« April 2008 | Main | June 2008 »
May 31, 2008
DISCIPLINE AND SICKNESS ABSENCE
Christine Straw, director of HR, who is responsible for the operation of the sickness management procedures, decries references to the formal procedures as being ‘disciplinary-based. Therefore if you view the procedures as punitive you are misinformed. It follows that if you end up being dismissed under the procedures that should not be seen as a disciplinary outcome. This is not a view shared by Napo and nor is this a matter of differing interpretations. The HR view is wrong and misleading – a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Dismissals arising under the sickness management procedures are more likely to fall into the category of capability. Therefore: where attendance has fallen below the level of acceptability (triggers), then individual attention must be drawn to this fact. However, if the appropriate help and warnings do not achieve an improvement, then the final outcome may be dismissal
The legal basis for the sickness absence procedure is the Employment Rights Act 1996 which states that capability may be a fair reason for dismissal. The procedure observes the provisions of the Employment Act 2002 (Disputes Resolution) Regulations 2004 and the relevant sections of the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.
The reason why you have the right to be accompanied by a trade union official to formal meetings and why appeals against sickness management decisions are dealt with under the disciplinary policy is because warnings – Improvement Notices – are disciplinary warnings. If your attendance does not improve you are increasingly at risk of dismissal.
Why HR persists in denying the disciplinary element in the sickness management procedures is for HR to explain. The 'what works' literature is clear: 'The most effective measures to tackle short term absence include return-to-work interviews, trigger mechanisms, disciplinary measures and training line managers. For longer term absence the most effective approaches are providing an occupational health service and rehabilitation programmes.'
(www.personneltoday.com)
From Napo’s perspective we see a set of procedures that were poorly implemented at the outset. Line managers were not provided with training, especially in managing disability-related absences. The picture was further clouded by ambiguities around line manager discretion as HR propagated an ‘expectation’ that all those reaching the trigger would go into formal procedures. This approach was criticised in the Equality Impact Assessment, which the Unions pressed for and finally got last November. We hoped that henceforward the procedures would improve, but that has not happened as we have since seen an operational manager making an Improvement Notice the assumed default outcome for passing a trigger and line managers continually telling Napo that their discretion is illusory.
It would be far better if HR would stop pretending that formal meetings are just about ‘helping and understanding’ That is to be welcomed, but they are also forums of accountability and forums where the outcome could be a warning or dismissal. What members most complain about in respect of the sickness management procedure is not the fact that it has a disciplinary element - that is widely perceived, if officially downplayed - the majority of complaints relate to the fairness of treatment and difficulties in reconciling their treatment with how the policy promises they will be treated. This gives rise to a sense of grievance.
Formal meetings are important – the process leading up to them, the quality of documentation detailing the history of return to work interviews and previous decision-making. Too often the information is of a poor quality and it’s not at all clear why decisions have been taken and who has taken them. The HR view is that no matter what the procedural shortcomings might have been we must press on and hold a formal meeting – after all it’s not a disciplinary meeting!
Formal meeting under the sickness management policy are disciplinary-based. The potential consequences are serious. A more serious-minded approach to sickness management would set a high standard in respect of adhering to procedure and making sure all documentation is detailed and clear. And when it’s clear that HPA are not following their own procedures they should not force staff into formal meetings. It seems there is little prospect of the procedures operating to a higher standard until HR starts to hold itself accountable, examine all the shortcomings in the procedures and devise an action plan to bring about some real improvements.
Posted by Hampshire at 02:16 PM | Comments (0)
May 29, 2008
BRANCH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING - 20TH JUNE
The AGM of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Branch will be held on 20th June at the Portsmouth Probation Office. All posts on the Executive are up for re-election. The Branch has recently received confirmation from the chief officer that our facility time, which we use to carry out union business, including providing representation for members involved in disciplinary and grievance matters, will be reduced by over 30%. This is at time when Napo branches across the country are seeking extra facility time. We have told the chief officer that his ‘review’ of our facility time was shallow. We have no doubt that he enjoys the full support of the probation board in the action he has taken against Napo and Unison. We see his actions as detrimental to the ability of this branch to organise and provide effective representation.
After the AGM we will advise all members on how we propose operate in what will become a more difficult environment, but we will need to make changes.
The strength of any union is expressed through the active support of its members. This branch only exists because there are members who are prepared to be actively involved. We face more difficult times ahead and we encourage all those who share in our concern for the future effective functioning of this branch to show their support by attending branch meetings.
Posted by Hampshire at 06:23 PM | Comments (0)
NATIONAL STANDARDS
Rationalisation of National Standards
Attached is BR23/08 which outlines an invitation to Napo from NOMS to submit constructive ideas about how National Standards might be rationalised. Please circulate as widely as possible amongst your members.
THE REQUEST:
BR23/08
MMcC/CMcG
29th May 2008
To: Branch Chairs & Secretaries
From: Mike McClelland - Chair
RATIONALISATION OF NATIONAL STANDARDS
NOMS has asked Napo for any constructive ideas about how to rationalise National Standards. This request is in the context of our ongoing discussions over Workload Prioritisation. Clearly, there will not be any political will at the centre to compromise the integrity of National Standards insofar as they provide structured and rigorous community sentences. Nor is there likely to be much appetite for moves which might be deemed as compromising either Risk Assessment or Risk Management. Nevertheless, there is, apparently, the will to consider aspects of National Standards which are either unnecessarily time consuming or excessively bureaucratic. We are, therefore, requesting members to send in any suggestions as to how this might be achieved. Clearly, the most informed observations on this front are likely to come from frontline staff who work with National Standards on a day-to-day basis.
