Napo at Work in the South West

Thanks to the reader for sending me the following which gives some insight into what's going on behind the scenes, I assume all over the country.

Branch report redundancies update 8

Date 27/04/16
Dear Napo members,

CRC Issues

It has been over a month since the last report and the continued deconstruction of the work we know moves at a pace. The offer of redundancies for the selected group of administration staff has seen management talk of around 30 staff being offered exit through the voluntarily redundancy scheme, in the Working Links Way. This figure is under serious revision partly from the learning management are doing, the recent NAPO PR you may have read and seen on TV and the challenges to the organisation by cutting so many staff. This will place unmanageable pressure on the rest of the operation. These cuts however many are finalised and we understand that there will now be fewer than originally stated.

Reductions to staffing will take place over the summer period. The volunteers applying for the EVR have been somewhat upset at the lack of news and actual decisions being managed in the promised timescale. This is something we are not commenting on at this stage. In terms of the applicants, we were surprised the vast majority of all administrators expressed an interest in the opportunity. What is clear and remains on JNCC record is that NAPO have at no time agreed redundancies are acceptable in the current situation voluntary or otherwise. The JNCC records are often argued over and can become disjointed in the way information is shared. Meetings are often rescheduled and the minutes fall out of sequence; nevertheless, we continue to remind NAPO members your JNCC has not had opportunity to provide alternative proposals to challenge the reductions as yet, or seek alternative process. In this regard that may seem appropriate as we are talking about voluntary exits at this time.

It is not just a simple matter to claim these are voluntary reductions in staffing. The key facts are the Unions were not consulted adequately or properly in order to ensure the employers provide a written response as to why they reject alternative proposals to save jobs. Members will realise this means it is likely the Working Links Way will force a similar structure on the remaining groups or grades of staff. Many of you will also understand that any roles that rely on administration will now automatically be affected. This means work will be displaced or lost or stopped. In any scenario without this group of staff the complexion of the working practices will change for all. The senior manager in fairness, has been resolute in his position that as the hubs and planned changes get more established the need in divisions for these key worker will naturally reduce. We do not agree but the process of many staff exiting voluntarily will determine what happens next; however, if and when the management mood changes based on budget forecasting and confirmation the legal process will be all the more critical in the protection of your interests. While we are held at arm’s length over staffing reductions this is not the same as staffing cuts through compulsory measures and if this becomes an eventuality then the cordial if not frosty relationship with senior management will no doubt harden.

The employers are not yet free from an appropriate level of dispute being registered as the need arises. Our key and central supporter from Napo Mike McClelland, who would normally be on guard to help us manage, is to retire at the end of May. Our link officer of many years Mike McClelland. Mike, our Link Officer has a long Probation and NAPO career, having been a national Chair and moving into the national officials role under the then General Secretary Judy McKnight. Mike’s talents for diplomacy and cool head, often reconciling all with his style and relaxed manner has been a central pin for NAPO and members interest. Of course it will be with great loss to the branch as Mike has a way of managing the pressures we exert as a strong JNCC group. We are well experienced and adequately qualified, willing to construct full challenges to the Working Links employers, yet we all realise and appreciate we have to maintain the important link to central office.

We thank Mike in solidarity and recognise his departure will almost certainly put the Pan or Joint union meetings at The Worle in difficulty and may falter as it offers little value to our local bargaining arrangements. Mike is within our divisional area and up to speed while reductions are taking place. How he can be replaced at this crucial time is yet to be seen but our group have to ask some critical questions about timing. We wish Mike well and thank him for his great efforts and commitments to the trade union NAPO.

In our last branch report dated the 09/0316 we mentioned in paragraph 7 

In-between all this and running parallel I have written to Thompson the lawyers through the General Secretary. This is a lengthy complex complaint that illustrates the failings and subversion tactics of the Working links management style and implementation of redundancy consultations. We have a right albeit time limited to get issues raised at the Central Arbitration Committee whereby process are not conducted properly, amongst a range of other serious and potential complaints can be heard and a ruling made. I will be releasing these as we receive legal advice and after Napo has had appropriate time to consider the implications and directions in our collective best interest.

Our position as NAPO JNCC reps issues are at a point whereby, internal process and consultative requirements upon us had become difficult. We felt we had to check a range of technical and legal positioning. For obvious reasons I am unable to share the legal advice as this remains a matter for the ongoing situation. The Reps face local level continual change and unclear status of where we are in process of consultation and the timescales. The voluntary process for redundancies is ongoing. These are not the same thing or require the same procedures as compulsory redundancies. I am able to share with members the letter that we wrote to Napo central as part of this report and keep you informed that we have not exhausted all avenues. We continually consider any prospects that we may have to engage, against the cuts to staffing position. Please keep in mind and to be fair our commentary in the attached letter to Mike McClelland and the General Secretary is not agreed by the DDC Chief Officer Mr Wiseman. 

