« June 2008 | Main | August 2008 »
July 31, 2008
IN MEMORY: RAY WYRE
A Napo member writes:
"I had confirmation late last night of the death of our former HPA colleague, sometime NAPO member and Conference attendee RAY WYRE on the 20/6/2008.
I would appreciate you circulating this news to our current membership, some of whom will have known Ray personally from his days at I B Road in Portsmouth in particular and others who may know of his work with sex offenders.
Ray Wyre
Trailblazing therapist with a unique approach to sex offenders
Edward Marriott , Friday August 8 2008
Ray Wyre, who has died from a stroke, aged 56, was one of the world's leading experts on sexual crime. He pioneered the treatment of sex offenders in residential therapy settings, believing that the potential for change existed within every criminal and, most importantly, that this work was crucial in reducing the risk of further offending. His distinctive therapeutic approach, which involved making bold but research-based assumptions about what other crimes an individual might have committed, was often controversial, but yielded spectacular results.
As his former colleague Charles Fortt puts it, "He didn't treat people punitively because they had offended, he worked with them in a way which enabled them to reveal the worst things they'd done. The men believed that Ray knew what was inside them, things that no one else had seen."
Wyre worked with some of the UK's most dangerous offenders, including Reggie Kray and child-killer Robert Black. The success of his methods, and his striking ability to enter the mind of the offender, made him a trusted police adviser in important criminal investigations and court hearings. In the Black case, Wyre was asked by his defence lawyers to assess the murderer. Black, already serving a life sentence for a vicious sexual assault, cancelled his appeal on reading Wyre's report, and was subsequently convicted of the murder of three girls. Wyre also worked with Anne Marie West as the police prepared the case against her parents, Fred and Rosemary, for their trial in 1994.
Wyre had set up the Gracewell clinic in Birmingham during the late 1980s. It was the world's first residential clinic for sex offenders, followed, in the mid-1990s, by the Wolvercote clinic in Surrey, which boasted non-reoffending rates of 80%. Among his many legacies was legislative change provoked by work he did with television journalist Roger Cook. It was after one of their programmes that, in 1987, child pornography was made illegal in the UK.
Wyre was born in Hampshire. His father was a chief petty officer and Wyre, after leaving school at 15, joined the Navy as a submarine torpedo man. After leaving, Wyre embarked on theological training, which involved a stint as a volunteer warden at a working men's hospital. This experience helped him decide against ordination, and in the late 1970s, he was taken on as a trainee probation officer at Winson Green prison in Birmingham, where his first patient was a sex offender.
Though he had little time for organised religion, his faith remained important to him, informing his deeply felt belief that, in the words of his long-time colleague Steve Lowe, "even in the people who are hated by society, there is a good person lurking in there somewhere". He would later joke that he owed his success in public speaking - which took him around the world, lecturing to shocked audiences of diplomats, NGOs and government policy makers - to his training in the ministry.
From 1981 to 1986, he worked with category-A inmates at Albany prison on the Isle of Wight, pioneering group therapy for sex offenders. He later said he was "always fighting the system because no one wanted me to do this sort of work. They thought sex offenders were one-offs and wouldn't do it again; they didn't understand that it's a lifelong pattern of behaviour and that unless people go through therapy while in prison, they'll go straight out and resume where they left off".
In 1988 he founded the Gracewell clinic, thanks to financial backing from Trevor Price, a Midlands property entrepreneur. It was the world's first residential clinic for sex offenders to take referrals, initially from the probation service, but later accepting men who had thus far managed to avoid the criminal justice system. Among the many innovations Wyre introduced was the use of resident offenders to challenge the beliefs of new or more resistant arrivals. The knowledge he and fellow practitioners acquired became an important source of information to police investigators from all over the country. The clinic closed in 1993, partly through local objections to so many paedophiles being housed under one roof. In 2002, the same fate befell Gracewell's successor, the Wolvercote clinic in Surrey. Despite Wyre's trailblazing work, there is now no residential unit of this kind in the UK.
Optimistic, cheerful and obsessed by his work, Wyre loved politically incorrect jokes, and would often find it hard to finish them because he was already laughing uproariously in anticipation of the punchline. He was fond of magic tricks, and was an accomplished poker player, once appearing on a Channel 4 series about the game. Lowe puts Wyre's success at poker down to his skill at "reading" other people. "Poker, for him, wasn't about gambling. He'd never have gambled his house, but he often came away with a wallet full of money, and a little-boy smile on his face."
Among his published works are Women, Men and Rape, and Murder of Childhood, about Robert Black.
Wyre's first marriage ended in divorce. He is survived by his wife Charmaine, and three children, now all adults, from his first marriage.
