« February 2008 | Main | April 2008 »
March 22, 2008
PENSIONS: LAST CHANCE TO START BUYING ADDED YEARS
19 March 2008
To: All Napo Members
Dear Colleague
PRIORITY ALERT
YOUR LAST CHANCE TO START BUYING ADDED YEARS IN THE LGPS
If you want to start buying added years in the LGPS you only have until 31 March 2008 to make an election to pay extra contributions to buy them. The option to buy added years ends when the new scheme comes into force on 1 April 2008. It will be replaced by an option for members to pay extra contributions to buy additional pension instead of added years.
Employers should have made members aware of the change but this notice is a final reminder that if you want to buy added years you must make an election right now and definitely before 31 March 2008: the election must be made in writing to your pension fund administrator. You should not wait for a quote unless it can be sent within a few days. Simply requesting a quote will not be sufficient to meet the deadline of end of this month.
Until 31 March members can elect to buy up to 62/3 added years if they are under age 64.
The benefits will be an extra 1/80 pension and 3/80 lump sum on the same basis as benefits under the current scheme based on final salary and inflation-proofed. Added years are credited in full if you retire on health grounds.
The cost depends on the age that the member starts to buy added years (the older you start the higher the % contribution needed) and contributions continue until age 65. You can stop paying added years, the added years being based on what you have bought up to the date you stop; you would also stop paying if you leave.
A couple of examples:
• A man starting at age 45 would pay 0.95% of his pensionable pay to get one added year. If his pensionable pay was £25,000 a year, the tax-free contribution on that rate of pensionable pay would be £237.50 per year.
• A woman starting at age 50 would pay 1.4% of her pensionable pay to get one added year. If her pensionable pay was £30,000 a year the tax free contribution would be £420 per year.
As it is a percentage, the contribution to buy added years will go up as your pensionable pay goes up, but the % of pensionable pay will not.
The option will be replaced from 1 April by the option to buy up to £5000 extra pension a year, in multiples of £250 a year. This is more flexible but is likely to cost more because the cost of pensions has increased recently. Also the Government is saying that the contribution made will be reviewed periodically and changed if the cost of the pension changes.
Yours sincerely
PETE BOWYER
Research and Information Officer
Posted by Hampshire at 02:26 PM | Comments (0)
March 18, 2008
STAFF SURVEY
This Branch does not support the proposed staff survey. We support holding a staff survey and far too many years have gone by without one. However the company that is being paid to carry out the proposed survey was also paid to carry out the previous survey some years ago. Some members may recall responding to the last survey, but you will not recall the findings – they were never published. We have never received a satisfactory explanation why the findings were withheld.
In respect of the planned survey we sought reassurances from Christine Straw, director of HR. We are not satisfied with her responses and therefore do not have sufficient confidence to recommend the survey to members.
Posted by Hampshire at 06:42 PM | Comments (0)
March 10, 2008
THE COST OF LIVING
The failure of the employers to honour the last pay agreement, meaning no increments as expected on 1st April; the likelihood of a low pay offer when it eventually comes which could be the end of this year at the present rate, just underscores the erosion to the pay of probation staff. When you look at the price inflation of some typical household costs you can only conclude that our standard of living is falling fast. No one joins the probation service to become rich, but respect for the performance of probation staff needs much more than mere rewards and recognition schemes - respect needs to be expressed through pay packets. It is through actual pay that staff are truly valued. As the data below shows, costs are rising on average by 9% whilst pay is at standstill. This means in effect a 9% cut to your standard of living.
Posted by Hampshire at 04:44 PM | Comments (0)
March 09, 2008
SO, YOU'VE JOINED THE UNION THEN?
Posted by Hampshire at 02:24 PM | Comments (0)
March 08, 2008
JNCC REPORT
JNCC: Napo and Unison recently met with the management and board of HPA. For those unfamiliar with what the term JNCC means or it role, here is some background on it. JNCC stands for JOINT NEGOTIATION AND CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE This is a forum for consultations and, on occasions, negotiations. When HPA eventually becomes a trust the chief officer will be line managed by the board chair. This will have a bearing on local governance. All employees will become employees of the trust. And one of the trusts first acts on becoming a trust will be a review of the senior management structure. Thus members of the trust will increasingly become influential figures in shaping how we are managed.