Please could you ask members to respond to:
cmcgarry@napo.org.uk heading their replies
‘Rationalisation of National Standards’
Thank you
MIKE McCLELLAND
Chair
Posted by Hampshire at 05:56 PM | Comments (0)
May 28, 2008
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
In recent times the probation service has been more associated with enforcement than compliance. Enforcement was seen as the means to increase the confidence of the courts in using community penalties and countering the image of probation as soft. Enforcement chimed with punishment in the community – probation as the law enforcement agency, as former minister Paul Boateng force-fed us some years ago. He moved on to be the British high commissioner in South Africa!
There is no evidence that strict enforcement reduces reconviction rates – it seems to have little bearing, though those who complete their community sentences and licenses do have lower reconviction rates. The evidence suggests achieving compliance is more likely to reduce rates of reconviction than rigid enforcement procedures.
‘Probation areas and policy makers should be realistic about what reductions in offending can be achieved in the short term through toughening up enforcement practices. One option may be to explore ways of positively reinforcing good attendance and of addressing non-compliance without recourse to breach action.’ (Home Office Report: 41/03)
Statistics gathered by the Home Office show that two-thirds of the persons recalled to custody were not recalled for re-offending but for technical breaches. In 2000/1, 2,457 prisoners were recalled. This had risen sharply to 9,320 by 2004/5. (Napo Press Release - 9/10/06).
All probation areas have received additional funding which is to be spent on initiatives to divert those at high risk of short prison sentence and also to reduce the rate of breaches of those currently subject to supervision on licences and community orders. It is intended this will be achieved by improving rates of compliance.
Napo welcomes any efforts that will help to reduce overcrowding and initiatives to raise levels of compliance – To quote the boss of Noms: 'You don't get good results with offenders unless you really connect with them, win their respect and help them to address their problems…’
Enforcement and compliance go hand in hand and rates for both have been on the increase in recent years.
‘The latest performance figures for the National Probation Service (covering April 2006—February 2007) indicate that 92 per cent. of relevant offenders have enforcement action initiated within 10 working days as required by National Standards; in 1999 it was just 44 per cent. Since 2002-03 the service has also been measured against a compliance target, which measures the proportion of orders and licences that reach the six months stage without requiring breach action. On this basis compliance has improved from 62 per cent. in 2002-03 to 72 per cent. in 2006-07 (April 2006—February 2007)” (Hansard 10/5/07
To stress compliance is not to ignore enforcement and whilst we can respond cynically and see this as the pendulum swinging from enforcement to compliance that would be a simplistic reading. Maybe it’s more of a rebalancing and certainly a recognition of the sheer pointlessness of short prison sentences for those who pose no threat of harm to the public.
On the other hand the plan to try and divert defendants from custody is fraught with pitfalls and seems unlikely to work as whilst the probation service may be able to change its own behaviour and practices, influencing sentencing behaviour is a tall order. The rising prison population, according to a piece of influential research, is driven by two main factors – sentencing practices and the media and political frenzy around crime. The 2003 criminal justice act was meant to stem rising prison numbers, but all we see is a worsening situation. We now have one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the world. The paper ‘The Decision To Imprison’ is attached as a download.
Posted by Hampshire at 06:23 PM | Comments (0)
May 26, 2008
BALLOT CLOSES 30TH MAY
If you haven’t voted you need to send off your ballot paper today as the vote closes in a few days. It is important to send a clear message to the employers who are fond of saying how high morale is in the probation service. Easier to talk up morale than honour a pay deal by paying increments.
Talking of pay, despite the £50 billion government bailout to the banks to ease their credit crunches, it seems city bonuses are alive and well.
City workers have been awarded £13.2 BILLION (over thirteen thousand millions - our increments would only cost thousands) in bonuses so far this year, suggesting that the credit crunch has yet to be felt in the pockets of most bankers. The figure is down a modest 1% on the same stage a year ago, when a little over £13.3bn in bonuses had been paid out.
As someone recently observed, the private financial institutions are expert in privatising the risks and socializing their losses! We have a lot to learn, of course, from the private sector.
Roger Bootle, managing director of Capital Economics, an economic research consultancy, said: 'These bankers are not being paid for their brilliance. 'They have effectively taken a gamble and have been paid handsomely. Now that it has gone so wrong, we are left to pick up the consequences.'
In a recent speech TUC general secretary Brendan Barber attacked the 'casino capitalism' that had been allowed to flourish under new Labour.
But if you are a hard-working public servant, your pay is going to be held down below inflation for the next five years at least. Or is it?
VOTE YES, VOTE TO DEFEND YOUR PAY AND LIVING STANDARDS.
Posted by Hampshire at 06:02 PM | Comments (0)
May 24, 2008
STOP EXCESSIVE WORKLOADS
Carrying excessive workloads is not good for your health. You may cope for a short time, but it will take it toll. What we see in HPA is considerable energy focused on performance and targets; we see resources being mobilised when HPA is seeking objectives it holds dear.
We get reports of member’s struggling to meet performance expectations, whilst being over-burdened with excessive workloads. If performance dips members feel the accountability stick heading their way. How does one maintain performance when running on empty?
The answer is you don’t and nor should you be expected to. What you should expect is a fair workload. It’s all about staff care and HPA as an employer has a duty of care. Last August the Unions presented a paper, see download, to the JNCC (the board, management and union meetings) setting out concerns on excessive workloads. Almost twelve months later we still have nothing in place to effectively address excessive workloads. This, in our view, reflects a lack of will to address the problem. It just drifts along…inconclusively.