Ray Wyre, crime consultant, born November 2 1951; died June 20 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/aug/08/psychology.ukcrime
Posted by Hampshire at 07:17 PM | Comments (0)
July 30, 2008
THE QUESTIONNAIRE - DO NOT RESPOND
Napo members are being asked to complete the consultation questionnaire and include your name, location, ECU and parking status. Individual members completing this questionnaire, we are advised, could be compromising their employment rights because the questionnaires are not anonymised.
The questionnaire has been sent out with your payslips. If you currently receive ECU, but do not do 1500 miles a year, please look at your take home pay and deduct £200 as this is what we calculate you could lose, given the proposals in the document.
We are therefore advising all Napo members not to respond to the questionnaire from the chief officer, Barrie Crook, by dutifully answering the points it seeks your responses to. The chief officer is seeking to undermine the role of the recognised trade unions with his questionnaire. It was never raised with the unions, never mind discussed.
This is not the proper way to consult with members of unions. HPA does not have a distinguished record in looking after the codes and conditions of staff. You should recall the chief officer’s response to the failure to pay increments. He said the pay deal had come to an end. He did not support or wish to honour the immediate payment of increments.
On ECU we negotiated with HPA and consulted with members. We reached an agreement and within days HPA was watering it down. Now you are told you are better off than other areas. Don’t you believe it! We have collated a lot of information from Napo branches in other areas and the picture painted by the chief officer is in his own colours and from his own perspective. For example, there are areas that retain ECU, including Surrey; there have been buy outs, including one area that paid £3000 to each ECU holder.
The current 500 miles threshold in our area was put forward by Barrie Crook himself and only came into effect six months ago. He now talks about 1500 miles – it could be any amount, but if he does not like it, despite any agreement, he will try to change it, as he has with the existing agreement.
The consultation paper mentions historic mileage (ECU entitlement is calculated on previous years mileage) - this was put forward by Christine Straw, management’s negotiator. As for the two tier system this is not part of the agreement, which has been implemented in such a way in order to create a two tier system. The two tier system was created by Christine Straw and Barrie Crook and it is this that the unions have been making representations against.
And don’t believe that HPA has a gifted approach to consultation. Remember the integration of unpaid work? Some of you may have individual experiences of how HPA approaches consultation. Barrie Crook cites a Unison grievance in his paper about two tiers. In fact we have a members’ grievance on the bigger issue of consultation at the moment.
On an issue that is fundamentally about your level of income, ask yourself: who can I trust to best represent my interests? The Unions or HPA?
And how do the unions represent? We consult with members and then we take our mandate and represent the interest’s of members through negotiations with the employer. We look to get the best outcome we can. We can ask HPA searching questions about their spending priorities and whether HPA has the best staffing configuration for supporting frontline staff. Are there other savings that could be made in other parts of the service? Are some parts of HPA bloated, top heavy?
It is all very well for HPA to beguile with ‘consultation’ but watch out if they seek to claim that a 20-30% response rate to the questionnaire is representative and therefore justifies their proposed actions. This is not the open and transparent exercise it may appear.
Napo members are seeing their terms and conditions cut in HPA. Yes, there are national forces at work but do not overlook the differences that local management can make in terms of ameliorating impacts. There may well be arguments that HPA could have done more in times of plenty, instead of spending tens of thousands on management consultants, controlling software, rebranding and logos.
We say to our membership: do not give a Trojan horse of a questionnaire a mandate. Reject it and trust in your elected representatives – and try your best to attend the next branch meeting on Friday 22nd August at Town Quay when we are sure there will be more to be said on the subject of cuts. And they are cuts – to use euphemisms like efficiency savings is insulting.
“Sorry, I can’t pay my ever-increasing bills – on the grounds of efficiency savings! “
Posted by Hampshire at 02:36 PM | Comments (0)
July 27, 2008
INFORMATION ABOUT BULLYING
EVERYONE SHOULD BE TREATED WITH DIGNITY AND RESPECT AT WORK.
Bullying and harassment of any kind are in no-one’s interest and should not be tolerated in the workplace.
WHAT ARE BULLYING AND HARASSMENT?
Examples and definitions of what may be considered bullying and harassment are provided below for guidance. For practical purposes those making a complaint usually define what they mean by bullying or harassment – something has happened to them that is unwelcome, unwarranted and causes a detrimental effect. If employees1 complain they are being bullied or harassed, then they have a grievance which must be dealt with regardless of whether or not their complaint accords with a standard definition.
HOW CAN BULLYING AND HARASSMENT BE RECOGNISED?
There are many definitions of bullying and harassment. Bullying may be characterised as offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means intended to undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient.
Harassment, in general terms, is:
unwanted conduct affecting the dignity of men and women in the workplace. It may be related to age, sex, race, disability, religion, nationality or any personal characteristic of the individual, and may be persistent or an isolated incident. The key is that the actions or comments are viewed as demeaning and unacceptable to the recipient.