We had a useful meeting, in that there was an unhindered exchange of views. It is obvious to anyone who has been reading recent Napo Notes that relations with management have been at low ebb for various reasons, all previously aired. There are many outstanding differences, but Napo is committed to engaging in discussions towards improving working relationships, so, undistracted by communication barriers, both sides can focus on industrial relations issues – the bigger picture, you may say. Here are some issues that need to be highlighted for members.
Pay/Increments/Pensions: At the meeting we discussed local issues, but, of course, on some issues there are national considerations. You will see when you read the update on the pay negotiations that the employers are refusing to pay the increments; and they are adopting a negotiating stance that presents clear dangers to other terms and conditions – not least a threat to future sick pay arrangements. The HPA line on the pay negotiations and payment of increments is the national line. These matters, when eventually resolved will be resolved nationally. There is a real prospect of industrial action if the employers prove obdurate. Whilst you will not be getting your increments or your pay rise, your pension contributions will be rising. Napo nationally has calculated it will mean an average increased deduction of £16 - £20 monthly and once the pay settlement is reached there will be final pension adjustments made. The irony is rather startling.
Sickness Absence: We discussed sickness absence - see the specific Napo note: SICKNESS POLICY UPDATE, for more details on this. Napo has consistently criticised the way the policy was launched last May: without proper consultation and the way it has been implemented in the months since. We never could agree to the policy being retrospective in counting absences prior to last May and we have similarly opposed the mixing together of short and long-term absences towards reaching the 12-day trigger point. The area where we have perhaps had most differences with HPA has related to the exercise of line manager discretion. When the policy was launched it was with the built-in expectation that line managers would automatically refer those reaching triggers to formal procedures. And that is what happened on many occasions – some line managers did not believe they had any discretion but to refer. Napo argued that such an approach was out of line with the national policy and some managers sought to exercise discretion in a difficult climate. Things improved a little with the joint statement we issued last October with HPA which made it clear that line managers should make a judgement about referral to formal stages and not do so automatically on the basis of triggers. Last November the equality impact assessment was completed and that made it clear that it was essential for line managers to exercise discretion. Napo had been saying that the way the policy had been operating since last May was potentially discriminatory – the impact assessment supported our view. There must be discretion exercised and a judgement made. It is a difficult decision to refer someone to formal procedures, but it is a line manager responsibility and once made it’s a decision the line manager must own and take professional responsibility for as they will have to advocate it in a formal stage and possibly defend their decisions in an employment tribunal. The decision to refer to formal procedures cannot be subcontracted to a trigger – it’s a decision reached on the individuals’ circumstances, taking account of disability, special leave factors, pattern of absences and so forth. Some line managers, we recognise, may need additional support and training to better manage this duty.
Privatising Court Reports: HPA remains determined to contract out court report writing to the private sector. That was their clear message. They see such an arrangement as a response to providing workload relief to an overstretched workforce. Napo has forcefully opposed the privatisation of court report writing from the outset and our opposition remains undiluted. In their own ‘Board to Trust: Briefing Paper for Hampshire Probation Area – February 2008’, it says:
The Act sets out that the Secretary of State will not be able to contract with any non-public sector provider for the work which the Probation Service currently does in relation to Courts. Ministers have also given a commitment that core offender management work will be commissioned from the public sector for three years.
Despite the fact that the Act relating to trusts contains this restriction – a restriction fought hard for by Napo, MPs, Lords and many others, HPA still wishes to privatise court work. We are asked by HPA to trust that they will only turn to the private sector to effect workload relief. Napo’s view goes deeper. It is not a matter of trust; it is a matter of principles – the principle set out in the Act of Parliament and the principle that we oppose core work being hived off to the private sector. The solution is more staff, and yet staff recently recruited on temporary contracts will not be having their services retained.
We are disappointed to report this development and we will consult with our national officials for advice. We view it as a retrograde step and certainly not a step that we would see as confidence building.
Union Facility Time: Napo has been given notice that its facility time is going to be reduced. We will be making a formal response on this in the next few weeks. Facility Time is the ‘reasonable time off’ that trade union officials receive to perform their union duties. Needless to say HPA have a view on what is reasonable time and Napo has another. We seek to be as responsive to the concerns of members as possible and the threat of fewer resources will present difficulties. Napo essentially works on two fronts: individual and collective. We seek to provide individuals with advice, support and representation and on the collective we seek to protect and advance members’ conditions of service, through negotiations and through campaigning. The offender management bill would have been more damaging to members’ interests had Napo not secured some important concessions – including keeping court work in the public sector. We need to be active on both these fronts – individual and collective - and this branch needs the active support of its members. There are various ways of expressing active support – one is to attend branch meeting, but so is speaking up for Napo and supporting the branch in its efforts to maintain an effective organisation. Messages of support are always welcome.
