOMS following our latest representations:

Dear Ian

I note the concerns being raised by NAPO members about the operative date and short notice in relation to the implementation of T&S. It was necessary to introduce the policy with effect from 1st August as NOMS has negotiated dispensation from HMRC in respect of potential outstanding tax liabilities affecting individual staff members which expires on 1st August. We will work with you to address the concerns being raised by NAPO members and provide further clarification where necessary. NOMS recognises that the policy whilst agreed by you in principle, will require endorsement by the Joint Secretaries and that urgent discussions will be taking place on the supporting NNC guidance and the Probation Instruction that it is intended will be issued as soon as possible.

It is anticipated that this process will be completed by the end of August. Detailed guidance and easy guides are being issued and published on EPIC ready for Monday and it would be helpful if you could sign post these in any communications you issue to members. The SSCL contact centre are trained to talk staff through the screens and this will be backed up by face to face training during September and October. I would encourage staff to start to use the system for any expenses incurred in August and staff may use the existing arrangements for mileage and subsistence claims relating to the July period.

Peter Firth

Deputy Director HR,
National Probation Service

Background 

NPS made a full and final offer on travel and subsistence to the trade unions on 26 June 2015. The offer had previously been under discussion through the National Negotiating Council (NNC) intermittently in 2014, but was never satisfactorily resolved in the expected timescale due to the pressures of the implementation of TR, and changes in NOMS senior personnel responsibilities. It was then considered by Napo’s Probation Negotiating Committee and the National Executive Committee who agreed in principle that it represented the best outcome that could be achieved by negotiation.

Implicit in this decision was the expectation that the revised instructions would be issued via the National Negotiating Council machinery (NNC) and would be accompanied by an official Probation Instruction (PI). Neither of these actions has yet taken place. It was also hoped that the policy would apply to employees in the Community Rehabilitation Companies. This followed the employers recommendations in their report to the National Negotiating Council dated 15 December 2014 (which appears at the end of this memo). However, it was accepted by the Napo NEC that this might not happen automatically and that pressure would need to be applied to CRC employers to mirror the changes.

Following these discussions, and the NEC directive, Napo signalled its agreement in principle to the new car mileage and subsistence rates some time ago. This was on the basis that the accompanying instructions would provide easy to follow guidance to staff and managers about the changes. Sadly you will see from the official attachments (which were issued last week without Napo being afforded a final opportunity to consider them), that they are still unclear.

It has been agreed today that the trade unions will be given the opportunity to take part in urgent discussions about the NNC guidance and relevant Probation Instruction.

Members’ enquiries

Given the current (and especially heavy) pressures on the Chivalry Road team and the traditional difficulties associated with the summer holiday period, it would be greatly appreciated if detailed written questions that we appreciate are already emerging from concerned members could be channelled to Napo Head Office via your local NEC members or Branch representatives. We can consider these in advance of issuing further information.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Lawrence           Dean Rogers                          Chris Winters
General Secretary   Assistant General Secretary   National Co-Chair


ADDITIONAL BRIEFING FROM NAPO ON NPS INTENTION TO
IMPLEMENT A NEW CAR MILEAGE & SUBSISTENCE POLICY
ON 1 AUGUST 2015

The National Probation Service intend to implement a new car mileage allowance for NPS staff with effect from 1 August. The new policy automatically applies to NPS staff but Napo and Unison have indicated that we will be seeking to ensure that the policy is mirrored across the CRC environment.

Notwithstanding Napo’s insistence that the policy be endorsed by the NNC, this briefing:

• Summarises the proposed changes 
• Provides some background to the changes 
• Explains Napo’s position 
• Provides guidance to members on what the policy says about appealing against any financial detriment. 

What are the proposed changes?

In summary, the changes are as follows: 

• Replacement of the old former Probation Trust car mileage allowances with a single car mileage rate of 45p/mile 
• One-off compensation payments to staff who suffer some detriment as a result of the introduction of the new car mileage allowance 
• A £1,000 buy-out of the essential car user allowance for any member of NPS staff still in receipt of this allowance 
• The introduction of new subsistence allowances

The full details of the new mileage rate and the compensation arrangements offered by NPS are set out at Appendix A of the guidance notes for managers. The details of the new subsistence allowances are set out in full later at Appendix B (Report to the National Negotiating Council) 15 December 2014

Why Harmonise NPS Travel and Subsistence?