Behaviour that is considered bullying by one person may be considered firm management by another. Most people will agree on extreme cases of bullying and harassment but it is sometimes the ‘grey’ areas that cause most problems. It is good practice for employers to give examples of what is unacceptable behaviour in their organisation and this may include:
• spreading malicious rumours, or insulting someone (particularly on the grounds of race, sex, disability, sexual orientation and religion or belief)
• copying memos that are critical about someone to others who do not need to know
• ridiculing or demeaning someone – picking on them or setting them up to fail
• exclusion or victimisation
• unfair treatment
• overbearing supervision or other misuse of power or position
• unwelcome sexual advances – touching, standing too close, display of offensive materials
• making threats or comments about job security without foundation
• deliberately undermining a competent worker by overloading and constant criticism
• preventing individuals progressing by intentionally blocking promotion or training opportunities.
Bullying and harassment are not necessarily face to face, they may be by written communications, electronic (e)mail (so called ‘flame-mail’), phone, and automatic supervision methods – such as computer recording of downtime from work, or recording of telephone conversations – if these are not universally applied to all workers.
Bullying and harassment can often be hard to recognise – they may not be obvious to others, and may be insidious. The recipient may think ‘perhaps this is normal behaviour in this organisation’. They may be anxious that others will consider them weak, or not up to the job, if they find the actions of others intimidating. They may be accused of ‘overreacting’, and worry that they won’t be believed if they do report incidents.
People being bullied or harassed may sometimes appear to overreact to something that seems relatively trivial but which may be the ‘last straw’ following a series of incidents. There is often fear of retribution if they do make a complaint. Colleagues may be reluctant to come forward as witnesses, as they too may fear the consequences for themselves. They may be so relieved not to be the subject of the bully themselves that they collude with the bully as a way of avoiding attention.
THE LEGAL POSITION
Discrimination and harassment
It is not possible to make a direct complaint to an employment tribunal about bullying. However, employees might be able to bring complaints under laws covering discrimination and harassment. For example:
• sex: the Sex Discrimination Act gives protection against discrimination and victimisation on the grounds of sex, marriage or because someone intends to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment
• race: the Race Relations Act 1976 gives protection against discrimination and victimisation on the grounds of colour or nationality. The regulations that amended the Act (Race Regulations 2003) also give a stand alone right to protection from harassment on the grounds of race and ethnic or national origin
• disability: the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 gives protection against discrimination and victimisation
• sexual orientation: the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 give protection against discrimination and harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation (orientation is defined as 'same sex' - lesbian/gay - 'opposite sex' - heterosexual - and 'both sexes' - bisexual)
• religion or belief: the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 give protection against discrimination and harassment on the grounds of religion or belief.
UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Employers have a 'duty of care' for all their employees. If the mutual trust and confidence between employer and employee is broken - for example, through bullying and harassment at work - then an employee can resign and claim 'constructive dismissal' on the grounds of breach of contract. Employers are usually responsible in law for the acts of their workers.
HEALTH AND SAFETY
Breach of contract may also include the failure to protect an employee's health and safety at work. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 employers are responsible for the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees.
SEEK NAPO ADVICE
Posted by Hampshire at 01:09 PM | Comments (0)
July 25, 2008
PAY DISPUTE UPDATE
The NNC met on the 24 July. It became clear that the employers and Ministry of Justice officials were ready to start responding to the unions’ pay claim and address the issues raised by our two disputes i.e. the withholding of increments and failure to make an acceptable and reasonable pay offer.
See Download:
Posted by Hampshire at 08:37 PM | Comments (0)
July 23, 2008
Posted by Hampshire at 06:56 PM | Comments (0)
MORE INCOME CUTS
You have probably received Barrie Crook's, chief officer, COMT highlight report, number 9, July 2008, most of which is about what he calls 'budget planning'.
The report states that all staff will shortly receive a questionnaire with their payslips asking about ECU and car parking options.
The issues around the budget were discussed with operational managers and Barrie Crook suggests that if you have any queries to discuss these queries with your manager. We would suggest that before replying to any questionnaire you discuss any queries with Napo representatives. Once we have seen the questionnaire we will send out further advice.
We believe that the method adopted by Barrie Crook for consultation is an attempt to undermine the opportunity for a collective response from Napo members.
Members will be aware that an ECU agreement was struck with Barrie Crook recently and it only came into effect from the beginning of this year. He knew then about the budget, but barely six months in it is clear he is trying to rip up the agreement. This calls into question the standing of all agreements with HPA and the protection of individual members that these agreements are there to safeguard.
Posted by Hampshire at 06:44 PM | Comments (0)
STAFF SURVEY - FIVE YEARS ON: GREAT LEAP FORWARD?
