« March 2008 | Main | May 2008 »
April 28, 2008
EMPLOYERS AND THE INTEGRITY OF THEIR ACTIONS
NO pay offer and NO movement on increments
At the National Negotiating Council meeting on 22 April the Employers still were not able to come forward with an offer in response to our pay claim, submitted in January. They have promised us we will have an offer “soon”.
The Employers also assured us they had heard us when we conveyed the anger of members at the non-payment of due increments from 1 April 2008.
Integrity
The Trade Union Side made a clear statement at the meeting in respect of the potentially long term damage being done to the negotiating process as a result of the non payment of increments.
We made clear that the integrity of the process was being threatened by the Employers’ actions. We put on record that at no stage during the three years of the negotiations leading up to the 2005 Pay and Modernisation Agreement, did the Employers ever state or imply that the payment of increments from 1 April 2008 would be held back until pay negotiations had been completed that year.
We also had a visual – and verbal - aid at the meeting: - “The Probation Handbook” published in1935”
The Handbook referred to the fact that probation staff were employed on salary scales rather than points, and staff progressed up the scales from the minimum to the maximum. The Handbook confirmed that this system operated at least from 1926.
The application of 3% incremental progression on an annual basis dates back to the 1960s. When that agreement has been varied, it has been by mutual agreement. As unions we are not aware of any other year when the Employers have said that the application of normal incremental progression had to await the settlement f that years’ pay negotiations.
Negotiations will be continuing in early May and a further NNC will be held in early June.
BALLOT FOR ACTION GOES AHEAD
As unions we put the Employers on notice that the indicative ballot of members to seek support for industrial action in the dispute over Increments will continue as planned. Ballot papers will be issued to Napo members by the Electoral Reform Society on 1 May and the ballot closes at noon on 30 May.
Posted by Hampshire at 08:24 PM | Comments (0)
OASYS: MAKING IT MEANINGFUL
OASys STRATEGIC REVIEW – Napo Written Submission
In its current format, OASys is complicated, non-user-friendly, difficult to share with the service users and extremely resource-hungry in terms of staff time. It seeks to be all things to all people and is in danger of becoming process driven to the extent of being a meaningless exercise. It should not be a central data collection tool. Research suggests that practitioners only use risk assessment tools effectively if they know the data will be of some use not disappearing into a black hole – as it does at the moment. The problem is not just the collection of data, it’s also that practitioners cannot see how such a collection helps them. It should be a tool to assess risk and provide evidential support for practitioners. Neither should it replace professional judgment and proper training.
The tool requires fundamental re-design including a re-design of the software application which is based upon it.
Napo supports a radical overhaul of the tool to make it easier to use, more accessible to all and less time consuming. It should also be appropriate to the learning styles of probation staff many of whom are activists in favoured style. With the advent of OASys, we have certainly fallen into a trap of doing assessment at the risk of intervention. More time filling in this (and other) forms is at the expense of face-to-face contact with service users, for which it is no substitute. We would like to see this imbalance redressed. Accordingly, we support a major simplification in the tool but, in addition, Napo would promote a far more targeted use of OASys as a comprehensive risk assessment tool. A re-design and roll-out of OASys – R is likely to take many months, if not years, particularly if changes to the electronic version are factored in. Such is the level of discontent with OASys as a tool and such is the level of its resource use that we believe more immediate and more radical changes are required.
Napo would like to see the full tool used only for Tier 4 cases (we might discuss extension also to designated Tier 3 cases). All other cases should be subject to a basic risk of harm screening at report stage. This could be based on the risk of harm screening in OASys itself. This risk of harm screening could be, as now, supplemented by the risk of re-offending (re-conviction) information obtained by the simple use of OGRS. Although OGRS is an actuarial rather than a personalised assessment tool, its calculations remain more accurate at the moment than the data obtained on the risk of re-offending from OASys. It is accepted that OGRS has shortcomings in respect of some specific offence categories – but the same is true of OASys.
OASys, as a means of communication between case managers in the field and staff within prison, is problematic. It is far too complex as a means of communication and the difficulties associated with it are, themselves, a risk in the sense that information may be lost or mismanaged. Ownership issues have not been resolved. Equally, the information required within the custodial setting is so different from that required in the field that to seek to combine the two within one document is perhaps unrealistic. If ownership of OASys could remain in the community then this might improve matters but realistically this is not going to happen – for security reasons. Perhaps another way has to be found for ensuring prompt and appropriate information exchanges? At the very least, we understand that there are two versions of OASys (prison and probation) which seems unhelpful – particularly since the prison version is reportedly easier to use!
