Napo at Work in the South West 2

Thanks to the reader for supplying the following:-

Branch report redundancies update 9

06 05 2016
Dear Napo members,

On 29th April we attended the Joint union Meeting at Worle. This brings together senior management with the regional and national heads of the Unions. In relation to DDC Napo you have your elected JNCC reps who maintain a position of prime negotiators with regard to policy on your behalf. This cannot be passed on in anyway because it is part of the collective agreement and recognition arrangements. In fact it was under the process of collective bargaining locally and within the region that we as NAPO representatives originally drafted and brokered the current redundancy policy. It was NAPO that fought aggressively to ensure it was amended updated and the current merger terms were agreed across the counties prior to the takeover of Working Links the company and their euphemistic Working Links Way. The redundancy policy in current form has sought to protect you with a range of process that Working the Company and the Working Links Way have sought to avoid.

Our Redundancy policy is the best in the regions and in terms of pay scale rates should the worst happen. It is harmonised to protect Dorset members and impacts on all staff including non-members through the collective agreements as these always override.

In the recent Working Links consultation they have proposed to form an arrangement whereby all the CRCs under the Working Links Way and control should NEGOTIATE on policies collectively within the regions. This includes Wales and other union’s representatives potentially having a much greater say in the outcome of terms for you in Napo. These proposals have been called the terms of reference and as such a proposal document has been drafted several times for agreement and discussion. Having still survived several incarnations the position is that our sister union unison want to agree a regional negotiator framework. A forum that can make decisions over your elected reps via the separate CRCs. Very clearly we have transmitted through your JNCC reps and our member led mandate that we will not compromise the primacy of our CRC DDC position whereby an alternate group could technically agree policy change on your behalf.

This situation has led to an impasse and we have not been able to agree the terms of regional discussions just yet, until we resolve the issues internally across the unions. The risks to us in DDC are far too great and will place your current terms at risk of other negotiations that we cannot really agree to. Such a position will risk more than we are able to secure in these current times. More obviously we look to the achievement and record of other areas and sister unions on their policy positions and obviously we have to work to your best interest. This can only be achieved through assertive and what was apparently fairly aggressive discussions of late with unison. This takes considerable effort but we are strong enough to ensure resistance to pressure that will not alter our position. In the meantime the Napo JNCC reps maintain and intend to ensure primacy is within our control and yours. This is helped by NAPO continuing our membership led union and your regular consultation meeting via the branch.

Please ensure you attend the AGM on the 15th of June to hear more of the implications and to support the General Secretary Ian Lawrence who has agreed to attend to address members. We have also invited Angela Cossins DD Head of NPS SW region yet to confirm and who we hope will attend and speak to members share a platform and in particular address matters for the NPS colleagues with the GS.

At the JUM business we had the GS in attendance and sad as it is, to say we did not actually have time to miss Mike McClelland. The issues just kept coming. Although a round of applause for his service was made and a public acknowledgement and thanks for his work from the GS was noted.

In the meeting we heard a certain amount of what was no doubt contrition from Mr Hindson. At one point I had to, as a matter of integrity, apologise to MR Wiseman although a little tongue in cheek. It is complicated because we are on record having requested formally all the documentation to the Working Links planning and Targeting Offender model TOM. We understood the document was some 90+ pages and was refused us by Mr Wiseman several times and months back. Odd because when you are in formal talks of redundancies on a compulsory basis management would have to provide and to demonstrate their workings out. Mr Hindson in a JUM made a commitment to provide the TOM working links documents as he thought it would be fine. By doing so he then, appeared to usurp Mr. Wiseman who was previously seen as the obstruction to open talks and meaningful dialogue.

In the JUM last week Mr Hindson had gone back on that position claiming not to recall the issue and by doing so effectively Mr Wiseman was not responsible for being that barrier. Nevertheless, Mr. Hindson shall have to provide all the documentation in the future as they will most likely have to move to compulsory redundancies despite what they are claiming and from documents they plan to release this week on Friday to Middle managers and in turn to you. Please consider the issues carefully and contact any Napo official for signposting and support. Contact us all directly anytime as you consider the implications. Make sure you discover the open contradiction. For the record the Jum meeting 29 April felt like a positive meeting but after reflection I think it was more another gentle change in misdirection. While Mr Hindson took account of Working Links Way being hurried and too fast cutting too deep and poor messaging in the incredibly poor catch phrase “The Working Links Way” (I know sloganism at its absolute worst) the contrition went on. He went as far to consider positively removing the Section 188s. These formal compulsory redundancies notices had been presented to the trade unions early this year. Not just one but several. The infamous Blank S188 a precautionary notice. (What are they paying lawyers for?) Mr Hindson accepted their appalling impact on morale and our unions ability to engage more effectively with management, whilst, negotiating under the threat of their official stated position. Yet all the time they failed to comply with any legal process whilst the notices remain in force. Yes readers Unbelievable!