2003 STAFF SURVEY – TOP FIVE POOR PERCEPTIONS
Staff feel their workload has increased over the last 12 months
Staff feel that they have had to put in a lot of extra time in the last 12 months to meet the demands of their workload
Staff feel that more could be done to help them prepare for and cope with change
Staff do not feel that excessive workload is dealt with effectively at work
Staff do not feel that Senior Managers understand the problems staff face in their daily roles
FIVE YEARS LATER!
2008 STAFF SURVEY – KEY AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Many Staff feel more could be done to help them prepare for and cope with change
Many staff do not feel that excessive workload is dealt with effectively at work
Many staff do not feel that change within the NPS is managed well
Many staff feel there is too much national change for change sake
Many staff do not feel that stress is dealt with effectively at work.
Posted by Hampshire at 06:42 PM | Comments (0)
July 22, 2008
COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
We had a meeting today to discuss Hampshire's proposed communications strategy. In the downloads you can read HPA's proposals and read Napo's response. What concerns us at present is HPA's attitude to the unions...
This is an extract for our response to the consultation:
TRADE UNIONS
'In paragraph 4 there is mention of the trade unions. We reiterate that consultation will not suffice at times. Nor would we accept that the management side will have the only say on what is relevant in terms of topics for discussion or information exchange. We are here being ‘consulted’ about HPA’s internal communications, ever-mindful that the chief officer has done his best to weaken Napo’s capacities to communicate and organise. HPA needs to come out of denial about the limits of consultation. We look to see evidence of HPA’s recognition of the importance of the dissemination of information as it would be far preferable to making freedom of information requests. We also, of course, communicate as best we can with our membership and as the recognised trade union for 270 members of staff we expect HPA to respect our representative role and not seek to undermine our consultation exercises with our membership. Sometimes the trade unions may lead opinion, quite rightly, on issues, but more often they represent the opinions and concerns of their membership and in communicating with staff HPA should look to partner, not marginalise, the trade unions. Going over the heads of the trade unions is not effective communication and does not work.'
Posted by Hampshire at 09:41 PM | Comments (0)
July 11, 2008
RECRUITMENT: EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST
This advice is going out to Unison members as well. You will have heard of the phrase ‘Expressions of Interest’ in relation to recruitment. It is also used when staff are invited to join a ‘trawl’ to enable expressions of interest regarding moving to another post in HPA. We are – and the next word is carefully chosen – appalled by reports we have started to receive.
We are strongly advising all Napo members to contact Napo if they are considering engaging – or currently engaged - in an expression of interest exercise. We will tell you it is a process that lies outside the policy on vacancy management. The procedures are not written down or agreed with the Unions; there is no openness and transparency; it is a process that is not in the interests of staff; it is a process where we are getting reports that individuals are being treated unfairly and it is a process where there is a high risk of unlawful discrimination. If you are currently involved in an expression of interest exercise, we urge you to contact Napo. In the absence of an agreed policy and a clear set of procedures it is detrimental to the interests of members. Expressions of Interest have not been impact assessed in respect of equalities.
I spoke to a senior manager last week and asked what would happen if there were several expressions of interest in the same post. I was told it would mean that competitive interviews would be held. That, unfortunately, is not how it is being operated – applicants are being ‘filtered’, on very dubious grounds, out of the process and the expressions of interest stage is effectively being used to deny individuals the right to make formal applications.
Two recent example: individual told by HR they would not be considered for a post because of sickness absence record – the days off sick were significantly below the 9 days national target never mind HPA’s trigger of 12 days; in the second, told by HR could not apply even though, again, nowhere near the national average of 9 days. Information collected for the purposes of sickness absence are therefore being used for another purpose - to filter applications. Napo would urge any members, especially if you have a disability to let us know if you have been similarly treated. We don’t know at this stage if other filters are being used. What is bizarre about this is that staff are working in one setting but being denied development opportunities within the Area. What therefore is the purpose of such decision-making? Those affected certainly experience it as punitive. And we don’t know how those who fall under the disability discrimination act, or other legislation, will be treated if they express an interest in another post and happen to have sickness absence recorded. This begs the question whether any sickness absence will preclude access to job opportunities or will it be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 days?
We earlier referred to information obtained for one purpose being used for another purpose without the knowledge or consent of the individual. If you submitted an expression of interest and mentioned nothing about sickness absence and discover that such information has been used to deselect you, then there could be a potential data protection breach to explore as such activities may not be lawful. Sickness absence information is ‘sensitive data’ and to make use of it normally requires the consent of the individual. This is why proper application forms seek consent to disclose in respect of sensitive information. You may also wish to know with whom your sensitive information was shared and under whose authority; and what discussions took place about the nature of any sickness absence.
The true weakness of this type of informal approach to recruitment is that it lacks accountability. We are extremely concerned its operation will lead to unfair outcomes – in fact it already is leading to unfair outcomes and hurting individuals. All Napo members need to appreciate that such practices may be affecting others in the present but they could impact on you in the future.