The ‘Confidential’ section of OASys is questionable particularly in the context of information exchange with prisons – in the sense that if ‘ownership’ is temporarily lost, then the ability to enter such information, which in HR cases particularly, needs to be up-to-date, is compromised.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the sentence plans are rubbish - far too many screens to go to for each objective, far too much paper when printed off for service users - it needs condensing to be more understandable - the headings are repetitive and unhelpful and it is not concise enough to be useful.
Whilst understanding the logic of pull-through reports, the transfer across to the report template is fraught with problems – translation and editing mean it would often be quicker to just write a report. This questionable facility is also de-skilling. One of the strengths of the Probation Service has always been well-written, well-argued court reports. Filling in a form is not a good starting point for this.
Within the re-design of OASys, steps should be taken to ensure fully functional interface with standard case recording systems within Probation as well as other related applications such as ViSOR and ASSET. Requirements for double and triple entry in different systems should be minimised by designing in common data sets with overarching data extraction systems which can automatically populate common data areas.
It is recognised that there is a degree of paranoia about reversing the universal use of OASys as a risk assessment tool. However, it was long ago accepted that it should not be completed on Tier 1 cases (simple UPW etc). The cited risk is that staff and Service Areas will be left unprotected in the event of SFO incidents. Whilst this may be true, nevertheless, it must be recognised that the majority of SFO incidents, statistically, occur in Tiers 1 and 2. If we are already accepting that OASys should not be completed on Tier 1 cases, then extending this principle to Tiers 2 and 3 should be relatively simple. Ultimately, hard choices have to be made. In the same way that the Probation Service is not resourced to supervise/monitor those people on its books 24-7, so, arguably, it is also not resourced to carry out ‘Rolls Royce’ risk assessments on everybody. Equally, risks are likely to be spotted more easily and managed more efficiently if staff are actually engaging with offenders rather than engaging with computers. Even if the Probation Service was properly resourced to carry out full risk assessments on its entire caseload, OASys, in its current form, would not be a tool of first choice.
Finally, Napo would like to see a thorough activity-based costing done on the use of OASys, both in its current form and also in any revised form. Linked to this, once again in the recent report on Probation Resources by the CCJS, the disproportionate cost in terms of staff time expended completing OASys is highlighted.
MIKE McCLELLAND
Chair
28.04.08
Posted by Hampshire at 08:15 PM | Comments (0)
NOMS AND FOI
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER SLAMS NOMS FOR FREEDOM OF INFORMATION FAILURES
ICO issues practice recommendation to NOMS
The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) has "repeatedly failed" to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests, according to a review carried out by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)
As a result the ICO has used its powers and issued NOMS with a formal practice recommendation stating that the agency should review the way it handles freedom of information (FOI) requests.
"The agency should give suitable priority and resource to dealing with FOI requests in order to improve its performance. The ICO also recommends that all relevant members of staff receive training," the ICO warned.
ICO's review into the handling of FOI requests by NOMS found that the agency had repeatedly extended the time limit for considering whether there was a public interest in releasing information, in some cases for 12 months consecutively, and had failed to give specific reasons for the delays.
"In the ICO's view such delays may appear to be designed to hold-up the process of providing full responses to FOI requests. The ICO is also aware of a number of unacceptable delays in dealing with internal reviews after a request has initially been refused. In one case an internal review was only completed nearly 29 months after being requested," the data watchdog stated.
The ICO's review of NOMS found that the agency had not acted in accordance with the Act and had failed to conform to the associated Codes of Practice in various ways, including giving unhelpful advice which could be discouraging to requesters. The ICO also considers that the agency regularly failed to explain sufficiently why exemptions applied when refusing to release information.
"The ICO believes the recommendations made are necessary to ensure the adequacy, consistency and timeliness of responses to both requests for information and internal reviews," the ICO added.
Under the Freedom of Information Act the National Offender Management Service is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). The relevant public authority for these purposes is therefore the MoJ.
March 2008
Posted by Hampshire at 08:14 PM | Comments (0)
April 27, 2008
A COOK'S TOUR: FAIR PAY, EMAIL, JNCC, PARKING, SICKNESS, WORKLOAD TOOL, TRUST STATUS, FACILITY TIME, BRANCH MEETINGS.
PAY: In May ballot papers will be sent to all members. This is called an ‘indicative ballot’ for industrial action, including strike action, if needed, to pressure the employers into reaching a fair settlement. This is not just pertinent to the rank - and - file as the two unions representing chief officer grades – Napo and GMB – have also recorded a dispute with the employers over the failure to pay the April increments. Some probation areas have been more supportive than others in promoting arguments for the timely payment of increments. In view of the good performance achieved by staff in recent years it's regrettable that the majority of probation areas were not more vocal in saying the pay agreement on increments should be honoured, instead of saying the agreement on increments lapsed this year. Staff want to perform well, but they also want to be able to maintain a standard of living and meet the rising costs of inflation which is now running at over 4 per cent. Pay is being eroded and warm words about valuing performance need to be backed up with improved pay.