Advice to members: contact Napo if you are struggling with an excessive workload. In any discussions on your workload always keep a written record. We regard excessive workloads as a health and safety matter. Excessive workloads are not an accident of nature – it is something your employer allows to happen and to allow it to go on unchecked is institutional neglect and bullying. 'it is management’s responsibility to match resources to demands and ensure that staff do not carry excessive workloads; and that some existing tasks carried out by probation staff may well have to be set aside.' HPA signed up to this principle - it's time they practiced it.
HEALTH RISK: Stressors: eg, excessive workload or work pace; conflicting priorities.
ILL-HEALTH EFFECTS: Can contribute to high blood pressure; heart disease; depression.
Posted by Hampshire at 03:14 PM | Comments (0)
May 21, 2008
UNPAID OVERTIME
Unpaid overtime by public employees is calculated to be saving public sector bosses the costs of employing 60,000 more staff
Almost one in two public sector workers does regular unpaid overtime - equivalent to the contribution of hundreds of thousands of extra staff - according to researchers who claim they have found the first hard evidence of a public service ethos.
Workers employed by public bodies or charities are much more likely
to exceed their paid hours than are those doing the same kinds of jobs in commercial organisations, says a research team from the Centre for Market and Public Organisation at the University of Bristol.
In a study of more than 4,000 workers in the education, health and social care sectors, the team found that 46% of those employed by non-profit bodies did unpaid overtime, compared to 29% of those employed by private companies in the same sectors.
And those who did unpaid overtime tended to put in longer extra hours: an average nine hours 35 minutes a week, compared to eight hours 20 minutes by company employees.
These differences alone are calculated to be saving public sector employers in education, health and social care the costs of employing 60,000 more staff.
The research, published today (21/5/08) in the journal Research in Public Policy, suggests that the ethos of public service - as demonstrated by willingness to work longer hours for no pay - exists in the attitude of the individual rather than in the culture of the employing organisation.
Frank Windmeijer, a co-author of the research report, said: "People with a mission seem to go to work in the the public or non-profit sector. It's not so true that the sector itself changes the behaviour of people."
Dave Prentis, general secretary of public services union Unison, said the research came as no surprise. "Our members have huge commitment to their jobs and know that if they don't put in the overtime, vulnerable people will suffer."
Posted by Hampshire at 05:52 PM | Comments (0)
YOUTH JUSTICE: ' ..THE EXPERIMENT HAS LARGELY FAILED'
‘Ten years of Labour’s youth justice reforms: an independent audit’ (21/05/08)
The government's wide ranging youth justice reforms have had no
measurable impact on levels self-reported youth offending, according to an independent audit published today by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London. The report says that despite substantial investment in radically restructuring and expanding the youth justice system success has been far more mixed and ambiguous than the government says and claims of significant success are overstated.
The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies' audit, supported by the Hadley Trust, makes an independent assessment of the reforms to the youth justice system since the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, which led to the creation of the Youth Justice Board (YJB) and youth offending teams (YOTs) in England and Wales, and considers the extent to which the government has delivered on its ambitious programme. It highlights that far more children have been criminalised and imprisoned and that youth offending teams have struggled to meet the multiple social needs behind their offending.
Ten years of Labour's youth justice reforms: an independent audit looks at spending levels on youth justice and the performance against a range of key targets, including youth crime levels, first time entrants to the youth justice system, the time from arrest to sentence, the use of custody and re-offending rates. It also considers progress on meeting the social and personal needs of children and young people in the youth justice system including, accommodation; education, training and employment; substance misuse and mental health. .
The key findings of the audit are:
• Youth justice spending - Labour has substantially increased spending. Since 2000-2001 spending on youth justice by the YJB and the statutory agencies that contribute to YOT budgets has increased in real terms by 45%. Excluding probation, youth justice has received the largest real terms increase of all the main criminal justice agencies.
• Youth crime - Targets have been missed with self-reported youth offending remaining stable. All the expenditure and activity to reduce youth crime has had no measurable impact.
• First time entrants - Attempts to reduce the number of children who receive a youth justice disposal for the first time is proving a demanding task against a background of increasing numbers of children being drawn into the youth justice system.
• Arrest to sentence - Speeding up the time from arrest to sentence was an early priority and targets were met ahead of schedule but more recently performance has been mixed.
• The use of custody - Despite commitments made by the YJB to reduce the number of children locked up performance is currently deteriorating with numbers increasing by 8% since March 2005 against a target of a 10% reduction.
• Re-offending - The targets have all been missed with the latest figures showing little progress. The government has been beset with problems in setting, revising and failing to hit its reconviction targets for children.
• Meeting needs: accommodation; education, training and employment; substance misuse; mental health - Nearly all the targets set relating to each area of need have not been met. This suggests that the multi agency make up of YOTs is not necessarily working as well as was hoped and are not necessarily as impressive as is often claimed. There are also significant reasons for questioning the value of the targets in providing a meaningful assessment of progress.
Enver Solomon, deputy director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies and co-author of the report, said:
`The government's record on youth crime and tackling the multiple needs of children caught up in the youth justice system is less impressive than many would have expected following a wide-ranging programme of reform and substantial investment. This raises questions about the success of the reforms in making an impact on the number of children and young people who offend, and demonstrates that the youth justice agencies can do little more than regulate youth crime. The government has placed too high expectations on the youth justice system and should be clearer about its limitations.'
Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies and co-author of the report said:
'The government's decade-long youth justice experiment was a bold attempt to deploy the full force of the youth justice system to tackle problematic and disruptive behaviour by young people. This new research suggests that the experiment has largely failed, if reported youth offending is the measure of success.