While we argue about detail and nuance he has been consistent on some issues and these include a need to ensure all cuts are through a voluntary reduction process, EVR, although this has seen the words affordability mentioned of late. In fact Mr Wiseman appears to us at least genuine in his desire to ensure all other process to reduce staffing including, redeployment, retraining, early retirement, relocation, alternative working practices and possibly later on no doubt terms and conditions. Whether any of this holds water remains to be seen.

The letter dated the 17th Feb 2016 is attached for your information. I am sure the temptation will be to pass onward into media sites for other members information and ideas. Of course this is inevitable and we hope NAPO members might benefit from the information. Locally in the CRC relations with senior management continue although always strained given the agenda this is hardly a surprise. Most issues are diluted across the Joint unions meeting now and as Mike McCllelland has written a report on this already there seems little point repeating it.

NPS Issues

NPS have seen the release of the E3 finalised version which has gone out to local and national representative for consultation. NAPO locally circulated it to all members. We await the national response on the issues contained across the board and of course wonder in which direction this consultation will take members morale and wellbeing. The idea to reorganise NPS than to make any redundancies as noted by Mr C. Allars in his opening introduction on first read is a laudable one. However, the questions have already been raised as many staff in the NPS have actually stated they want to find a voluntary exit route out of the civil service, similar to the CRC. 

Attacks on terms and conditions are inevitable for members in the NPS and the disintegration of national collective bargaining are all reasons to look elsewhere as the employer is looking to run the NPS on dictate rather than collaboration between the employer and the workforce. It is incredible how backward this step appears on first thought yet it was so predictable. In some parts of the country already the blame for sickness absence is placed upon the staff with incredible criticisms for absenteeism whilst failing to acknowledge any reasons for the absence or indeed management failings to support the staff workforce. We have not seen anything as poor as this in our region and under the current Deputy Director I don’t think it likely thank goodness. 

Back to E3 and the canvassing of views especially the ongoing national dispute for the VLO’s here is a classic example of the flawed E3 agenda to reduce pay move officer from roles and then place them in a new structure or job. This leads to total disaffection. Staff placed in roles they did not apply for de professionalization through the back door and yet the benefit is no one is in fear of compulsory redundancy. Some would welcome that however yet lets not argue for any worse changes of direction.

All Staff

Coming up shortly in June is the NAPO branch AGM, this is a real chance for you the members to have a real say in what you need and want from the union activists. This year we are inviting and he will be attending, the National General Secretary Ian Lawrence. We are canvassing for members interest in attending. Please email any of the Napo reps so we can collate numbers and lunch arrangements We will also try and secure the elections process is out of the way as fast as possible so you can enjoy maximum time talking and questioning the direction and position of Napo leadership. The future potentials and where are to be in a few years time. Also and as yet not confirmed we are to invite another guest speaker with Ian Lawrence GS who will be able to balance the needs of the NPS as an organisation. All coming out in May so get the date booked into your diary for what we hope to ensure is an exciting and challenging AGM.

In the meantime we will continue to record all matters that have a bearing upon the posts in both organisations. And keep you posted.

Dino Peros Napo SSW Branch Chair JNCC Rep.
Helen Coley JNCC Rep. Denice James JNCC Rep.

--oo00oo--

17th February 2016

Mike McClelland, Ian Lawrence, 

REF CAC Complaint Central arbitration committee. 

Dear Mike,

1. It has been an interesting week or so and after having attended the latest DDCCRC shortsides JNCC today, myself and Denise had arrived at a point where we do not want to continue to be used as a part of a flawed and disingenuous consultation process. The elected roles that we hold are serious. We both agree the employer has not genuinely attempted open or reasonable consultation exchanges. There is no provision of accurate timely and appropriate information. This relates to all matters that directly impacting our members jobs. We as representative do not have the full information nor is there a clear acceptance that information is free to be consulted on as legally entitled. Currently we have several references from the employers that it requires detail to remain confidential. The figures are constantly subject to change, but that does not make them a secret.