The branch entry for March 8th provides fuller details, but this is the current situation:
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.
In the indicative ballot all Hampshire members are urged to vote for action. 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.
It is important that we achieve a high rate of returns in the ballot, as this will itself send a strong message to the employers about the strength of feeling in the probation service about deteriorating conditions of service. Remember what recent research has shown:
‘Frontline probation staff grew by 21 percent between 2002 and 2006. However, growth was concentrated among senior and management grades, as well as the less qualified Probation Service Officers. The numbers of fully qualified and trainee Probation Officers fell by 9 percent. The ratio of offenders to qualified Probation Officers increased by 28 percent between 2002 and 2006, from 31 offenders per Officer to 39. The research estimates that qualified Probation Officers worked nearly 30,000 unpaid hours in 2006, equivalent to one extra hour worked per day per officer.’
EMAIL: As you can see we have the website active and a link of sorts has been restored via Lotus Notes. We have reduced the number of clicks required to reach the site. Seems silly to be reduced to counting clicks but that’s a consequence of the chief officer’s displeasure at the use of a hyperlink to get to the site. Unison continues to use Lotus Notes. This situation remains unsatisfactory and we will continue to press for improved communications. No wish to dwell on past differences with HPA, as branch is seeking better industrial relations with HPA.
JNCC: We meet again with the JNCC in June and hope to make some headway on industrial relations in Hampshire. We have agreed to attend a preparatory meeting the week before with the chief officer, HR director and vice-chair of the board. We need to agree how to achieve effective relations and partnership working. We don’t wish to underestimate the chasms that exist, or reiterate how they were created: our focus needs to be on how to get the caravan moving again, so to speak.
PARKING: HPA promised last July to establish a working party, including the unions, in the autumn of 2007. That did not happen. We know that the provision of permits has been extended, but we have been told nothing formally by HPA. We can only surmise that the large surplus from last year has eased the need to address the parking issue. We know the issue of parking costs remains a major and abiding concern for members.
SICKNESS ABSENCE: We have indicated that Napo intends to register a formal dispute on the operation of the procedures. We know first-hand from representing individual members that the procedures are not being allowed to operate as they should. The procedures are not only, in our view, working to the disadvantage of those subject to sickness management processes, but increasingly middle managers are complaining that they are being denied the right to exercise discretion without undue interference. There are also serious concerns about the lack of training provided to middle managers, especially in relation to disability-related absences.
WORKLOAD TOOL: This ‘progresses’ at a frustratingly slow pace. We intend to press for a clear timetable of action.
TRUST STATUS: We have a meeting coming up. The unions are being consulted for their views. We would have preferred to have been consulted sooner and before the consultation exercise started last February. There is no Napo opposition to trust status as the political reality means it’s the only show in town. What we need to ensure is that during any transition period, which is likely to come sooner or later, the interests of members are protected. The developments towards trust status further serve to underline the need for sound partnership working and the resources for this branch to communicate quickly with members via email as well as through this website.
FACILITY TIME: We are on notice from the chief officer that our facility time faces reductions. We have made further submissions and await final decision. We have carried out our own research and benefited greatly from receiving helpful and informative feedback from innumerable Napo branches across the country. Once we know HPA’s final position we will then formulate our response and decide upon practical steps.
BRANCH MEETINGS: We have seen an increase in attendance since the start of the year and there is no doubt that increased attendances are linked to members’ concerns that this branch was denied the group email facility, it was also the period when there were pressing concerns about the privatisation of court report writing. It is encouraging to see larger attendances. It has been said many times, this branch is made stronger through solidarity - with solidarity we are better able to represent individual members as well as work on collective matters. ‘One for all, all for one.’ This branch thanks all those members who have expressed staunch support of late.
VOTE TO SUPPORT NAPO AND UNISON’S DISPUTE WITH OUR EMPLOYERS.
Posted by Hampshire at 02:52 PM | Comments (0)
April 24, 2008
PROBATION IN CRISIS
The Probation Service faces a crisis of shrinking budgets and a shortage of qualified frontline staff at a time when demands on its services have never been higher, according to new research from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies published today. Based on interviews with probation staff and an in depth analysis of financial and workforce statistics, the research offers a striking picture of a Service struggling to cope and facing the threat of budget cuts and privatisation. The research was commissioned by Napo, the trade union and professional association for family court and probation staff.
Since 2001 the Probation Service budget has grown by 21 percent in real terms, fuelling claims by government ministers that proposed budget reductions will not affect frontline delivery. While acknowledging that probation budgets have risen, the research highlights problems of rising and more complex caseloads, a shortage of qualified probation staff and an endemic problem of staff sickness and unpaid hours. The research also warns of the risk of court sentences not being carried out because of resource shortfalls.
