« August 2008 | Main | October 2008 »
September 27, 2008
ECU AND CAR PARKING
The results of the consultation exercise on Staff Travel and Parking were reported on in a recent chief officer briefing. HPA has at least 600 permanent staff. We are told there were 80 responses – that’s 13% of the workforce. The Unions made their objections known about the consultation as we maintain that when it comes to terms and conditions of employment, literally bread ‘n’ butter issues – there should be negotiations with the recognised trade unions. Consultation can be an empty process, a going through the motions. HPA should be seeking to reach agreement with the unions. It is noted that there is a willingness to consult on some things and not others. It would have been interesting to have consulted on some recent spending – like the £100,000 spent on management consultants. A consultation exercise on the payment of increments would also have been welcomed by the unions.
A 13% response rate has no statistical significance and does not give HPA a mandate on which to make decisions and inform the development and implementation of HR strategies.
Napo is currently consulting with members about travel and car parking through workplace meetings and if you cannot attend those please pass on your views to Napo representatives.
Napo has not seen the 80 responses so we don’t know what else may have been said about ECU and car parking. Some members may have even favoured retention of a 500 miles threshold, may have argued for free parking, may have mentioned disabled car parking as a reasonable adjustment. With consultation exercises there is always the risk that those who control it will look for responses that are congruent with their own assumptions and ambitions.
There is even a kite being flown about charging for office parking. This chimes with what many hospital trusts have been doing for some years. In Scotland they recently outlawed charging NHS staff and visitors for parking – effectively it has been renationalized. Charging for parking sounds very business-focused, very market-oriented – though the less said about the sad free market model at the present time the better. We want to keep office parking in public ownership! If need be on a first come first served basis rather than reserved parking places,
We know ECU and parking are very significant issues, in terms of operational flexibility for staff, and in terms of economic significance. Staff are already seeing their pay being degraded through inflation and through the refusal of the employers to make a reasonable pay offer following their refusal to pay increments that staff were entitled to receive last April. Your money in someone else’s pockets.
It is important that we seek to build a united position on this issue. A collective agreement would be in the interests of all members. But consultation is not enough – this subject demands negotiations, not the imposition of arrangements that will further impoverish members.
Napo and Unison are the recognised trade unions within HPA. There is a Union Recognition Agreement and there is a JNCC constitution for regulating collective bargaining. HPA did not like the previous ECU agreement so want to walk away from it. Lately we hear much about the desire to consult widely with the entire workforce. Individuals cannot be prevented from striking individual deals with HPA, but the strongest agreements, the ones in the best interests of members, are collective agreements, because management know they represent the will of the membership. On matters as important as ECU and parking, HPA may consult with individual members, but when it comes to the unions, 'consultation' is a euphemism for marginalizing the unions, in other words marginalizing the membership. Just like the banks we need regulated activities, and not one party seeking to make up different rules to further its own interests. This is why we have free collective bargaining to reach negotiated agreements. And we ask all members to pass this message on…
Posted by Hampshire at 03:54 PM | Comments (0)
September 24, 2008
NNC PAY DISPUTE AND INDUSTRIAL ACTION
I am writing to you following the recent NEC held on 3rd September 2008 to report on the discussions and decisions in relation to the pay dispute and industrial action.
Pay
As I have indicated in recent pay bulletins and Napo News, progress is being made in the ongoing pay negotiations. Napo’s negotiators and the Negotiating Committee are gaining confidence that an acceptable offer could be proposed by the employers in the near future.
However, talks are ongoing and we have made clear to the employers that progress must be made quickly given the length of time since the unions made their claim and the unacceptable withholding of increments in April. There is a meeting of the full NNC at the end of September by which time we would expect to know the employers’ final position on pay.
Industrial Action
The NEC spent some time considering a report from the Industrial Action Steering Group which included proposals for industrial action if the pay talks are unsuccessful. Some very useful observations and feedback were received from branches.
The NEC was told of advice received from Thompsons, Napo’s solicitors, which specifically related to industrial action short of strike action. This advice drew on relevant case law and the approach of employers in disputes in other sectors particularly those involving the withdrawal of goodwill and working to rule. It is not appropriate to report this advice in detail in a Circular which might be seen by the employers but it is clear that action short of strike action has particular risks associated with it and does not necessarily protect members from the threat of a loss of pay.
Following extensive debate, the NEC accepted that Napo’s best interests lay in organising strike action. Its advantages are that it applies universally to members who can take action collectively at the same time; by asking only one question of members i.e. that they vote either ‘for’ or ‘against’ strike action the position of members would be unequivocal; and strike action is straightforward to organise and deliver compared with other forms of action. Given that there is concern that a one day strike might have a minimal impact the value of a two day strike, with the option of further stoppages, in line with the recent local government action, was felt to be the most effective strategy as it would reduce the risk of work being shoehorned into another part of the week.