As the government continues to explore ways to control public spending this research suggests that ever growing criminal justice budgets are unlikely to deliver the long-term or sustainable success.'
Press Release CCJS
Posted by Hampshire at 05:42 PM | Comments (0)
May 20, 2008
JOB TITLES: PAY BANDS MAY 2008
Posted by Hampshire at 06:34 PM | Comments (0)
DAYLIGHT ROBBERY: INCREMENTS - MODEL LETTER
We ask all members to consider sending this model letter to the HPA board chair. HPA have offered no support regarding the payment of increments.
Mr Mike Fisher
Board Chair
Hampshire Probation Service
Middle Brook Street
Winchester
SO23 8DQ
Dear Mr. Fisher,
Non-Payment of Increments and doing more for less.
I am writing to express concern that I feel personally let down by Hampshire Probation Board in that it has failed to honour its contractual agreement to pay my annual increment this year. This at a time when Hampshire Probation Board are expecting even more from their staff, particularly those that work in the ‘frontline’ of service delivery and who are already under tremendous workload pressure.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why I should put in even more for HPA when HPA treats its staff in such a shabby fashion. I understand that the application of 3% incremental progression on an annual basis dates back to the 1960’s and has not been varied except by mutual agreement. The system of staff progression through salary scales I believe has also been in operation since 1926. I am wondering why therefore you have taken the unusual step of withholding normal incremental progression until the settlement of this years pay negotiations?
I understand 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 payments of increments from 1st April 2008 would be held back. Why has Hampshire Probation Board in effect endorsed the decision not to pay when it has the option to do the right thing and pay up?
I feel upon reading my payslip betrayed and deflated at the prospect of a net reduction in my salary taking into account increased pension payments and rises in the cost of living. You have broken an agreement which I feel is a very serious matter indeed and deserving of a full explanation of your reasons.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Posted by Hampshire at 06:25 PM | Comments (0)
TRADE UNION RESPONSE TO TRUST CONSULTATION
Napo AND Unisons response to consultation on becoming a Trust.
1. Napo and Unison attended a meeting at the end of April. We were given a PowerPoint presentation and went through the strategy document which HPA put out last February. The meeting in April was the first time HPA had invited the recognised trade unions to discuss their application for trust status in the so-called ‘second wave’. If they are successful they would become a probation trust in 2009. If not, then they go with the ‘third wave’. All probation areas will become trusts at some point.
2. We are aware that the whole trust framework is being reconsidered, so some of the following may be academic, but as we have been asked to respond to the current 3-year plan, we will do so, as we have not been told anything formally by HPA that the status quo has changed.
3. The union perception is that we are being sidelined as regards the trust application. We should not have been left waiting until the end of April for first discussions; there is to be a working party, but there is no place for the trade unions. The strategy is intended to be underpinned by values. Of particular interest to the trade unions is the value about ‘open communication and collaboration’ This is not our experience as in our view HPA often fails to be open and shows an aversion to collaboration and partnership. Values about respect and a belief in change are always to be welcomed. We hope all the plans in the 3 year strategy are informed by a range of values that are person-centred. We believe that the best way an employer can value its employees is through decent pay that rewards the source of the current high performance levels in probation – the hard work of the staff.
4. As part of the selection process to becoming a trust the organisation should be able to demonstrate ‘effective working relations are maintained with its trade unions’. HPA submitted its Capability Assessment last February. In the assessment the picture portrayed of HPA relations with the unions is positive: there is mention of scheduled meetings with HR, formal consultation, etc. However, the reality is different - that document says nothing about the cessation of meetings with HR last December, the threats to trade union facility time, the breakdown in working on policies, HPA’s threat to unilaterally impose new working practices and the limitations on Napo’s ability to communicate with members through Lotus Notes. The actual state of current relations between HPA and the trade unions are far from effective. But you would not get that impression from the submitted assessment.
5. The trade unions campaigned against the worst manifestations of NOMs. About twenty concessions were secured including the retention of national collective pay bargaining, the retention of core work for three years, and restrictions on other ‘freedoms’ that were being sought in the original offender management bill. Some probation areas wanted to see an abandonment of national pay negotiations.
6. The purpose of the HPA strategic plan is to propose a framework for the development of the Area for the three years from 2008-2011. However there is no evidence in the proposals of an audit of the current situation in HPA to inform future development. Account has been taken of other factors such as national economic, social and legal developments, and an assumption that HPA is performing well currently. However there has been evidence in recent years of a lack of formal planning underpinning fundamental changes to staff roles, a lack of effective communication with staff, and a failure of training provision to support new practice. An example of this is that HPA sources much of its performance information from CRAMs, but Offender Managers have, in general, received very little training on the use of CRAMs.
7. The Strategic Plan inevitably focuses on performance, however measures to achieve performance targets need to be underpinned, in an organisation for which staff is the major resource, on ensuring that staff are able to perform their roles with support from management. There is mention in the plan of the introduction of a pilot Workload Management Tool and a Staff Care Agreement during Year 1; however half-way through Year 1 there is no evidence of this. Although there are plans for the provision of management training for middle management, this is again focused on performance management and makes no provision for staff management skills. The style of management which appears to be preferred in HPA is a directive micro-management style which does not encourage staff to take personal responsibility for doing well those tasks which they have been employed to do.
8. There is provision within the plan for all staff to achieve NVQ Level 2; I am aware that there was an audit of levels at which PSOs are already qualified, but I have not seen any published results. Anecdotally it appears that the majority of staff are qualified beyond this level.