Our view is that HPA should follow the proper formal process and advertise all posts and allow anyone who wishes to apply for positions. That is what we understand by equal opportunities and the Codes of Employment, which you can find on the Personnel database, is also a policy with a clear set of procedures that must be followed HPA – and by which HPA can be held accountable. There is no apparent accountability with expressions of interest and that is a very bad thing.
Posted by Hampshire at 06:19 PM | Comments (0)
UNISON STRIKE 16TH AND 17TH JULY
Dear Colleague
Unison Strike – 16th and 17th July 2008
Unison Local Government members will be taking strike action on Wednesday 16th and Thursday 17th July. This follows rejection of the pay offer and a failure by the employers to negotiate any improvement.
Advice to members
The majority of Napo members will not be directly affected by this strike. However, members working in Youth Justice could be working alongside Unison members who will be taking part in the action. It is recognised that members will want to support Unison colleagues as much as possible but any Napo member who chooses not to cross the picket line could face disciplinary action short of dismissal, in addition to losing a day’s pay.
Any member who is likely to find a Unison picket line at work is advised:
• to seek to work in a different venue on 16th and 17th July
• if choosing to cross a picket line, only to undertake your normal duties and do not undertake duties that members on strike would normally do (unless you are formally instructed to do so within the terms of your contract).
Showing support
Napo is sending a message of support to Unison nationally. Branches are asked to send messages of support to their local Unison Branches. You can find out more about the strike and add a personal message of support by following this link – http://www.unison.org.uk/paymatters/index.asp
Branches are also asked to try and send representatives to any local Unison rallies in their area.
Yours sincerely
JONATHAN LEDGER
General Secretary
Posted by Hampshire at 05:24 PM | Comments (0)
July 05, 2008
REVISED CODE OF CONDUCT - NAPO'S OBJECTIONS
The revised code of conduct recently placed on the database is not recognised by Napo, because there was insufficient consultation and negotiation on its contents.
The third paragraph of the document says:
‘We have agreed the code with the relevant trade unions and it applies to all staff, whether you are permanent, temporary or voluntary’ and the last paragraph says: ‘This policy has been agreed through the joint consultative machinery’
Both these statements are untrue.
We will be making further formal representations to HPA about this policy and we hope a proper agreement can be reached.
The main purpose of this note, however, is to explain to members why we object to the policy as it stands.
The first point to make is that we are agreed with the majority of its contents. Most of the content flows from the agreed 2003 code of conduct. You may recall last year we consulted with members about a proposed dress code. We received helpful feedback and this in turn informed our discussions with HR. The original dress code ran to some four pages and was unnecessarily prescriptive. It was subsequently incorporated into the 2008 code of conduct in a single paragraph. That was positive evidence of consultation and negotiation.
The areas where we are not content relates to the extensive sections on data protection, email and internet monitoring and some language.
INTELLIGIBILITY AND TRAINING
Paragraph 9 refers to duties and responsibilities in relation to data protection and says you should ‘familiarise yourself with, and comply with, all NPS security policies. (Incidentally in paragraph 20 which draws attention to related policies and key documents there is no mention of any security policies, so not clear what policies should be read!)
Presumably one of the key documents is the Email & Internet Communications Policy March 2006 – this runs to 21 pages. We don’t imagine many staff are familiar with this. The Napo view is that telling staff to ‘familiarise’ themselves is unreasonable. HPA we say must have a duty to ensure that staff understand policies and know the parameters of what is acceptable practice. It leaves staff extremely vulnerable to disciplinary charges if they unknowingly break the rules. There is a duty of care that HPA is failing to demonstrate and advice to ‘familiarise’ is insufficient in our view.
Data protection remains an arcane area for many staff and before an employer wishes to hold staff accountable for conduct the employer should ensure that staff are trained and clear in their responsibilities. This is the point that Napo has previously made about intelligibility. Paragraph 4.2 of the NPS Email and Internet Policy cautions:
‘Ensure all authorised users read this policy, are provided with adequate training and are both regularly reminded to comply and do comply with all “authorised user responsibilities” contained within this policy’
Where is the evidence of ‘adequate training’? This policy clearly puts an onus on HPA to take positive steps – adequate training – and we say that advice to familiarise yourself falls well below the threshold of adequate training.
MONITORING EMAIL AND INTERNET.
In paragraph 16.5 the code says …’employees should not assume that any emails sent are private and confidential....’ The clear inference here is that HPA will monitor your emails in the same way, irrespective of whether they are marked private or personal. We submit they are exceeding their authority in doing so and actually putting themselves at odds with advice on how monitoring at work should be conducted. The employer does not have a free hand to invade privacy.