NPS is a core civil service employer, so it is not surprising that it wishes to harmonise the varied travel and subsistence arrangements which ex-Probation Trust staff brought with them in the transfer. In particular, there are practical difficulties in managing the former Probation Trust travel and subsistence allowances via MOJ Shared Services, and reconciling NPS tax arrangements with these historical allowances. These harmonisation proposals are the first tranche of a much larger project to harmonise ex-Probation Trust terms and conditions to civil service/NOMS terms. NOMS has claimed that the new car mileage allowances have to be introduced on 1 August to save NPS staff from having to negotiate on personal tax liabilities directly with HMRC, we will be seeking to fully understand this requirement and ensure that it is properly explained to members.

Have any negotiations taken place on these changes?

Yes, the trade unions were involved in detailed negotiations over the proposed changes at the end of 2014. Napo and UNISON were not opposed to the principle of harmonisation, but as you would expect, our intention was to obtain the best possible deal for our members in relation to the proposals which, in some respects if they include the changes to subsistence rates, are likely to represent an improvement in the terms and conditions of some members, with protections for any staff who can evidence detriment as a result of implementation. However, the confusion already being caused by the covering guidance issued to managers has caused confusion amongst staff, especially those currently in receipt of local car parking reimbursement arrangements and we will be taking this issue up via the NNC.

What about the new subsistence rates?

The proposals to change car mileage allowances were originally due to have been accompanied by the replacement of the former Probation Trust system of subsistence allowances based on receipts with a new more favourable system which did not require staff to provide receipts for meals in order to claim allowances.

In summary the new subsistence rates for NPS staff are proposed as follows:

For information on what you are entitled to claim for see: Travel & Subsistence Policy ALLOWANCES

NEW RATES

Bed & Breakfast Accommodation:
Inner London     £115.00 including VAT
Outside London £70.00 including VAT
Other Location   £70.00 including VAT

Additional Allowance (overnight subsistence – 24 hour rate) £26.00
Incidental Travel Element minus £3.20

Day Subsistence
Over 5 hrs £4.25
Over 10 hrs £9.30
Over 12 hrs £13.55

Residential Course Allowance £5.00

Lodging Allowance:
London/All Cases Up to £36.75
Elsewhere/All Cases Up to £33.20

Retention of Rooms Allowance: £7.00

Business Mileage:
All vehicles: 45p Standard Rate
Up to 10000 miles 26p Public Transport Rate
Over 10000 miles 25p all rates

Motor cycle rate:
Up to 125cc: 24p

Pedal Cycle Rate
Pedal Cycle Rate: 20p

Our understanding is that these rates do not require the submission of receipts.

Napo’s position

Napo’s Probation Negotiating Committee and National Executive Committee agreed in principle earlier this year to recommend the new mileage and subsistence proposals to members in NPS as the best that were achievable by negotiation. This was on the assumption that the final offer would:

• contain both the car mileage and subsistence allowances 
• be launched via the NNC machinery with covering instructions including a Probation Instruction (PI) Hopefully apply to both our members in the NPS and the CRCs, (where the NEC accepted that some pressure may need to be brought to bear in this · respect via the NNC). 

The negotiations on the travel and subsistence proposals concluded earlier this year, but then got overtaken by the 2014 pay dispute. NPS made a full and final offer on travel and subsistence to the unions on 26 June 2015, but unfortunately we were not consulted on the guidance that has been issued to managers.

What does the NNC Agreement on Staff Transfer and Protections say about this? 

Probation Trust staff transferred to the NPS on 1 June with their ex-Probation Trust terms and conditions intact. The NNC Staff Transfer and Protections Agreement states that employees in the transfer would be treated no less favourably than if TUPE applied. This means that your terms and conditions were protected at the point of transfer, but can be changed via negotiation following the transfer, i.e. with the agreement of staff via collective agreement.