9. Aim 3 objective 2 is concerned with staff surveys showing increasing morale and high levels of satisfaction, achieved by the introduction of a recognition programme. Staff morale is not high at present and this will only be achieved if staff management skills are assessed and improved. A staff reward scheme is inappropriate at this time. Communication is also currently poor; research needs to take place to discover whether e-mail is an effective means of communicating essential information. Studies in other industries have shown that it is not effective. The plan aspires (Page 6) to a ‘workforce characterised by: high degree of motivation (to do what?) and shared ownership of the corporate vision and values’ but there is no indication of how this will be achieved apart from the proposed reward and recognition scheme and regular staff surveys, both of which are fundamentally flawed. Staff are motivated by professional satisfaction and self-esteem in spite of increasing workloads in recent years; this does not have a connection with corporate ‘vision and values’. HPA will fail to engage its workforce while there is such a huge gap between COMT and those working with offenders. Friary House can be compared to the Forbidden City in Bejing: we all know it's there but we're not sure what goes on inside; we know it impacts on our working lives but do not feel we have a voice or the opportunity to influence its agenda.
10. The current plan is written to communicate with management and therefore uses jargon extensively; jargon is an ineffective method of communicating with the workforce and may conceal a lack of realistic planning.
11. It is unclear exactly what ‘freedoms’ the new trusts will have and what kind of national framework they will operate in. We don’t know how much HPA will spend in staff resources in making arrangements to assume trust status if they are given the go ahead in June 2008.
12. Though there are no references to ‘trade unions’ or ‘consultation’ in the 3-year strategy, there are countless references to ‘performance’. It is a strategy that has been written to a performance template. We don’t know if it will work nor what happens if it doesn’t work. The fact is HPA has not been good at dealing with organisational change – the integration of unpaid work being a more recent example. We also see a senior management that has paid insufficient attention to workload management. We saw intransigence over a twelve month period in reaching a simple and reasonable compromise on hire cars; on sickness management, the days lost may have reduced, but we all know of members who have been treated unfairly in the process. Confidence of our members is not high when it comes to current processes.
13. The setting of plans in probation over recent years has resembled the turning of a kaleidoscope. We have not known whether we have been coming or going. HPA, along with other trust aspirants will submit their 3 year strategies, but no one knows what will happen in the wider world. So, it is all fairly assumptive. Probation has been in constant revolution over the past ten years. Once there were 54 probation areas, then 42 within the remit of the national probation service; then came along the Noms vision and that got dimmer and dimmer until it was nothing more than a flicker that dare not speak its name. Now there will be 42 probation trusts – but for how long? Trusts that started out independently in the health service have since been forced to merge by the government. Only a credulous mind would believe that a trust has its fate in its own hands. There is always the political pressure to change, to reorganise, and to look for economies of scale. Who is to say there won’t just be ten super/titan probation areas in 5 years? We would be better to remember the words of Petronius Arbiter written two thousand years ago: ‘
14. ‘We trained hard - but it seemed every time we were beginning to form up into teams we were reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while actually producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation.’
15. The trade unions are agnostic about trusts. They will happen sooner or later. Of far greater importance is the maintenance of strong and organised trade unions that are able to represent the interests of members collectively and individually. We are under no illusions that HPA would like to see the role of the unions weakened. The unions will seek to work constructively and honestly with HPA in our efforts to be part of a probation service that strives for performance and staff care with equal vigour.
END 15th May 2008
Posted by Hampshire at 06:21 PM | Comments (0)
May 16, 2008
PROBATION PAY BALLOT: YES, WE CAN.
You may have heard that holding public sector pay down to 2.5% for the next five years is for a greater good - keeping inflation low. That is not true. There is no such connection. Inflation now is caused by energy and food prices. All the pay ceiling does is impoverish public sector workers whilst pay in the private sector rises twice as fast. Look around: see the pace at which food and energy prices are rising, see the ever-rising profits that companies like BP, Shell, Tesco and Sainsburys are reporting...and laughing all the way to the bank...
THIS BALLOT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE TO THE EMPLOYERS.
PROBATION PAY BALLOT: HAVE YOU VOTED YET?
Extract from Pay Bulletin 6:
"We know that Ministers are watching developments with interest and have asked to be briefed on the outcome of our indicative ballot. It is vital therefore that we get a strong turnout from members and a clear vote in favour of industrial action. This will help strengthen our hand in negotiations and increase the likelihood of a positive resolution.
It is not only Ministers but also our Employers who are keenly watching this ballot. We have many new Employers on Probation Boards who don’t seem to understand the history of pay in the Service and seem to think they can shove us around. They also seem to want to ignore the fact that the 2005 Pay and Modernisation Agreement involved some “give and take” on both sides.
Any attempt on their part to effectively renege on their part of the deal, by trying to lengthen the time taken to progress up the pay scales, must be strongly resisted".
“The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any.” Alice Walker
Posted by Hampshire at 09:27 PM | Comments (0)
May 14, 2008
BOXED IN
'You don't get good results with offenders unless you really connect with them, win their respect and help them to address their problems. I'm clear that our daily work must be meaningful and not just a box ticking exercise.'
Phil Wheatley, Director General of Noms
He was talking about probation. It is an acknowledgment that we have become box tickers, which was never a job feature previously associated with probation work. So, words to be welcomed from someone who although 'outside' the probation service seems to understand it better...