Although not on the database, and seemingly forgotten by HPA, there was a document prepared in February 2006 which was shared with the unions (see download) and it represented an attempt to put some discipline into the process of monitoring. It set out three levels of monitoring and it stated on page 1:
‘…every effort will be made to avoid reading personal notes, although sometimes this will be inevitable. As soon as a note is identified as personal the note will be exited.’ (my italics). So there is a code of conduct that presumes unlimited powers to monitor all emails indiscriminately and another HPA document saying it will endeavor to respect emails that are marked private.
The Information Commissioner, who has published a code of practice on ‘monitoring at work’, makes it clear that employers should undertake an impact assessment of their monitoring practices towards ensuring that the impact of monitoring is as least intrusive as possible. The February document was a step in the right direction, but the code of conduct appears to adopt an unreasonable approach that does not respect an individual’s right to privacy, which does not evaporate when he/she enters the workplace. A weakness in the February document is that it is silent on whether the individual should be told if their email or internet use is being specifically rather than just routinely monitored. We say subjects should be informed and this is consistent with advice from the information commissioner. We therefore cannot accept the code of conduct as set out – it is unclear, suggests indiscriminate monitoring, contradicts the February 2006 document and is therefore in our view not compliant with good data protection practices.
LANGUAGE
The language of ‘theft’, ‘fraud’ and ‘deception’ in paragraph 15 is unnecessary. We have put this to HPA before but to no avail. All the foregoing are criminal offences and to say one too many personal emails constitutes theft, for example, is using alarmist language. It would be more measured to refer to ‘inappropriate’ usage. In that same section it says ‘very limited’ personal use of phones, emails, faxes will be tolerated – it gives an example of tolerable use – emergency contacts. This loose use of language leads to ambiguity. For example, in relation to email in paragraph 16.2 it says personal use of email is acceptable as long as it’s not excessive – and this is what the national policy, where it has been cut and pasted from, also says. This point is laboured to argue that personal use is not being abused if it’s not an emergency contact. In paragraph 2 there is mention to using ‘common sense’. We suggest the policy has suffered from some poor drafting and this will lead to confusions that could be avoided by leaving personal use in the realm of common sense and not seeking to be over-prescriptive.
DATA PROTECTION ADVICE FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER: Monitoring at Work
The code states that workers are entitled to a degree of privacy in the workplace and, as a result, monitoring is usually intrusive. Employers can still carry out monitoring, but only when it can be justified by the benefits delivered (e.g. recording telephone calls for training purposes). In the view of the Information Commissioner, covert monitoring can only be justified in few exceptional circumstances.
What should employers do?
Outline in writing when workers can use the organisation’s telephone, e-mail and internet systems. Any restrictions on private use should be clearly expressed e.g. limits on the size of e-mail attachments, making overseas calls etc.
Restrictions on internet use should be specific. A ban on downloading “offensive material” would not be clear enough, without providing examples (e.g. pornographic images, racist terminology etc).
Clearly explain in writing if you intend to monitor your workers
You need to explain:
Purposes and reasons for monitoring.
The extent of monitoring.
The means used to monitor.
Penalties for breach of policy.
Take extra care if monitoring e-mails
Avoid opening e-mails, especially ones that clearly show that they are private and personal.
Encourage workers to mark personal e-mails as such. If it is necessary to check a worker’s e-mail account in their absence, make sure that they are aware of this.
Posted by Hampshire at 06:15 PM | Comments (0)
FORCED RETIREMENTS
There are laws that provide some positive protection against discrimination on the grounds of race, sex and gender, for example. This does not stop apparent discrimination, as in the pay disparities between the sexes, but laws are nonetheless progressive steps. Age discrimination is a bastion yet to be breached by strong laws, though proposed Government legislation seems likely to tackle some blatant forms of discrimination against the elderly, such as health screening and the difficulties in obtaining insurance, etc.
In this country there was a mandatory retirement age of 65. In most jobs, including probation, you had to go at 65. There have always been other arrangements in existence – you can become a prime minister at 65 and you could sit as a judge well into your 70s, suggesting that experience and knowledge is valued in some areas.
In 2006 the law changed and workers were given the right to request to work beyond 65. However, employers were under no obligation to keep them on. The obligation on the employer is a ‘duty to consider’ requests to work beyond 65.
HPA have what is called a planned retirement policy. It was first discussed with the unions in February 2007. Napo asked at that time, why do we need a fixed retirement age? That question was never answered, two weeks later the policy was on the database, some three months before it was approved by the board. Given the links between age and discrimination it may have been helpful for the policy to have been subject to an ‘equalities impact assessment’ (which all policies/procedures should have) as that may have looked at the issues of forced retirements in the round and perhaps have amended or at least informed the two criteria that HPA set down for judging whether an individual would be able to work beyond 65.
The criteria are:
Staff have skills, knowledge or experience that are key to the Hampshire Probation Area meeting its objectives and which the Hampshire Probation Area will have difficulty replacing;
and/or
Staff are employed in posts that the Hampshire Probation Area will have difficulty recruiting to.