2. At the Meeting of the Pan group on the 29 1 16 Mr Hindson released documents to the Unions since then in e-mail evidence has stated discussions are confidential. This is re-enforced by similar e-mail from Mr Wiseman. Also in a document he claims that early severance of Administration staff will not be delayed and it would go ahead as planned. This has now happened and at no point have the trade unions on our side had opportunity to respond to the proposals. Not seen the blueprint or checked to analyse any structures. We have not been able, other than, to object in writing and state the reasons of a lack of time and consultation process. There is no proper regard to the Unions that, has been honest and meaningful.

3. In the guidance below, we are as Union side able to lodge a formal complaint with the Central Arbitration committee. I am sure you will have already considered this as a direction for all three Working links controlled areas.

4. Myself and Denice James raised this issue in our JNCC of the 17 2 16. It was a simple of matter, of asking MR Wiseman 3 direct questions, of which he agreed to all. I record the exchange here because we have no doubt after Mr Wiseman started to understand the implications of what was exchanged there may well be an heavily amended sequence in the minutes. It will most likely be turned into something not so clear cut.

5. I put it to Mr Wiseman, “does he not accept, that we in the trade unions side are unable to consult properly given the Working links confidentiality requirement direction” . Mr Wiseman replied he “wholeheartedly” agreed on this point and understood the frustration for the unions.

6. We then put it to Mr Wiseman, does he not consider that the restriction has prevented in the main and is a limitation that makes meaningful consultation a failure. On this point Mr Wiseman replied that he absolutely agreed with our point and that it was unfortunate. It was matter that will need to be addressed in the Terms of reference conversation due on Friday with Mike McClelland. I had no idea as chair this was happening. I have to say having not been consulted as to what this branch requires. Something I do not think is acceptable or good enough for me or our members locally.

7. In our third point directly to Mr Wiseman we put it to him that the consultation process has therefore been a failure in terms of cooperation trust and mutual respect for our organisations duties. That the figures are unreliable and have increased since the Full time Equivalent figures have been amended. Also the poorly timed release of yet another and all new S188 that shows an additional burden applied to the DDCCRC. In fact the new figures equate to more than 40% more likely 50%. In reply Mr Wiseman although initially agreeing this point by stating he agreed he then went onto try and qualify the matter. It was a fair attempt but in effect he made no real inroads to addressing the failures, other than, to deny that he was aware of the revised figures of the 3rd February. When we met on the 4th of February Mr Wiseman asserts he did not know himself. On this matter it was not hard to accept Mr Wiseman was not aware of the figures as he claims he would have told us. While we accept Mr Wisemans assurance on this point alone, he was lost without appropriate details to many issues and his HR advisor offered nothing of any use than to question the dates we actually received the new S188. 

8. These were released to the unions late on the 10th Feb. This delay is simply a tactic to burn time in our opinion. The revised numbers were an increase and I have written of their impact in my letter to Mr Wiseman on the 10 2 16. The figures remain restricted and Mr Wiseman agrees this restriction inhibits legitimate duties for the Unions to consult. Ms Diane Powell offers the figures were offered in good faith. Yet the fudging and delay and secretive nature of their position suggest there is nothing we can accept as good faith. This was rejected Napo stated that information is not a matter of best guess or good faith. It is about accuracy and honest consultation something we have not experienced. It was these unrealistic expectations, I then notified Mr Wiseman of the Trade Union position. We are to seek to make a formal complaint to the Central Arbitration Committee. The seriousness was understood and Mr Wiseman argued gently for an opportunity to discuss the matters on Friday with Mike McClelland in their terms of reference conversation. It made little difference to our local position and regard to the matters as they currently stand. Except to say that I made it clear since the confidential embargo and the latest figures of the 10th of February the consultation period of the clock in consultation has effectively stalled and should be ceased because we are not able to consult appropriately under the requirements upon us all.

9. We now have to put the employer to scrutiny for its negligence, due diligence, or conduct. In order to insist they take notice to act properly. It is not as if Working links are poorly resourced or can claim they are not properly and legally advised. They employ HR experts and consultants who are working on the figures and use a lawyer to fill in the B.I.S. submission and HR1 forms. Therefore, we have to ask has their conduct been a deliberate choice in frustration of the unions position? This catalogue of mistakes process, errors, restrictions and delay, to open consultation have made this process a complete farce.

10. We should now ask for appropriate formal intervention to encourage this employer and its agents to act properly. We need appropriate legal advice on the situation having drastically altered since the announcement on figures from the 10th and the implications of the continued employment process of working Links without any released planning or honesty.

11. If Napo central do not want to call a sub action team together to draft the complaint under the headings I have included below please consider carefully that in the DDCCRC, myself, and a group will most likely issue a complaint in the absence of national support. Below are the documents I quoted to Mr Wiseman and have sent for inclusion in the minutes.