Among the report's main findings are:
Since 2001, the Probation budget has grown by 21 percent in real terms. However, in recent years it has declined, by 9 percent in 2005-06 and 2 percent in 2006-07. The government plans further year on year budget reductions of 3 per cent per year for the next three years.
The recently announced £40 million for implementing community orders in place of short prison sentences is unlikely to compensate for the impact of long term and continuing budget reductions.
Probation caseloads increased by 23 percent between 2002 and 2006, and by 47 percent since 1997.
There is a vacuum in knowledge about how much needs to be spent to meet increases in workload caused by rising numbers of community orders.
New work taken on by the Probation Service has proved to be far more complex, time-consuming and staff-intensive than work traditionally performed by the Service.
Frontline probation staff grew by 21 percent between 2002 and 2006. However, growth was concentrated among senior and management grades, as well as the less qualified Probation Service Officers. The numbers of fully qualified and trainee Probation Officers fell by 9 percent.
The ratio of offenders to qualified Probation Officers increased by 28 percent between 2002 and 2006, from 31 offenders per Officer to 39.
The research estimates that qualified Probation Officers worked nearly 30,000 unpaid hours in 2006, equivalent to one extra hour worked per day per officer.
Budgetary concerns and fears have been expressed by many of the probation areas that are responsible for local probation services.
Dr Roger Grimshaw, research director at the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London said:
'The statistics show there is no room for complacency about the Probation Service's capacity to meet the expectations of the courts and of the public. The budget has already fallen over the last two years and probation areas are having to consider reducing key staff in the face of rising needs.'
Harry Fletcher, Assistant General Secretary at Napo said:
'The research confirms that the Probation Service is beyond capacity. The Government can't expect staff to supervise soaring caseloads without accepting the consequences of more re-offending and more victims. The service is at breaking point.'
'Changes in organisation and working practice have imposed a variety of workload costs on the frontline professionals as well as on managers.Changes in assessment, for example, have systematically affected the time needed to complete this work and have therefore added to practitioners’ workloads. Moreover, there has been a rise of 158 per cent in accredited programme completions since 2002-2003. This growing workload may go some way to explaining why sickness levels are higher in the NPS than in other public sector organisations. However, despite the stresses felt by many staff, practitioners are voluntarily committing additional hours in order to meet the demands made on them. (Page 37 CCJS 2008)'
DOWNLOAD FULL REPORT HERE:
Posted by Hampshire at 06:32 PM | Comments (0)
NO PROBATION PAY OFFER
Still No Probation Pay Offer (23/4/08)
At yesterday’s NNC, the Employers were still not able to make us an offer or move on their position of blocking the payment of increments from 1 April.
More dates for negotiations are being planned, but in the meantime the indicative ballot, seeking membership support for the principle of industrial action, is being put in hand.
Ballot papers will be going out next week with a closing date of the end of May.
A more detailed Pay Bulletin is being prepared.
Posted by Hampshire at 06:19 PM | Comments (0)
April 18, 2008
HIRE CARS: A POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT
A member recently advised HPA that he could not afford to fill the petrol tank and wait for reimbursement through monthly expenses. In response HPA have said that he can claim expenses incurred filling the tank within 24 hours through office petty cash, subject to receipts being submitted.
Napo welcomes this positive development which we regard as a reasonable action as it seeks to take account of members’ circumstances.
Posted by Hampshire at 09:58 AM | Comments (0)
April 17, 2008
PAY DISPUTE
There is a further meeting of the Probation Service National Negotiating Council, NNC, on Tuesday, 22 April, when negotiations will continue on the Trade Union Side Pay Claim and on the dispute registered over the non payment of increments from 1 April.
The Trade Union Side has made clear to the Employers that unless the payment of increments is fully honoured with effect from 1 April (namely 3 increments prior to the Development Point, 2 increments on it and 1 increment after it), the dispute will continue.
Arrangements are in hand for the indicative ballot of members to commence on 1 May and close at the end of May. Napo will be using the Electoral Reform Balloting Services to send all Probation members a ballot paper and a letter explaining the basis of the dispute and the action proposed. Members will be asked if they are prepared to support industrial action in support of our dispute to seek the honouring of the payment of increments from 1 April 2008.
The industrial action being proposed is a one day strike and working to contracted hours.
The ballot will only be an indicative ballot, not a statutory ballot. If we make no progress in negotiations and if we have secured a majority support for action in the indicative ballot then a move to a statutory ballot will be necessary.
We are also still talking to lawyers about the possibility of pursuing legal action against the Employers for breach of contract over the non payment of the increments from 1 April.