Posted by Hampshire at 06:25 PM | Comments (0)
ECONOMICS
Inflation is rising - a sharp rise this month. It would have helped a little to have had our increments. Teachers, health and local government workers all got their increments! If you feel angry, stay angry and make sure you vote in the indicative ballot. If you have not received your ballot paper, please email: membership@napo.org.uk
Your standard of living is being eroded when pay lags behind inflation. Your employers care about your work performance, pity they care less about your wages. Please vote. VOTE BEFORE THE END OF THIS MONTH.
A breakdown of yesterday's Official National Statistics data revealed that food prices were up 6.6% over the past year - the highest rise since the Consumer Price Index was first used as a yardstick for inflation in 1997. Households are also being hit by rising energy prices, with the electricity, gas and other fuels element of the CPI 8.3% up on April 2007. Other measures of inflation also rose last month. The retail prices index excluding mortgage-interest payments was up 4% in the year to April, the fastest rate since 1992. The all-items RPI - the benchmark for many pay agreements - rose from 3.8% to 4.2%.
JOINT STATEMENT:
Members are asked to support this call for action for the following reasons:
Breach of Faith – The Employers are saying that increments must be treated as part of this year’s pay negotiations, and when the amounts have been agreed they will be backdated to 1 April.
• There is nothing in the 2005 Pay and Modernisation Agreement which means that 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 2008.
• At no stage in the negotiations on the 2005 Pay Agreement did the Employers ever say that increments would not be paid from 1 April 2008 if the overall pay settlement had not been agreed by that date.
Increments are a contractual right - Probation staff are appointed to a pay scale not a pay point and since the 1920s probation staff have always received their due increment independent of the annual pay negotiations on a “cost of living” increase. At no time has the trade union side agreed to remove that contractual entitlement. If we allow the Employers to threaten this right, what will they come for next?
A Pay Cut – The non payment of increments will have undermined members’ legitimate expectations in respect of their income for April 2008. For some staff, the increased pension contributions, and for some the tax changes, will have meant that without the increment they suffer pay cut.
No Pay Offer - The Employers say they want to take increments into account in their overall pay offer. Despite the trade union side pay claim of 5% being submitted in January, that claim has been rejected as unaffordable but no alternative offer has yet been made. An offer based on the Treasury remit of 2%, when inflation is running at 4 %, would mean a further pay cut in real terms, quite apart from the issue of pay progression.
Differential Treatment – Other public sector workers with whom probation staff have traditionally been seen as comparable:
• Local government workers,
• Teachers and
• Health workers,
have received their 1 April increments regardless of the stage of their pay negotiations.
Support Your Negotiators - Negotiations are continuing with the Employers and if we can resolve this dispute by negotiations we will do so. We are also talking to lawyers about the legal routes that may be open to us to challenge this reach of contract.
But we need your support - A large “YES” vote will strengthen our hand to resolve this dispute through negotiations, but we also need to know that members will support industrial action should it be necessary. The industrial action that would be needed would include strike action as well as action such as working to contracted hours.
Vote Yes For Action
Judy McKnight, Napo - Ben Priestley, Unison
Posted by Hampshire at 05:57 PM | Comments (0)
May 11, 2008
THE PERFORMANCE OF YOUR PAY
Performing very poorly. Don't look to the employers to be concerned about poor performance in this area. The employers have told Napo nationally that your morale is high. Pay eroding, conditions of service being eroded, but our employers see everyone as happy. And we are offered - great timing - reward and recognition schemes!! The best way of rewarding and recognising is through the pay packets of members and supporting the payment of increments denied .
It is important to vote. A low turnout and just watch the employers claim that everyone is really happy deep down. Cast you vote, vote YES, and that will give the employers something to chew on. Passivity means low pay, poorer conditions and the usual exhortations to perform, perform, perform...
A large “YES” vote will assist us as negotiators to see if it is possible to resolve this dispute without industrial action.
The Employers have the nerve to tell us that staff morale is high. A large turnout in the ballot and a clear vote for action will show that up for the nonsense we all know it to be.
The ballot closes on 30 May and any member who has not received a ballot paper by 12 May should contact the Membership Department at Napo.
Posted by Hampshire at 03:00 PM | Comments (0)
May 10, 2008
SEEKING TRUST STATUS
We, having been invited into the process belatedly, are in the process of submitting a joint trade union response on HPA's plans to seek trust status in the second wave. We invite members to contact us with their views on the strategy document and also their views on the proposed reward and recognition scheme.
Posted by Hampshire at 02:46 PM | Comments (0)
May 08, 2008
CAR PARKING
You may have read the reference to a car parking review in the recent COMT note which stated the following:
‘The review of car parking is still taking place but it has been delayed. We will receive a first report on this at our next COMT meeting in May. I want to stress that there are no preconceived results of this review. There will also be a consultation period, when we have looked at the options. You will probably hear more about this in June. Meanwhile everyone who receives car parking should have had their season tickets renewed for a six month period.’ (COMT Highlight Report (Number 6) – May 2008)
Napo has previously sent out notes on this subject to members. We need to make it clear that the recognised trade unions have not been party to the review. Although we were told we would have a place on the working party that did not happen. We made this comment about car parking on the Hampshire branch website on 27 April.
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.
Posted by Hampshire at 02:47 PM | Comments (0)
May 06, 2008
VOTE YES FOR ACTION
Following the recording of a dispute over the non payment of increments, ballot papers have now been issued to all full Probation members seeking support for the principle of industrial action in an indicative ballot.
A large “YES” vote will assist us as negotiators to see if it is possible to resolve this dispute without industrial action.
The Employers have the nerve to tell us that staff morale is high. A large turnout in the ballot and a clear vote for action will show that up for the nonsense we all know it to be.