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
UNION RECOGNITION

• The Recognition Agreement – identifies recognition of a trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining and individual representation. The right to disclosure of information for the purposes of collective bargaining is enjoyed only by recognised trade unions.
• Recognition is defined as meaning ‘recognition of the union by an employer, or two or more associated employers, to any extent, for the purpose of collective bargaining’. 
• Collective bargaining means ‘negotiations relating to or connected with one or more’ of the matters specified, namely: 

1. terms and conditions of employment or physical working conditions
2. engagement, non-engagement, termination or suspension of employment or duties of one or more workers
3. allocation of work or duties
4. matters of discipline
5. trade union membership or non-membership
6. facilities for union official
7. negotiation or consultation machinery, and other procedures, relating to any of the above matters, including recognition of the right of a trade union to represent employees in such procedures.

Section 181 Trade Union (Labour Relations) Consolidation Act provides that an employer is under a duty to disclose, on request, information relating to an independent recognised trade union where that information is both:

• information without which the trade union representative would be to a material extent impeded in carrying out collective bargaining – S181 (2)(a), and 
• information which it would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice to disclose for the purposes of collective bargaining

Employer’s defence
Even where a union has the right to disclosure under S181, the employer may still be able to refuse under S182 where:

• the disclosure would be against the interests of national security
• it would contravene other laws
• it would breach confidentiality
• it concerns information which relates specifically to an individual, unless they have consented
• it would cause substantial injury to the employer’s undertaking for reasons not related to collective bargaining
• it concerns information which has been obtained by the employer for the purposes of bringing, prosecuting or defending any legal proceedings

Remedy for failing to provide information

• The Central Arbitration Committee 

Hyperlink to recent outcomes all union led please take a look.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cac-outcome-unite-the-union-serco

These are the complaints heads that we are able to evidence and ask for the CAC to make a decision on.

Appendix 1

ISSUES UNDER THE INFORMATION AND CONSULTATION REGULATIONS ON
WHICH APPLICATIONS OR COMPLAINTS CAN BE MADE TO THE CAC

EMPLOYER’S OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON NUMBERS

1. Regulation 6(1)
Complaint by an employee or an employees’ representative that the employer has failed to provide information to determine the number of people employed by the undertaking in the UK or the number of employees that constitutes 10% of employees in the undertaking, or that information provided is false or incomplete. Complaint can be submitted no earlier than one month after the complainant requested the information. CAC can make an order specifying:

- the data to be disclosed;
- the date on which the employer refused to supply the data or disclosed false or incomplete information;
- the date (no earlier than one week from the date of the order) by which the employer must disclose the data.

VALIDITY OF EMPLOYER NOTIFICATION

7. Regulation 13(2)
Application by an employee or employees’ representative (within one month of the notification) that an employer notification to initiate negotiations under Regulation 11 is not valid because it did not conform with the requirements of Regulation 11(2):

- the notification should state that it is made for the purpose of the Regulations
- it should state the date on which it is issued
- it should be brought to the attention of all employees in the undertaking or was covered by the restriction in Regulation 12 (see paragraph 6 above).CAC can make a declaration as to whether the notification was valid

EMPLOYER’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AGREEMENT/PROVISIONS

12. Regulation 22(1)
Where a negotiated agreement has been agreed or the standard provisions apply, a complaint may be made to the CAC by a relevant applicant, within three months of the alleged failure, that an employer has failed to comply with the terms of the agreement or one or more of the standard provisions. CAC can make an order requiring the employer to take steps to comply. The relevant applicant can apply to the EAT for a penalty notice. If the standard provisions apply, complaints may, for example, cover the following issues:

- not providing information under Regulation 20(1)(a), (b) and (c)
- not providing the information within the time, fashion and content

requirements under Regulation 20(2)
- not consulting on the issues described in Regulation 20(1)(b) and (c) under

Regulation 20(3)
- not consulting in accordance with the requirements in Regulation 20(4)

(See Appendix 2 for further information)

REQUIREMENT TO HOLD INFORMATION IN CONFIDENCE

13. Regulation 25(6)
Application by a recipient of information as to whether it is reasonable for the employer to require him or her to hold the information in confidence. CAC can make a declaration. Applies where there is a negotiated agreement or the standard provisions apply.

I have selected these as our most likely areas of complaint that are easily evidenced in the current record and we need to action a way that members see that we are taking the employer to task for the total and continued failure to engage properly.

Thanks

Dino Peros Branch Chair SSW
Cc mmc IL GS HC DJ