Posted by Hampshire at 02:44 PM | Comments (0)
PAY: CHIEF OFFICER GRADES
N24/2008
JL/CG
15 April 2008
To: Branch Chairs and Secretaries
Cc: Negotiating Committee
NEC Co-Reps
Officers and Officials
ACO Members
Dear Colleague,
Standing Committee for Probation Chief Officer Grades (SCCOG)
As reported to the last meeting of the NEC, I am writing to confirm that at the March meeting of the SCCOG the trade union side recorded a dispute with the employers over their stated intention not to pay increments to staff on the 1st April 2008.
The two trade unions representing Chief Officer grades in the NPS, GMB and Napo, made clear our joint dissatisfaction with the attitude of the employers finding common cause with the position taken by the NNC trade unions in relation to the same issue.
At the present time meetings between the employers and trade unions are being arranged to address the causes of the dispute and the two unions are considering their joint position.
Please bring this Circular to the attention of ACO members in your Branch. Any questions regarding this Circular should be directed to me at Chivalry Road.
Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Ledger
Assistant General Secretary, Napo
Posted by Hampshire at 02:42 PM | Comments (0)
April 16, 2008
HIRE CARS: THE INSTRUCTION
The chief officer sent an email to the staff at Town Quay office earlier today in which he referred to an instruction to fill the tanks of hire cars after use. An instruction from an employer has to be taken seriously as to defy leaves the employee at real risk of disciplinary action, including dismissal.
The procedure on hire cars was never agreed with Napo. It was imposed on Napo members. It must be almost twelve months now since we expressed the view that passing the financial burden over to members was unreasonable and that using petty cash or HPA credit cards would be fairer. Our arguments went unheeded. Now we are at the point of an instruction. We regard such an instruction as unreasonable and we will press this home in other forums, but for members we recognise that there is a need for clear advice. We are not going to advise you to willfully defy an instruction.
We know some members have expressed the view that they already feel bullied by this procedure and they have felt threatened by disciplinary action. Members are vulnerable if they willfully refuse an instruction. However, we also know that some members are not financially able to carry extra costs for up to six weeks before being reimbursed through expenses. To those members we advise, despite it being a demeaning experience, to make it clear that you cannot afford to fill the tank. Then seek the advice of HPA as to how you follow the chief officer’s instruction.
Napo has been repeatedly criticised by the chief officer for the stance we have taken on this issue. This branch can live with such criticism because not to have opposed this unfair and unreasonable procedure would have been us failing in our duty to represent the interests of members we serve. It is a sad state of affairs when an employer adopts such an attitude, but it does underscore why as a branch we must remain strong and united when facing unreasonable demands.
Posted by Hampshire at 07:06 PM | Comments (0)
NAPO: UNBANNED
We thought we were banned. We now understand that Barrie Crook’s objection is that we have been using a hyperlink which is a fast-track means of reaching Napo’s website. All he wants us to do is oblige members to take the slow road to the site, which he advises takes one minute. We think the hyperlink is more efficient and saves members’ time, but Barrie wishes otherwise.
The hyperlink has been in use for some time and it is clear from a note he sent to Town Quay staff today that he also has objections to the content of our messages to members. In these difficult times we will continue to communicate with the Napo membership and advise members as best we can on policies such as sickness management, procedures and hire cars and other issues.
In addition to breaching the email agreement on the hyperlink we also understand we have, according to the chief officer, also breached it in relation to content on more than one ocassion. Due to the current sensitivities we do not know when we may be deemed to have breached it again.
We thank all members for their support in keeping Napo active.
We encourage members at Town Quay office to take up Barrie’s offer to visit and discuss matters that have affected morale.
Posted by Hampshire at 03:54 PM | Comments (0)
April 09, 2008
NAPO EMAILS: BANNED AGAIN
HAMPSHIRE AND ISLE OF WIGHT BRANCH
Barrie Crook, the chief officer, has, once again, pulled the plug on Napo’s email facility. It would seem he still objects to this branch sending out notes to members. It seems he objects to putting a hyperlink into Lotus Notes so we can alert members to messages on our website. He says by doing this we are getting around his original ban. He does not want members to receive emails from this branch – it is difficult to put any other construction on his actions, though it’s odd that it has taken him nearly three months to pull the plug, because in January we wrote to members explaining what we were going to do. We also sent a copy of that email to the chief officer who replied ‘Thank you’. Here is part of what we wrote in January:
‘We have been offered by HPA access to the Intranet via Navigator, in addition to restoration of Lotus Notes, and that held an initial appeal, not least for keeping an archive of Napo communications. However, a better idea has prevailed. We have set up the Hampshire Branch website that can be accessed via the main Napo website and that can be accessed through EPIC. This is a great development. The pathway is: Click on EPIC, Click Research and Links, Click Trade Union and Staff Associations, Click Napo website, Click Branches, scroll down, click Hampshire.