It remains on record that we and it was the General Secretary who invited them to withdraw the notices none of which are factually accurate or appropriate. Mr Hindson then said to us and this is the best quote of the year “as of today we are not putting people at risk of compulsory redundancy" 29 04 16.

On this basis your reps could say great! We pack up and take a watchful break? Not a chance, first off we cannot believe a word of it. There has been no withdrawal of the S188s despite several backroom e mails continuing the requested position. Also that the GS wanted to see the announcements that you will be seeing today and to reflect or comment on them. None of this has actually happened nor is it likely to despite their commitment to deliver. The issue of compulsory redundancies and the number of staff cuts currently proposed in the ridiculously short timescale by 31 03 17 which, will not be able to deliver a non-compulsory cuts programme. We have alerted the management to their hypocrisy of saying one thing and then carrying on and doing another. Also obvious and you will see it at some point is the contradiction in their non-consulted documentation. This is because the GS has not been properly facilitated with the articles in time to look effectively at the papers. Yet the management are rolling them out on Friday. Odd because they are on record with the GS for this to take place after Monday? It is all there to confuse and complicate in order to manage staff out. Take a look at the Non-compulsory commitment and determine if you think senior management are being transparent with this position? Also the non-removal of the formal S188s contradict a no compulsory pledge.

Bottom line then members, 'The Working Links Way' is not just clumsy, no, it is a calculating chaos more likely to be a deceptive and disingenuous absolutely misdirected approach to wrong foot the Unions. I hope this latest round triggers our sister unions and their softening position to galvanise and to harden up in the interests of their members.

In relation to Napo we continue to be as sceptical as we were pre the 29 4 16 JUM and will continue to alert you to the facts that the Working Links Way pushes on negatively just as it does badly and not in anyone’s fair and collective interest.

Dino Peros 

Napo Branch Chair SSW Jncc Rep

--oo00oo--

A visit to Worle HQ CRC, to meet a Working Links person.'where has everyone gone? (it used to be a hive of activity in here!) a few IT Staff, 1 HR Person and a handful of PO/PSO's all in the same open plan office.'this is it' was the reply 'but not for long because what's left will be moving to new premises to save costs, far too pricey here'. 'Right, so if you cut by 40% that is going to leave very few staff, will it be enough?'. ' we (Working Links) have our own IT, HR and admin staff to replace them at less cost'. 

'What about the operational staff working with the offenders? 'By my estimation there will end up being about 4 full time staff to work with the north Somerset offenders. That should be plenty, admin are moving to a hub with maybe some PSO's to do remote management over the phone, that will take the pressure off the rest. Some will just leave if they don't want to travel too far. That saves on redundancy costs. We decided to hang fire on that, wait to see if a few more leave. Police are taking over Impact so that will cut our costs too. You wouldn't believe what was being spent here on buildings alone!' 'What are the caseloads running at and what type of offenders? 'Not sure, you would need to get figures from CRC or just ask one of those staff over there, they can tell you'. NICE/ CARING ORGANISATION!/ watch your backs.

*******
You make a very interesting observation here about Working Link's own staff. Whilst Justice staff are being cut, are there reductions in WL's employability staff? Without saying too much of personal situation, my guess is those who previously work in WL Corporate Services weren't affected when CRC corporate staff faced EVR. Does anyone have further info?

*******
Your guess is correct. WL even hired more corporate service staff prior to Feb 15. They met with corresponding CRC corporate teams many times with detailed action plans. Just enough times for them to feel they knew what and how CRC did. They were friendly individuals - not their fault WL used this tactic. But corporate teams meeting them knew that the aim was for these new WL colleagues to take over their work. As this was share transfer and not TUPE (or COSOP mirroring TUPE as has been used in majority of previous public sector privatizations) the WL corporate roles were not at risk when it came to taking on CRCs. (That is not to say they won't be in the event of whole WL downsizing in future.) Anyhow, they learned what CRC corporate teams did and then CRC corporate staff offered and strongly encouraged to apply for VR, and mostly given this with early release dates. They were told in some teams that they should have more empathy with WL counterparts who were also unsettled due to all of the changes - unsettled yes, but their jobs were not at risk in the same way! Anyway, all completely legal, if dishonourable behaviour.