These criteria could be view as employer-centric – in that the loyalty, experience, performance and commitment of the individual will not be a significant consideration, in fact such qualities seem not to matter. It is all about what is in the interests of the employer – there is no balancing of interests, unlike in applications for flexible working where the employee has recourse to a legal remedy if he/she believes the employer has not reached a balanced and fair decision.
We know some staff in HPA have received extensions but we do not objectively know how they satisfied the criteria. The criteria makes clear that it's primarily about recruitment difficulties and therefore a postholder in a role with such difficulties is more likely, it would seem, to be offered an extension. Conversely, a post such as probation officer, where recruitment is not such a challenge, not least as qualifying probation officers worry about getting a job these days, then, following the criteria, extensions would seem a forlorn hope. There seems no reason why this recruitment information about posts should not be freely available as at least it would enable those facing the prospect of a forced retirement to realistically assess their prospects of an extension instead of going through a process that will almost inevitably end in disapoinment and possibly end careers on a sour note with staff feeling aggrieved about the fairness of the process. As HPA favour the mandatory retirement age, and will only make exceptions on recruitment grounds and skill sets that must reach the high threshold of being 'key' to meeting HPA's objectives,it would greatly assist staff to have insight into areas of difficult recruitment and the types of skill sets that are regarded as key assets.
HPA is doing nothing illegal. As things stand with the law they are observing the minimum standards and going through the process of a duty to consider. On the other hand some organisations are going beyond the minimum for moral reasons – organisations that are hard-headed and business-focused - Tesco has offered its staff the chance to work beyond 65 on both moral and business grounds, and other retailers, including Marks & Spencer and Asda, have also relaxed or ditched the mandatory retirement age. With no disrespect to staff in Tesco’s it is perverse to think that you have a better chance of remaining in work as a shelf stacker than you do as a trained and experienced member of the probation service.
Sometimes it takes the law time to catch up with what is morally right. It was once legal to deny women the vote, to send children up chimneys, to imprison homosexuals and administer behaviour therapy to ‘correct’ their ‘distorted thinking’. There is a case going through the European Court at present – called the Hayday case it challenges the mandatory retirement age of 65. If successful then employers will not be able to get away with dismissing staff just because of age. The next stage of the case will come on 23rd September 2008 when the Advocate General will publish his opinion on the case. The Advocate General is a lawyer to the Court who was at the hearing. He gives guidance on judgments which the Court will usually follow.
In the meantime anyone forced to retire can register their case with an employment tribunal where it will be put on hold pending the outcome of Heyday. This was a positive step by the employment tribunals and it’s just regrettable, given that there will be a binding legal judgment through soon, that employers, including probation employers, are still forcing staff to retire. Those individuals may be able to claim compensation from their employers if Heyday wins, but that may be scant consolation for being forced to leave a job they wish to continue doing.
But as things stand: you can be dismissed at 65 and the only reason your employer needs to give is that you are 65 - reaching the retirement age is the reason for your dismissal. Maybe in the years ahead when we look back on such practices they will be condemned as discriminatory and unenlightened. As for our funder, the taxpayer, Lawyers have warned employers that they could be laying themselves open to large compensation claims if they force workers to retire at 65 - even though the current law allows them to do so.
"There is no good reason, politically, socially or economically, for the Government to permit forced retirement ages - rules which, of course, don't apply to government ministers. We hope the court will accept that the legislation flies in the face of European anti-discrimination laws. (Ailsa Ogilvie, Director of Heyday)
Research shows that mature workers are good for business and good for the economy:
Company profits would rise between 50m and 110m if forced retirement was scrapped - and that's according to Government figures;
The Government also estimates that if people were able to work beyond 65 it would pump between 230m and 520m into the economy;
The USA abolished forced retirement in 1986 - leading to 10-20% increase in the number of over 65s in work.
'To tell those who enjoy their work that they can no longer do it is cruel.'
Posted by Hampshire at 02:40 PM | Comments (0)
July 01, 2008
CODE OF CONDUCT: FOUL PLAY
If you read the chief officer’s briefing today you will be aware of his comments on the revised code of conduct policy. Here they are:
‘A revised Code of Conduct has now been approved. The Trade Unions have been consulted about it, but have not yet agreed the document. Nonetheless all HPA staff are expected to comply with its requirements. The Code of Conduct can be accessed via the HR database. All staff are urged to revisit and remind themselves of the Code of Conduct and become familiar with its changes.’
There is an entry on this website – 4th June – where we set out our concerns about this policy being unilaterally imposed by Barrie Crook. In fact we wrote to him last week urging that the policy be subject to further negotiations. We had hoped that some good sense would prevail, but the briefing scotched our hopes of further discussion. The code of conduct now joins another policy that was imposed - the forced retirement policy - on the database. Napo does not recognise the legitimacy of these policies and will register a formal dispute at the next meeting of the JNCC.