The advantage of this is that it’s our site; it’s freestanding, and independent of HPA. Another benefit is that it can be accessed from home computers if you have one, thus making it easier for members, who may be on one form of leave or another, to keep track of Hampshire Branch activities.’
This denial of a group email facility is unreasonable and unfair. It would appear there is no tolerance in HPA for alternative views or the taking of positions that query the pitch of the management side. This branch has about 270 members who we believe are entitled to receive postings from this branch and who are quite capable of reaching their own judgements. We also believe in the right to organise and in the freedom of expression.
We would welcome the views of members. This will be discussed at our next branch meeting. In the meantime we will continue to post messages on our website – about issues, like hire cars, sickness – absence, pay and so forth – that matter to members of Napo.
But, most of all, Napo is only as strong as the collective will of its membership. It is the strength of the union that individual members call upon when in need. This is why it is vital that we resist challenges that seek to weaken our ability to organise and a crucial part of any effective organisation is communication which is why the chief officer seeks to curtail our ability to communicate.
We are building up a database of members’ home email addresses – to be added to the database email: gaciow@hotmail.com By this means we can alert you to new postings.
It is our view that we need outside mediators to resolve this and other problems that are at the heart of poor industrial relations. We have called for this, but we also call upon all members to show solidarity in the present circumstances.
Posted by Hampshire at 07:17 PM | Comments (0)
April 04, 2008
HIRE CARS
The subject of being required to refill hire cars is important because it gets to the heart of what is a reasonable requirement. You will have noted that the chief officer thinks it entirely reasonable that if you use a hire car then you should fill the tank at your own expense and then claim back through monthly expenses, which could mean waiting six weeks for reimbursement.
The chief officer cannot see any financial disadvantage, but many members can and that’s unsurprising when staff in probation occupy different financial positions. What is onerous expenditure to someone on £20,000 - £25,000 may be incidental expenses to someone on £50,000 - £60,000 and beyond. The fact is some members do actually experience financial disadvantage and it would be reasonable for HPA to take heed of these considerations.
It is the Codes and Conditions that says staff can expect to be reimbursed for travelling costs through monthly expenses – this relates to essential and casual car users. These work related journeys are likely to be cheaper than those longer journeys that now must be made in hire cars. The comparison between your own car and a hire car is a false one. And, of course, not all staff can make that comparison in real life as they may not own a car. The chief officer says it happens in some other areas, but that is irrelevant. What matters to members is what happens in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
It is the National Codes and Conditions that are our reference point. There is nothing in the Codes and Conditions that relates to hire cars. You should see the Codes and Conditions as an agreement between employees and employers, with each party having duties and obligations to each other and working on the basis of agreement. Napo would have no difficulty in reaching an agreement on the use of hire cars, but we cannot agree to a policy that puts all the financial burdens on members. It beggars belief that a payment regime with a hire company cannot be set up. Passing the buck to members is unfair.
It is true that Napo (and Unison) do not see the current hire car arrangement as fair and reasonable. It is not the hire company that is insisting on full tanks, but HPA, because the hire company are putting a surcharge on their petrol. This does raise ‘value for money’ issues and surely HPA could shop around in the marketplace for a better deal. This would be the sensible and prudent step to take. Instead members, already denied their annual increments and facing growing costs in other areas of their lives, are told to carry the cost. That does not seem reasonable. And when members refuse to fill the hire cars are they to be disciplined? It remains far from clear exactly what the misconduct would be. How do you punish someone who says they cannot afford to fill a tank with expensive petrol following a long journey and then wait weeks for repayment? Should you buy the petrol on credit, go into debt?
This is a serious point and one HPA should consider. Some members may be able to carry the costs, but what of those who cannot. Are we to have means testing in the workplace?
The HPA expectation is unreasonable and unfair. They should be looking at other means – whether that is another hire company, petty cash or office credit cards. These costs should not be idly passed on to members. It is no more appropriate to ask members to buy their own train tickets than it is to ask them fill the tanks of hire cars.
This issue is causing damage to the morale of members and this should be heeded by HPA. We urge members to stand together and support each other on this issue.
Any member who experiences any undue or unfair pressure, or experiences/perceives bullying in relation to this issue should contact Napo for specific advice.
Posted by Hampshire at 06:30 PM | Comments (0)
April 03, 2008
SICKNESS POLICY: SURVEY - HOW WERE YOU TREATED?
We need the views of members.
Below, in bold type, are two quotes taken from the 2007 sickness absence policy which has been in operation for almost twelve months. Napo has been involved in many cases of sickness management and we have seen at close quarters how the policy has operated. There are well-documented differences between Napo and HPA on the use of retrospection, the counting together of short and long-term absences, interference in the discretion of line managers and the process that should be followed in relation to taking formal action against members.