The ballot closes on 30 May and any member who has not received a ballot paper by 12 May should contact the Membership Department at Napo.
Posted by Hampshire at 08:15 PM | Comments (0)
May 04, 2008
SICKNESS MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: THE FACTS.
Hygeia: Greek Goddess of Health.
Last week a meeting of all the operational managers was addressed by the HR director on the subject of sickness management. We understand that Napo's interpretation of the policy and procedures was contrasted with HPAs interpretation. It is regrettable that almost one year on there is not a single interpretation as this would be in everyone's interest. Napo would be pleased to receive an invitation to debate sickness management in front of operational managers so we can put across our views on how sickness management procedures should operate. For the benefit of our members we make the following observations.
Napo agrees with every part of the nationally agreed policy – every single letter of the policy; we also agree with the procedures as laid down in the policy. Our long-standing objection is that HPA does not adhere to the policy or procedures and it is these practices that go against the interests of our members. Industrial relations in HPA have been in a sorry state for a long time and one of the main elements in the breakdown of constructive relations has been disagreements over sickness management. The following sets out Napo’s position on the policy and procedures.
ABSENCES: HPA promulgate the view that all absences are unsatisfactory. We regard this type of statement as platitudinous. From the employer’s viewpoint we can understand that absences are unsatisfactory to the organisation, but in the context of an individual absentee there may be good reasons for the absence. Reasons for absences matter in law. Furthermore, reasons matter in the policy. This is why pregnancy-related absences do not count towards the triggers for short-term absences; it is why disability-related absences can be discounted from the trigger points and it is why triggers can actually be extended as a ‘reasonable adjustment’ under the policy. It is also why the policy stresses staff must be treated as individuals and have all relevant considerations taken into account. Nowhere in the policy does it say that on reaching the trigger point there must be an automatic referral to formal proceedings. The trigger should not be treated as a target. The national policy is strong on applying the principles of diversity.
LETTER TO ATTEND A FORMAL MEETING: The template letters that are sent to staff to inform that they are required to attend a formal meeting to address their unsatisfactory absence are inadequate. The letter undermines the legal right to be accompanied by a trade union official by the way it is worded. This has led to problems about setting up meetings. In addition, the template letter contradicts the policy. This is what the policy says the letter should say:
‘The line manager must: set out details of the unsatisfactory attendance, including a copy of all relevant documentation, e.g. copies of return to work interview notes and OHS advice’
Unfortunately this never happens: details of the unsatisfactory absence are never set out. All we see are the number of days - reaching the trigger. All relevant documentation must be provided, but the template letter has dropped the word ‘must’ and inserted ‘whenever possible’.
For Napo to effectively represent members we need to see all the evidence that is being drawn upon to allege unsatisfactory absence. Napo gets accused of being unreasonable, adding to delays, even being the cause of stress for members, for insisting that all the information is provided. Unfortunately it is rarely provided intact. When it is the quality can be poor, with no evidence of growing concerns, a chain of reasoning; evidence/documentation can be non-existent. We are told not to be too fussy because the formal meeting is not a disciplinary meeting. We strongly dispute that assertion. The reason why members have the right to be accompanied is because they are attending a formal meeting that is disciplinary-based. It is the start of a process that may lead to dismissal. In such circumstances it is no surprise that the policy says all evidence and documentation must be provided. It is unacceptable to take a less rigorous approach with ‘whenever possible’ It is probable that in due course there will be dismissals. Napo would look extremely foolish and incompetent for condoning practices that failed to provide their members’ with the actual evidence their dismissals were based upon. This is what paragraph 2, bullet point 2 of the policy says: ‘Ensure that clear reporting and recording procedures are in place’ Twelve months on they are not in place.
LINE MANAGER DISCRETION: This has been another area of contention. This is what the policy says and what we agreed last October with HPA because there was considerable confusion, caused by the way the policy had been unilaterally implemented by HPA. We hoped the Joint Statement would lead to clarity. In relation to the role of the line managers the Joint Statement said,
‘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.’
Unfortunately, Napo has seen an email from an area manager, sent to SPOs last February, which quite clearly seeks to usurp discretion and presses for improvement notices to be issued to those who are subject to formal action. We have had numerous reports from line managers who are confused about their role. Napo’s frustration here is that we agree a Joint Statement in good faith and before the ink is dry there are other briefings going on.
REFERRAL TO FORMAL MEETINGS: Napo has no complaints about such referrals. If a line manager forms the view that an individual’s pattern of absence is unsatisfactory, then all we ask is that the details, in other words the reasons for the action, are set out. Likewise if there is a decision not to refer to formal proceedings, even though the trigger has been reached, then we say provide the reasons for the action. The probation service routinely provides reasons for its actions but when it comes to sickness absence there are persistent failures to provide reasons. The reasons are the evidence. This, if required, enables the individual to challenge the reasons or the conclusions drawn, but if the reasons are not set out clearly then members are at a distinct disadvantage in formal meetings. This breaches the principles of natural justice and is an unfair practice that HPA is using against members. A recent example illustrates this: a member is informed s/he will be subject to a Stage 1 because the trigger has been passed – no other reasons were provided. This is challenged by Napo on the grounds of the actual reasons for the sickness absence. A few weeks pass then the member is told there will be no Stage 1 – but, again, no reasons are given for this change of mind. This is arbitrary and unfair and there is no explanation of why decisions must be taken secretly.
Paragraph 5 of the policy says, ‘Accurate record keeping of all sickness absences helps to develop a fair and consistent approach to managing attendance. It is also a way of raising staff awareness of management’s interest in this area whilst highlighting to each individual their own level of sickness absence.’
