« SICKNESS ABSENCE: UPDATE | Main | SO, YOU'VE JOINED THE UNION THEN? »
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 March 8, 2008 03:03 PM