As we approach the anniversary of this policy we are asking members to tell us in their own words how they experienced the policy. We will keep all information anonymised but it would be heplful for the branch to collate response with a view to sharing them with the probation board.
Napo often complains about the operation of this policy and individuals complain to us, but what we would wish to do is gather ‘case studies’ so that those responsible for the policy can not only look at levels of sickness absense as statistics but hear from individuals about the treatment they experienced under the policy. How it felt at the time and how it feels with hindsight. And we welcome comments from those who have observed the policy in operation – as an employee have you seen understanding shown to those who need to be absent and appropriate action against those who abuse the system at the expense of colleagues?
The National Probation Service’s approach in cases of sickness absence will always be one of support and understanding. Wherever possible, assistance will be given to help ill employees regain full health with Occupational Health Service (OHS) support as appropriate. Assistance will be offered as appropriate to disabled employees including provision of reasonable adjustments as appropriate on a case by-case basis.
Employees will want to see understanding shown to those who need to be absent and appropriate action taken against those who abuse the system at the expense of colleagues. The development and operation of sound, fair and consistent procedures is essential, within which the role of line managers not only in managing sickness absence but also in creating a positive working environment is key.
Posted by Hampshire at 07:56 PM | Comments (0)
SICKNESS POLICY: KEEPING TO IT
This is what we received for the HR director following a recent meeting. The meeting was in January this year and since then we have had evidence of HPA seeking to undermine discretion, but the text highlighted in bold type is what we will always seek to uphold, as not to do so increases the risk of discriminatory practices:
‘We affirm the necessity of following up all absences, with a return to work interview. There is clear guidance on how these should be conducted – at para 43 in the policy and a fuller account in policy annex B.
We agree that the Return to work notification form will be used as a tool both to record the outcome of that meeting as at present; and in the event of a trigger point having been reached, to record a manager’s decision as to whether a Stage 1 meeting within the terms of the policy is required (see para 43–50 and 71–74).
In respect of possible action under stage one, the policy contains trigger points for short-term absences of either 6 separate absences or 12 days in a twelve month rolling period (pro rata for part time staff). We agree that on reaching a trigger point it is the responsibility of the line manager, who may consult with HR, to make a judgement, based on the individual circumstances of each case, as to whether the sickness absence warrants referral to the formal unsatisfactory attendance procedure.
In the event of moving to stage one (or later stages) the line manager will write to the employee and the letter will ‘set out details of the unsatisfactory attendance, which must include copies of all relevant documentation, e.g. copies of return to work interview notes and OHS advice’ (see para 81-86 for stage one).’
Posted by Hampshire at 07:48 PM | Comments (0)
April 01, 2008
SICKNESS POLICY: ENSURING FAIRNESS
At the last Branch meeting we discussed the sickness policy and specifically concerns that the process is being subject to interference by area managers. This related to evidenced reports that SPOs were being placed under pressure to automatically put staff into formal proceedings if the trigger of 12 days was passed and once there to issue improvement notices. And if an SPO believed an improvement notice was inappropriate then they had to justify this to the area manager. This practice, in Napo’s view, was undermining of SPO discretion which is a cornerstone of the sickness policy. It is inappropriate for their line managers to be seeking to effect particular outcomes. We complained about this to HR. The importance of SPO exercising their discretion unfettered has been reaffirmed and we trust re-established.
Discretion is vital because decisions reached must be based on the individual circumstances of each case. This is knowledge that is immediate to the line manager and it directly informs decision-making – it is not remote control decision-making. There is a clear role for line managers in the sickness policy but it took until October of last year for HPA to formally acknowledge that. Up to that time there was an expectation that all reaching a trigger would go into formal proceedings. This practice was subsequently criticised in the Equality Impact Assessment which was done some six months after the policy was unilaterally implemented by HPA.
Napo is determined that staff will be treated fairly under this policy and not be treated as targets. Health is too important for mechanistic reactions and all staff deserve to be treated as individuals. It is vital that you keep an audit trial of all that occurs in relation to all absences and all decisions. This, should the need arise, will make it more straightforward to show whether the actions taken are reasonable and potentially fair.
Posted by Hampshire at 06:31 PM | Comments (0)
PSO CONFERENCE: 21 MAY
Dear Colleague,
Re: PSO Conference on 21st May 2008
This year’s PSO Conference is taking place at Friends House in London on Wednesday 21st May 2008.
Enclosed is a registration form which should be completed and returned to me at Chivalry Road by Friday 2nd May, however, please approach your employer in the first instance regarding time off for the event.