After serious consideration the NEC agreed to accept the following two recommendations from the Steering Group:
That Napo prepares and ballots for the delivery of 2 consecutive days of strike action.
That the ballot paper should only ask one question – relating to the willingness to deliver the strike action – and should not include a question about action short of strike action.
The NEC has also agreed that the ballot, if needed, should only address pay and not workloads (which is also the subject of a separate formal dispute) as resolving the workloads dispute is not a process compatible with pay issues and Unison is not in dispute with the employers over workloads. Branches have recently received the first bulletin on the joint union Justice Week in December where a number of campaigning activities have been mapped out, workload issues will be a key component. If the pay disputes result in a ballot for strike action the strike is likely to be organised to take place in Justice Week.
Next Steps
As has been stated in the first section of this report it is our hope that industrial action in relation to pay will not prove necessary. However, it is vital that branches begin to prepare for such an eventuality ensuring that members are aware of the NEC’s decisions and the reasons for them. Branches should immediately establish Strike Committee in coordination with the local Unison branch.
The next meeting of the Industrial Action Steering Group is on the 1st October, if at that time, pay talks have failed to make progress, further advice on the ballot timetable and action by branches will be issued. Any comments and information for the Group should be sent via Chivalry Road (info@napo.gov.uk).
We hope that we can negotiate a fair and proper pay rise for members. But if not, we must all be ready to deliver strike action which demonstrates to the employers that probation staff will fight for justice both now and in the future.
Yours sincerely,
JONATHAN LEDGER
General Secretary
Posted by Hampshire at 03:35 PM | Comments (0)
September 23, 2008
FORCED RETIREMENTS - HEYDAY CASE
For those of you intently following the Heyday case which has been referred to the European Court of Justice to ascertain whether an employer can legally make an employee retire at the age of 65 in the UK, or, whether this amounts to age discrimination thus resulting in an unfair dismissal claim.
The Advocate General, a legal advisor to the European Court of Justice, has given his opinion supporting the UK legislation that employers can make individuals retire at the age of 65. This decision is NOT legally binding, but may influence the Judges within the European Court when making their ruling.
In a Press Release Heyday said:
“We are challenging this law because it is costing good workers their jobs. If the European Court confirms this opinion, the case would then have to go back to the High Court in London for a final decision. We hope the High Court would not want to remove the choice for people to work in later life if they wish to or if they need to.
“Denying people work because of their date of birth is grossly unfair, and in these tough times we expect more people will need to carry on working into ‘retirement’ in order to make ends meet.”
Posted by Hampshire at 09:41 PM | Comments (0)
September 18, 2008
INFLATION: 4.7% - AND RISING...
Inflation is now running at 4.7%. No increments, no pay settlement - wages being cut in real terms. But performance is buoyant in probation... so nothing to worry about then…
How we were told that public probation needed a good dose of market forces/disciplines to raise performance. How private was superior to public. The notion of the superiority of the private sector is taking a bit of a battering. In education the privatisation of examination marking has been a shambles; and all those private companies losing confidential data, some containing details of probation staff.
We used to hear from the masters of the universe in probation how the markets were part of the 'real world', the future, and that trying to hold on to a public probation service was idealistic and naive. Contestability, the private sector, sweating the assets, suppressing wages, fear is the key, cry TUPE – the way forward!
Now we see those financial giants of the marketplace pleading with governments to bail them out of the disastrous financial messes they have got themselves - and every taxpayer - into - through their unbridled greed. Their yachts will sail on as taxpayers' see their standard of living sink further. Suddenly the banks are happy to be nationalised, become part of the public sector. As someone wisely observed, the banks want to privatise all their profits and socialise all their risks.
Meanwhile, in probation, the pay situation for many is a disgrace and all our employers do is seek to erode and erode terms and conditions of employment. Things may get better through action but they won't get better through magic or trusting in the decency of your paymasters.
Posted by Hampshire at 08:29 PM | Comments (0)
FORCED RETIREMENTS - HEYDAY JUDGMENT UPDATE
Advocate General Mazák will publish his opinion on 23rd September 2008. This is legal guidance to the Court and so can give an indication of what the final decision will be. However, the Advocate General’s opinion is not always followed – as happened in the case of Palacios, where the ECJ decision departed from Advocate General Mazák’s opinion.
There is no set timescale for the ECJ decision, but this is expected towards the end of this year, or early 2009. It is likely that the case will then be referred back to the High Court for a decision to be made on whether the law allowing mandatory retirement can be objectively justified, in the light of guidance from the ECJ’s judgment.
See Entry 5th July - FORCED RETIREMENTS
Posted by Hampshire at 08:22 PM | Comments (0)