Solidarity: Most of all we have to think about the bigger picture – think about pay and increments, the thrust of national and local policies and think about the direction of travel. As a branch with a large membership, part of Napo nationally, our voice is important and all members have to start thinking about their preparedness for industrial action if the call for action comes. Napo’s strength lies in its assertive membership and given the tone being adopted by the employers on pay, we cannot afford to be passive. Ultimately for employers managing a workforce where most of the budget goes on pay, the target for cuts is your pay and your terms and conditions of employment. Little chips here and there, ECU, subsistence and then bigger chips like increments, pay and sickness benefits. Solidarity is in our self interest, but it’s also a means of influencing policies towards sustaining a probation service rooted in professional values and in the public sector.
Posted by Hampshire at 03:03 PM | Comments (0)
SICKNESS ABSENCE: UPDATE
We are going to hold some further meetings with HR to see if we build on the joint statement last October, because there is still confusion about how the procedures should operate. A recent audit showed that about 93% of Stage 1 formal meetings are resulting in No Further Action outcomes. Napo says there is something seriously amiss if staff are bring put through the demands and stress of formal proceedings only for No further Action to be the outcome in such a high percentage of cases.
We also know that many are being told in advance of formal meetings that no further action will be the outcome. This, in Napo’s submission, shows the procedure is being misapplied. It is important that all staff realise that ‘no further action’ does not mean your absence has been judged as reasonable in the circumstances. More likely it means your absence has been judged as unsatisfactory but no further action is required. This makes staff extremely vulnerable in the event of a further absence, even if just one day, of facing another Stage 1 and the probability of an improvement notice.
Despite the joint statement that the decision to refer to Stage 1 is the decision of the line manager, we are aware that there seems to be, in one division, an area manager expectation to issue an improvement notice if an individual reaches the trigger of 12 days. This seems at odds with the policy and procedure. In our view the decision to refer to formal procedures is the professional responsibility of the line manager who is then accountable for that decision. We see the ability of line mangers to use discretion and make judgements as critical. We entirely accept the value of consultation with HR, including area managers, but the decision belongs to, and is owned by, the line manager who would then present the case in the event of formal action.
We hope we can reach an agreed understanding with HR.
In the meantime, it is important to remind members to let Napo know as soon as possible should you be told you are going to be referred to a Stage 1. The letter advising of this must set out the details of your unsatisfactory absence and include all relevant return to work documentation. There is a clear protocol for Stage 1 meetings and we must ensure it is followed. The line manager has the task of making the case that the absence has been unsatisfactory. It is also essential there is a clear audit trail of the decision-making.
There is a persisting view in HPA that an absence that reaches the trigger is de facto unsatisfactory. But that is not what the policy says. The policy says all absences should be followed up in return to work interviews and the reasons for the absences must be explored. There may be an underlying disability that warrants reasonable adjustments; there may be underlying personal issues, such as domestic violence that can be considered under the special leave policy; and in Napo’s view the absence being considered as possibly contributing to reaching a trigger must be a short-term absence (a short-term absence is less than 21 working days); the return to work interview is crucial and they are not optional. Their nature and complexity will be shaped by any concerns growing around absences; if need be the RTW can be used to take pro-active action in relation to occupational health. As a rule of thumb if a referral to a Stage 1 appears to come out of the blue, then it possibly points to weaknesses in the RTW.
To say that absence form work is unsatisfactory is to state the obvious. It is unsatisfactory if you go to catch a train but the train driver has phoned in sick. From a purist business reasons perspective any absence is unsatisfactory because it may impair service delivery and increase workloads for others.
But in the real world individuals fall ill, are born with, or acquire disabilities, some get pregnant (pregnancy-related absence is excluded from counting towards triggers). Experiencing sickness and ill health is part of the human condition. Absences from work may be unsatisfactory but they, in the main, according to all the research, are bona fide. Napo supports the sickness management policy because it seeks to balance the interests of employer and employee through setting out a process that if followed would be fair, but if not followed may result in unfairness to the individual.
Finally the sickness management policy must not be looked at in isolation. The return to work interview is also the forum for finding solutions and minimising the likelihood of further absences. This is where consideration of flexible working and work-life balance issue can be useful. The approach to managing sickness is not about being reactive to triggers, it’s more about, wherever possible, taking all possible steps to avoid triggers being reached in the first place.