The number able to attend is limited to 100, so please respond promptly in order to avoid disappointment.
Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Ledger
Assistant General Secretary
Posted by Hampshire at 06:00 PM | Comments (0)
PAY: APRIL FOOL?
April Fool?
Today is the operative date for the payment of increments and for the pay increase which should ensure that as a minimum pay keeps up with inflation.
Probation Employers will not however pay increments at this stage and have as yet made no offer in response to our pay claim.
Napo's NEC decided at its March meeting that we should conduct an indicative ballot of Probation members to see if there is support for industrial action should it be necessary this year.
We are pleased that Unison has also agreed to this action, and we have agreed a Joint Statement on the indicative ballot which will be held in May.
Please see below a copy of the Action on Pay Bulletin No 3 issued today which also contains the Joint Statement with Unison.
Action on Pay
Bulletin No 3
Today, 1st April, is the operative date for Probation members to receive their increments and the pay rise they are entitled to expect; a pay rise which should, as a minimum, ensure pay remains in line with the rate of inflation.
This year our Employers are refusing to pay increments from 1st April and to date no offer has been received on the pay increase due despite the Trade Unions’ claim having been lodged on 15th January.
The Employers are insisting that this year the rate of incremental progression is included in the annual pay negotiations. Although no pay offer has yet been received we know that the Treasury is insisting that public sector pay settlements are consistent with a target of 2% inflation, even though the retail price index is currently increasing by over 4% per annum.
Although we always knew that negotiations would be difficult this year as a result of the Treasury policy on public sector pay, we were unprepared for our own Employers taking such a draconian approach to their own staff. In responding to our pay claim the Employers have also indicated that that they are looking to attack other conditions of service such as sick pay and are threatening to introduce performance related pay.
As in previous years, we would seek if at all possible, to negotiate a good outcome for members without recourse to industrial action. We sense that this year it may however be necessary to be ready to consider industrial action, which may need to include strike action as well as action short of a strike, such as working to contracted hours.
Indicative Ballot for Industrial Action
Napo’s March NEC meeting agreed that we should in the first instance conduct an indicative ballot to see if members will support a campaign of industrial action. A move to a statutory ballot will follow if the indicative ballot shows support for action and if progress cannot be made by negotiations alone.
We have now agreed a common approach in respect of the indicative ballot with Unison as it would clearly be important to act together to ensure that any action taken has maximum impact.
As the joint Napo/Unison statement on page 2 sets out, we have agreed to run the indicative ballot during the month of May and we are asking Napo and Unison Branches at a local level to establish joint committees to organise local campaigning action.
In entering this year’s pay negotiations, as your negotiators we need to know if members are prepared to back us with industrial action, should it prove necessary.
More detail will follow on the next steps in this year’s pay campaign.
Probation Pay Dispute - Joint Napo/Unison Statement
At the meeting of the National Negotiating Council (NNC) on the 4th March Napo and Unison jointly registered a dispute following the Employers’ confirmation of their decision to withhold the payment of increments to staff on the 1st April 2008.
Whilst the Employers accept that staff have a contractual right to incremental progression they are insisting that the rate of progression is agreed as part of the negotiations on the trade union pay claim for 2008/09. The unions have made clear that this is unacceptable:
there is no written agreement suggesting increments should not be paid as laid out in he 3 year pay deal ending on the 31st March;
it is unjust and potentially discriminatory;
it will mean staff face a pay cut as a result of the increase in pension contributions from the st April.
Negotiations with the Employers are continuing in the hope of resolving this dispute (as well as addressing the formal pay claim) but the unions believe we must consider other options in pursuit of justice for our members in the Probation Service.
Next Steps:
Napo and Unison have met nationally and agreed the next steps in our dispute. We have agreed to hold an indicative ballot of members to establish support for our dispute and commitment to any action that might become necessary if negotiations are unsuccessful. However, it should be noted that industrial action can only be taken following a statutory ballot of all members.
Branch Action:
Napo/Unison Branches are to establish joint committees immediately which will organise and implement local campaigning and disseminate information related to the dispute.
The indicative ballot will start on 1st May – the joint committees will be asked to organise workplace meetings on that day which will promote the ballot and focus on the reasons for the dispute.
The indicative ballot process and format will be confirmed shortly and Napo and Unison members will receive a ballot paper with identical wording.
The ballot will close on the 30th May.
Further information will be provided to Branches and the joint committees in due course. Branches are asked to provide their respective National Officials with the contact details of their joint committees as soon as the information is available.
Any questions regarding this Circular should be directed to Jonathan Ledger, Assistant General Secretary, for Napo Branches or Ben Priestley, National Officer, for Unison Branches.
Judy McKnight Ben Priestley
Napo Unison
Posted by Hampshire at 05:53 PM | Comments (0)