TRADE UNION REPRESENTATION: Napo has a duty to provide the most effective representation for members. We believe the best way of doing so is by working within the framework of the nationally agreed policy. When we see HPA not following the policy we have a choice. We can say this is unacceptable and that if you cannot provide us with your reasoning, or you cannot provide the evidence, then you should come back to us when you can. We can say, and do, that you should not be seeking to use a disciplinary-based procedure against our members in circumstances where you cannot, or refuse to, provide reasons and when you cannot provide all the documentation. When you have your reasons and your evidence then by all means use the procedures and then we can hold properly convened formal meetings. Our other option is to say, yes, we understand there are no reasons being given and that you don’t have all the evidence and there are missing records, but that’s OK, we can still proceed without delay to a formal meeting.
We know which the right course is and we have sought advice from national representatives. We know these procedures are unpleasant and stressful for members and the line managers involved and also those who witness what goes on, but the representation we provide will be based on what is in the best interests of our members – it will not be representation based on expediency. We do not want to hear any member in a situation in the future saying, why did you allow that to happen or waive that right of mine? Napo does not exist to condone the erosion of members’ employment rights. The assurance here is that Napo will respect the policy and procedures; we believe that in following the procedures faithfully we are safeguarding the rights and interests of our members as best we can. Can you imagine the rightful indignation that HPA would express towards Napo if we said we will follow this but not follow that part of the procedure? Why HPA believe they can pick and choose from the policy is a matter for them to explain to staff.
DUTY OF CARE: HPA has a duty to adhere to a nationally agreed policy. We submit that failing to do so puts HPA in breach of its duty of care.
The template letters are not compliant with the policy. The notion itself of a template letter is questionable when staff are meant to be treated as individuals. The reasons for unsatisfactory absence are not being communicated.
Line managers are being hampered in the exercise of their professional discretion. There is evidence strongly suggesting that the triggers are being treated as the sole determinant for referrals to formal meetings. The Equality Impact Assessment completed in November last year, that Napo had pressed for since May of last year, specifically criticised the way HPA had been operating the procedures during that earlier six months period. The EIA asserted the importance of line manager discretion and clear reporting. Unfortunately, there have been no improvements since that assessment. Current practices are still not compliant with the policy and the risks of potentially discriminating against members have not been reduced.
Line managers complain of a lack of training in understanding the policy and operating the procedures. This has not been helped by mixed messages from HPA about the role of discretion. Disability – related absence and an understanding of what may constitute ‘reasonable adjustments’ under the DDA is a specific area where training is needed. Paragraph 2, bullet point 8, says, ‘Will ensure that disability awareness is included in attendance management training’. The policy is strong on advice in relation to life-work balance issues, especially in relation to managing disabilities and making creative reasonable adjustments.
PERFORMANCE AND STAFF CARE: These two concerns are not mutually exclusive. Napo, as much as HPA, wishes to see reduced sickness absence. There will never be zero sickness absence, but quality management of sickness absence can help to keep levels of absence to a minimum, by managing it firmly and fairly. The national sickness management policy seeks to strike a balance between the need for improved performance – fewer absences and faster returns to work; and staff care – treating staff as individuals, being sensitive and mindful of the nature and reasons for absences.
Napo does not advocate being indifferent to absences or tolerating high levels, or apparent abuses, not least as this impact on staff in work. But abuses are small and we know the overwhelming majority of staff who require sickness absence require it for genuine reasons. There may come a point where it becomes unsustainable to continue in employment, whether through incapacity or misconduct. However, if that point is reached it must be on the basis of having followed procedures correctly and faithfully.
A focus just on performance, on outcomes, can result in less attention being paid to processes, staff care, and employment law. The ends cannot be used to justify the means. If it was solely about performance there would be no allowances made for pregnancy – related absences, or allowances made for those with disabilities or allowances made for staff who suffer setbacks with their health - setbacks that can arise through a variety of circumstances, which can also be influenced by age, sex and working practices. This is why all employees deserve to be managed as individuals and be treated on the merits of their particular circumstances. And that is exactly what the nationally agreed sickness management policy instructs – be firm, but be fair. This is entirely in line with the first paragraph of the guide to managing sickness absence:
‘Chief Officers and Heads of Human Resources should make clear to line managers that sickness absence needs to be managed sympathetically, but actively and firmly and fairly. This guide is intended to provide a framework for managers and employees to assist managers in managing sickness absence confidently and effectively and to ensure that appropriate levels of support are provided to every member of staff.’ (SMP 2007)
To return to the beginning: Napo would be pleased to be given an opportunity to debate the sickness management policy in front of operational managers who can then hear both sides of the argument and question senior management and the Trade Union side.
END
Posted by Hampshire at 04:27 PM | Comments (0)
May 03, 2008
VOTE YES FOR ACTION
Vote Yes For Action
Following the recording of a dispute over the non payment of increments, ballot papers have now been issued to all full Probation members seeking support for the principle of industrial action in an indicative ballot.
A large “YES” vote will assist us as negotiators to see if it is possible to resolve this dispute without industrial action.
The Employers have the nerve to tell us that staff morale is high. A large turnout in the ballot and a clear vote for action will show that up for the nonsense we all know it to be.
The ballot closes on 30 May and any member who has not received a ballot paper by 12 May should contact the Membership Department at Napo.
Here is a copy of the Joint Statement we have produced with Unison on the reasons to Vote “Yes” for action.
Posted by Hampshire at 09:06 AM | Comments (0)