The Staff Transfer and Protections agreement states explicitly at clause 15:

‘Staff who transfer to the NPS will do so on their existing terms and conditions. Any harmonisation of terms and conditions will be undertaken in accordance with national collective bargaining.’ Whilst we have sought to negotiate the new policies and believe that this is the best that can be achieved, the fact that they still have to be approved by the NNC and have been issued with instructions that do not contain the level of clarity that you would expect, has meant that Napo has had to insist on a further period of consultation about the contents of the further guidance that is clearly still needed.

Advice to Napo members

Within the existing guidance is information to staff who wish to challenge the imposition of the new car mileage rates on the basis that will suffer a detriment. It is expected that in such instances members should initially seek to use this mechanism whilst keeping their Napo representative copied in to developments.

Members are also asked to take the following aspects into account: 

• the existing car mileage allowances are subject to taxation above 45p/mile 
• NPS is offering compensation by way of a buy out for the essential car users allowance and this cannot be guaranteed into the future
• NPS is offering some limited compensation to staff who stand to lose out as a result of moving to the new car mileage rates and similarly this cannot be guaranteed into the future 

OFFICIAL GUIDANCE

Below is the information for managers that has been passed to us by NOMS.

To NPS Deputy Directors
NPS HR Business Partners
NPS Probation Trade Unions

cc Carol Carpenter
Colin Allars
Sarah Payne
Francis Stuart Peter Firth

27 July 2015

National Probation Service Travel & Subsistence Changes 

Over the past few months NOMS has been engaged in ongoing discussions with the Probation Trade Unions regarding moving from the former Probation Trust Travel and Subsistence arrangements onto the current NOMS Travel and Subsistence policy.

Agreement has now been reached and with effect from 1 August 2015 and all National Probation Service staff will move onto the NOMS Travel and Subsistence policy resulting in all former Trust arrangements for ceasing from that date.

The key changes for staff for managers and staff will be: 

• Any claims submitted on the current forms – NPS001, NPS002, NPS 003, NPS004 and NPS005 will be accepted for any expenses incurred up to 31 July 2015. Claims for this period will be accepted on the forms until 21 August 2015. Any claims submitted after this date on paper claim forms will not be accepted as we want to encourage staff to use the system. 

• All Travel and Subsistence claims for expenses incurred from the 1 August 2015 will need to be made on line using iExpenses on Phoenix. 

• NOMS Travel and Subsistence rates will apply from the 1 August 2015 and these are included in the new NPS Probation Instruction, which will be available on EPIC.

• Any staff who are on posting terms such as Additional Travelling Expenditure (ATE) / Displacement Allowance (DA), will be written to separately explaining how they need to claim and what the changes mean. 

A copy of the transitional arrangements is attached with this note and will be available on My Services from1 August 2015.

Benefits

• Aligning to NOMS rates opens up the opportunity to utilise the technology available to NOMS and a number of benefits to using the on line system become available. These include: 
• Staff can self-certify up to £500 on non-taxable claims 
• Line Managers do not have to authorise all claims and are only be required to authorise claims of over £500 or if it is a taxable claim 
• Payment is normally received within 3 working days of the claim being received at SSCL assuming that it has been completed in line with guidance and policy. 
• iExpenses meets HMRC requirements 

There are a number of ‘walkthroughs’ available on My Services that staff can use to familiarise themselves with the i-expenses part of the Phoenix Oracle system, which take you through processes in a step-by-step way.

Guidance and Support 

A guide ‘How to Claim Expenses will be available to support staff using iExpenses and will be hosted on EPIC.

There will be a number of briefings throughout mid- September and October and these will be advertised shortly. The reason we have delayed them is due to annual leave during August where attendance is likely to be lower. The briefings will include:

• Demonstrations covering how to claim expenses using iExpenses 
• The transitional arrangements 
• The key changes for staff 
• The opportunity for staff to ask questions 

It would be helpful if the communication below could be cascaded within NPS Divisions to ensure as many staff as possible are made aware of the changes.

Benefits in Kind and P11Ds 

Many staff will be used to paying tax on expenses claimed for mileage in respect of the use of their personal vehicle when used for business travel. This has previously been paid via the issue of a P11D to staff affected.