Posted by Hampshire at 03:01 PM | Comments (0)
PROBATION PAY: DISPUTE REGISTERED
Probation Employers Stop Increments
Dispute Registered
A dispute was registered by the Trade Union Side at the National Negotiating Council on 4 March, when the Employers confirmed that hey would be withholding the payment of increments from 1 April.
The Employers refused to take account of the points made by the Trade unions, namely that:
Increments are an agreed contractual right.
There is nothing in the 2005/2008 pay agreement which means the payment of increments on the current basis – three increments before the development point, two on it and one after it - should cease on 1 April.
Staff are appointed to a pay band not a pay spine.
Withholding increments could result in taking longer to progress to the scale maxima – arguably the rate for the job- despite the fact that the Employers have previously conceded that the bands are already too long.
Withholding increments puts the Employers in potential breach of equality legislation.
In other public sector areas such as local government, the police, teaching and the NHS, increments are not affected by the annual pay increase.
Their non-payment could mean a cut in take home pay for many members from 1 April as a result of the increase in pension contributions from that date.
The Employers accept that increments are a contractual right but insist that they want to hold payment back so that the actual size of increments is included in the negotiations on the annual pay increase. They said that increments, once agreed, will be backdated to 1 April.
They have stated that they want early negotiations on the overall settlement but have not yet made us an offer. They have been forced to recognise that negotiations will take some time as the Treasury imposes a range of obstacles to public sector pay negotiations.
We have reminded them that in past years it has often been December/January before members have received the increases agreed in their pay.
Employers Reject our Claim
The Employers have also given us a written response rejecting our pay claim of 5% or £1,000. No pay offer has yet been made.A fuller analysis of the Employers’ letter will follow, but it includes wanting to hold back part of any settlement until agreement is reached on a range of issues.
These include
• flexible working
• harmonisation of working hours
• clarification of local negotiation parameters
• sickness absence
• and training arrangements.
They have also stated that from April 2009 they want movement through the development point to be based on performance.
On sickness absence for example, the Employers state that they have received representations from Boards about the high level and costs of sickness absence and they want to discuss the sick pay arrangements with us.
Attacking Pay and Conditions
It would seem that this year the Employers wish to attack our pay, our rights to pay progression and possibly attack other conditions such as sick pay arrangements. Members will feel let down by their employers who are acting in bad faith at a time when staff should be receiving support and encouragement.
We are yet to receive a pay offer, but no doubt they will be looking at the Treasury Guidance which states that basic awards should be no more than 2%. This is when the Retail Price Index is at 4.1% and many other costs such as energy bills are increasing by even higher amounts.
At a time when staff have ensured that the Service is performing better than ever against all targets despite all the uncertainties that have accompanied the various re-organisations of the past few years, we might have expected our Employers to have sought to find a pay offer that would increase staff morale.This is clearly not the case.
This year we are likely to receive a pay offer that will mean a pay cut in real terms as well as an attack on incremental progression.
Napo and Unison agreed to register a dispute at the NNC earlier this week.
We now have to consider our response.Napo’s Officers will be recommending to the NEC that, as a first step, we hold an indicative ballot to see if members are prepared to take industrial action in support of pay and increments this year.
Members are urged to support the call for action, to strengthen the hand of Napo negotiators in what will clearly be a particularly difficult pay round this year.
Judy McKnight
General Secretary
7th March 2008
Posted by jmcknight at March 7, 2008 05:49 PM
Posted by Hampshire at 01:26 PM | Comments (0)
INTEGRATION OF UNPAID WORK AND OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
Integration of Unpaid Work and Offender Management:
The Branch has been contacted by PSOs who are concerned about the lack of training and guidance in relation to this process. A meeting between HR and the unions took place in June 2007 and agreement was reached about training, mentoring, the involvement of POs, and the issue of guidelines. However it appears that this agreement has not been progressed, and PSOs in two offices have raised concerns about the increase in their workload caused by the imposition of new tasks for which they have not been properly trained. Napo will follow-up on these concerns, but we need to hear about the experiences of PSOs, whether previously generic PSOs or UW officers, from across the Area to make a case that can be taken to management. It would be useful to hear about positive as well as negative experiences.
Please contact Fran Newnham via Lotus Notes or telephone.
Posted by Hampshire at 01:22 PM | Comments (0)