The chief officer is basically saying to Napo members that your contact of employment is being changed and he writes: ‘All staff are urged to revisit and remind themselves of the code of conduct and become familiar with its changes’. One of Napo’s major concerns about this policy was its intelligibility in relation to data protection and use of email. It is incredible that how the onus falls on staff and never on HPA to actually explain and communicate effectively when it comes to policy changes. The mantra seems to be always, ‘it’s on the database’. We also hold that the language of theft and fraud in relation to using email is draconian and wrong-headed. This has already been pointed out by a national Napo representative but to no avail.
Members have contacted Napo to complain. One member complained directly to Barrie Crook, describing the action taken as ‘arrogant’ and ‘disrespectful’ of him as an individual as well as his union. He added that such arrogant actions contribute to poor relations between management and the workforce and contributes to poor morale.
Interestingly in the same briefing we are told that some 229 members of staff completed the staff survey – that is a figure lower than Napo’s membership and yet the chief officer sees justification in disregarding protocols and imposing a policy. Incidentally the staff survey may well run to a 1000 pages but a summary report is already published and we say that it should be shared with staff forthwith instead of waiting for ‘key messages’ to be determined. The 2004 survey never saw the light of day.
Posted by Hampshire at 08:50 PM | Comments (0)
DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER - MISMANAGING CHANGE: INTEGRATION OF UNPAID WORK
It was Sophocles who first said: ‘don't shoot the messenger', but history repeats itself endlessly. The integration of unpaid work could have been far better managed. Going back over a year Napo and Unison complained about the situation. Below is a document that can be downloaded which reproduces the relevant extracts from the minutes of the TU/HR meetings. Here is an extract of a submission we made to the JNCC last August (the subject matter was poor consultation with the unions):
'An example: In 2005 discussions were held, including union representatives, about the implementation of Offender Management. After several meetings the work was referred to smaller groups, on which there was no union representation. In 2007 Unpaid Work Officers were informed that they would become generic PSO Offender Managers, a job that is significantly different from the work that they have done in the past. The manner in which it has been implemented has caused immense concern: experienced members of staff have resigned as a result. Once Napo and Unison became aware of these changes we asked for a dedicated meeting to discuss issues arising from the change: changes to job descriptions for both UW Officers and PSO OMs, a new job evaluation for these posts, training, discussion of role boundary issues.. As a major organisational change this should have been discussed with unions before implementation. It appears that the process of implementation is not being managed on a whole area basis but is at different stages throughout the area, causing concern and confusion for staff. A meeting, at the instigation of the unions, is to take place in the near future to discuss these changes; prior consultation would have prevented what appears to be piecemeal and ineffective implementation of these changes.'
Eventually HPA get around to addressing the issues. A report was commissioned, but thus far we have only seen a letter 'summarising' the report. (We have asked for a copy of the full report and will pursue this under freedom of information if need be) Anyway, the summary has a few swipes at the Unions - being obstructive - which we reject as groundless. The Unions were in fact seeking to hold HPA accountable and make the intergration into offender management actually 'fit for purpose. There wasn't even an implementation plan. Here is Napo’s response to HPA’s misrepresentation of events. This is the text of a letter we sent today to HPA:
‘A copy of your letter to the PSOs in the South-West has been forwarded to me, and I must express my disappointment at statements you have included with regard to the Unions. I was the Napo Representative involved in any discussions that took place, and therefore best able to refute these claims.
There were no discussions with the unions in relation to the planned integration before the process took place. We were informed at HR meetings about management intentions, and it was at our request, after some delay, that a meeting took place in September 2007 to discuss issues raised by union members. Agreement was reached on a number of issues; I am not aware that this agreement has been implemented.
Members raised concerns after inadequate briefing sessions had been delivered in several areas; we are concerned that there is no evidence that the process of integration was properly planned, nor that an audit of staff skills was undertaken so that training could be provided. In fact you have stated in your response that a more detailed operational plan was needed; this relates not only to the South-West but also to the South-East. It is not therefore true that the result of integration has been unsatisfactory only in the South-West as compared with other divisions. I have raised the issue of Crams training for PSOs on several occasions; no adequate response has been given to these requests.
You have suggested that the Unions have been obstructive to the process of integration; I would welcome some evidence of this conclusion as my perception has been that the Unions attempted on many occasions to enter into a dialogue with HPA with regard to integration but were excluded from any discussion.
The integration of UW and OM was not effectively planned and has left many staff feeling deskilled and demoralised. It is for these reasons that the Unions have attempted to clarify the process and ensure that staff receive the support they need. The Unions have not, at any time, attempted to derail the process, but have represented their members concerns during a difficult period.’
Posted by Hampshire at 06:39 PM | Comments (0)