It has been decided that, for mileage paid at rates in excess of HMRC’s advisory rates, that will attract a liability to tax, NOMS will pay tax due on behalf of individuals. The following points should be noted:

· Payment by NOMS on behalf of individuals will only relate to an individual’s liability for the financial year 2014/15, (and only from June 2014)

• Payment by NOMS will only be made in respect of benefits from business travel in a personal vehicle

• No P11D will be issued in respect of this benefit for the financial year 2014/15, (from June 2014)

It would be helpful if the details included in this note could be cascaded within NPS Divisions to ensure as many staff as possible are made aware of the changes.

NOMS HR Directorate Business & Programme Manager

Sodexo Offer Consultation

Here's that joint union consultation document sent to all Sodexo CRC staff:-

JTU 20-2015
Via email:

Date: 28.7.15

To: Napo members in Sodexo CRCs

Dear Colleagues

JOINT UNION CONSULTATION ON SODEXO SUB-STANDARD REDUNDANCY OFFER

Napo, UNISON and GMB-SCOOP have spent the last 7 weeks trying to negotiate a better redundancy deal with Sodexo on behalf of our members who are at risk of redundancy in the 6 Sodexo-owned CRCs. Despite our best efforts, the company confirmed on Friday 24 July that it would not improve its sub-standard severance package. This is a tremendous blow to all the hard working staff of the 6 CRCs who now face redundancy under totally unacceptable terms.

As well as trying to undercut the National Negotiating Council (NNC) enhanced voluntary redundancy (EVR) package by half, Sodexo showed themselves unable to come to the negotiating table to do business. They talked the talk, but failed miserably to walk the walk. Sodexo claims to be a company with high ethical principles, but these have not been in evidence here!

As a result, the three unions are now consulting all our members in the 6 Sodexo-owned CRCs on whether you wish to accept the sub-standard severance package, or whether you want to reject it and are prepared to take industrial action in order to seek to improve it. All three unions are recommending that you vote to reject and take industrial action.

SODEXO’S OFFER

Sodexo Severance Offer
2 weeks pay for each year of service up to a max of 30 weeks 

For staff over 55, either the voluntary severance package, or retirement with an unreduced pension

NNC EVR Agreement
4.5 weeks pay for each year of service up to a max of 67.5 weeks
For staff over 55, both the NNC voluntary redundancy package and immediate payment of an unreduced pension.

HOW SODEXO HAS FAILED YOU

Here is a list of Sodexo’s shortcomings over your redundancy pay:

• The NNC Staff Transfer and Protections Agreement states clearly that the NNC EVR package would be offered by CRCs for the duration of the CRC contract. This forms part of your contract of employment. 

• Sodexo are using a get-out clause in their commercial contract with the MOJ to seek to undercut your contractual entitlement 

• They also plan to side-step your contractual rights by forcing anyone who wants to take their sub-standard severance terms to sign away their employment rights through a compromise agreement 

• We suspect that the MOJ may have colluded with the company during the contract negotiations to agree a bid which fell short of the price needed to fund your contractual redundancy pay rights. In effect this was to save the MOJ money! 

• We have asked the new Justice Secretary Michael Gove to look into this as a matter of urgency.

• Sodexo has claimed to the unions that it cannot afford to pay you your contractual rights (they are making too many of you redundant) and that existing staff numbers are a drain on the company’s earnings. 

• But the company is not short of a bob or two. Sodexo Limited’s Accounts to 31 August 2014 show that the company’s sales in the UK have increased by 5.4% to £1,063 million and operating profit has increased by 12.9% to £39.6 million. 

• Sodexo claims to be an ethical company. In its Statement of Ethical Principles, the company promises to: ‘...honour our contractual commitments and uphold both the letter and spirit of our business arrangements. This also means that we will treat our employees fairly...’

• Napo, UNISON and GMB-SCOOP leave it up to members to decide whether Sodexo is living up to this claim!

JOINT UNION CONSULTATION

In light of the above, all three unions are now consulting members on whether you wish to accept the Sodexo offer, or reject and indicate that you are willing to take industrial action in order to improve it. All three unions are recommending that you vote to reject and move to an industrial action ballot.

Please make sure that you participate in the consultation process to be run by your union. We will only make an impression on Sodexo if we get a high turn-out in the voting and a strong vote to reject.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Lawrence           Ben Priestley       David Walton

General Secretary   National Officer    National Secretary
Napo                        UNISON              GMB/SCOOP