• Present & Apologies – In book.

• Matters of accuracy – Branch Motion for AGM not submitted due to ongoing action on this issue already in place. To be the subject of a Fringe Meeting at AGM. Otherwise previous Minutes agreed.

• Loss of ECU/Car Parking Policy

Discussion regarding these issues including;
- Members agreed that traveling time, especially where public transport used, should be included in the WMT.
- Issue raised regarding car parking at Town Quay. Noted that spaces not available for the majority of staff, Pool Car booked out the majority of the time thus limited availability.
- Noted that staff members have refused posts due to the lack of car parking availability.
- Reiterated that the Car Parking Policy is elitist.
- Noted that staff members crossing the Solent are still entitled to paid car parking.

• Workloads

- It is anticipated that guidance will be issued regarding which tasks are to be included on the Additional Work form.
- Noted that some Managers do take action on the workloads of those in the red but this does not occur in all teams.
- Concerns regarding extra work in Eoasys recently ie; lack of pull through of PSR information into ISPs. Is this acknowledged in the tool?
- Discussion regarding whether workload weightings are realistic, especially where traveling time is relevant.
- All agreed that timings were unrealistic – many based on minimum national standards – this unrealistic.
- Inconsistencies noted across the Area, ie; some Managers allow TOIL if individual ‘in the green’ – other Managers do not.
- Discussion regarding the way in which the WMT will be used to allocate staff – although it is felt that the tool is inaccurate.
- All agreed the WMT is not fit for purpose.
- Noted that an email has been issued to staff at Town Quay directing that Crown Court reports should consider SSOs to ensure no unrealistic proposals made.
- Branch agreed that Napo Note should go out indicating concern over the WMT, noting that it is not fit for purpose and is being used inappropriately. Also to note concern over SDRs being conducted as FDRs when the SDR would be much more appropriate. To note concern that WMT tool loading is encouraging staff to cut corners leading to the potential to miss important information.

Mileage/New Contracts

- Noted that additional mileage for those moved to different offices due to office closures, to be paid for 4 years.
- Noted that HPA insisting that the lower rate of 14.2p per mile be paid rather than the appropriate rate as detailed in the NNC codes.
- COMT has agreed this change to employment conditions without negotiation – this is unlawful.
- Noted that new contracts have been sent to staff with this rate detailed. Union advice is not to sign any contract variation.
- This issue to be raised at JNCC in October 2009.
- In the interim Members advised to continue to submit expenses forms with appropriate casual rate detailed not the 14.2p directed by HPA.

Recruitment Week

- National Napo Recruitment week in November 2009 – with aim to recruit more members
- Aim during this week to publicize the work of Napo and promote the work undertaken
- Ideas discussed to encourage recruitment
- Next Branch Meeting to focus on recruitment
- National Officer to be invited to next meeting

Health & Safety Report

- There are a number of incidents not being reported on RIDOR
- Service user death in AP
- Injury to unpaid work participant
- Concern that members are becoming anxious due to being moved to Stage 1 absence management meetings even where medically certified evidence of illness is provided.

Treasurers Report-

Treasurer apologies – no report available

Membership Report

- 267 members.

NEC Report

- New Vice Chairs elected
- Website to be revamped in October 2009
- Management of Change protocol to be reviewed
- NEC advised that more local media contact be made

AOB

- Discussion regarding the appointment of a Communications Manager. Noted that in the current environment this is unacceptable.
- Concerns regarding new HQ in Fareham. Noted that it only accessible by 1 bus per hour thus will encourage car driving. This not compatible with HPA’s ‘green agenda’. This will impact on staff travel time. Also likely to impact on compliance and accessibility concerns.

Date of next meeting

Friday 20th November 2009 at 1pm at Enterprise House, Basingstoke.

Since the launch of the WMT the branch has been picking up reports of dissatisfaction with the tool. It does seem that this dissatisfaction is growing and may be widespread. We intend to challenge the legitimacy of the tool. We are urging all members who have concerns to communicate with branch officials so we can clearly evidence the failings of the model, its implementation and the variable practices that have arisen in a very short time.

This list is not exhaustive and members may be able to add details and examples which we would welcome. It is important to challenge this WWT – it was imposed by management. It lacks credibility. It facilitates practices that are unsafe.

1. Timings: The branch says the weightings lack validity. They do not fairly reflect the work that is done. Thus the outcomes are inaccurate.

2. New Tasks: these are introduced without weightings. There is a management standing group that attempts to play catch-up and produce timings for additional tasks. This in itself breaches their own protocol which states that no tasks should be added to workloads until they have been assessed and timed.

3. Variable Practice already. There is no uniformity in what should be counted as time spent and manually added to the totals

4. Lack of Transparency. We have been told by some members that they are being denied access to their workload data. Do you see printouts of your workload?

6. Diversity: we have reports of haphazard workload relief to support assistive technology. This is potentially discriminatory. This is presumably monitored by HPA so the branch will seek figures and data on workload relief arrangements from management. We need members to contact us if they believe they are not being treated fairly.

7. Real Time: The increasing deployment of case managers onto court duty rotas and the time allocations, again, do not reflect what happens in real time. You can be allocated, say, one hour to do a task at court and yet be there, through no fault of your own for several hours. Yet only one hour is counted. And being on standby should count for something – at present it just seems to add to work –related stress because of increased mental and emotional job demands.

8. Travel Time: Travel time that takes place during working hours is ‘working time’ and the only fair way is to count it, not to claim it is built into weightings as averages. If members post ECU decides not to use their own cars, then it’s the duty of HPA to have alternative means of travel in place. All travelling time must be counted.

9. Serious Further Offence Reviews. The use of FDRs saves time and means that more work can be done in less time. Increased turnover with the same or fewer resources.

There are no public safety issues with simple, straightforward low risk cases. There is nothing unreasonable about a reduced time allocation for such reports. And whenever possible reports should be expedited.

However we now have an institutional split in report type – 70/30 which is set to change to 80/20. More complex cases that would previously have warranted full reports with a time allocation of 7.30 hours are now being converted into fast – track reports with a weighting of 1.45 hours.

Members faced with the task of doing these fast – track reports on increasingly complex cases are in a quandary because they know that they will only be credited with the timings in the tool. Not surprising to square this circle we now hear of reports of defendants being discouraged from sharing information, because time is limited and completion of the task, rather than reaching a comprehensive assessment, is the priority.

The rise of the FDR is about cost cutting. There is an inherent tension between sufficient information for sentencing and sufficient information for a report well – grounded in risk assessment – the latter can take more time. But the pressure for the 70/30 split is remorseless. Good performance equals 70% FDRs; poor performance equals less than 70%.

Members are being placed in impossible positions. There is an apparent management view that if a practitioner is allocated a report as an FDR then all he/she needs to do is seek to convert it to a full report, but we know that all the managerial pressures are pointing in the other direction – and the message is get on and do it.

As senior management are imposing an artificial ratio on report types, as is their power, then they must also carry the responsibility and therefore report type must be a management decision. What we must anticipate is that in the event of an SFO – and it will happen – we don’t want to see inspectors asking the practitioner why when allocated the FDR they did not convert it to a full report.

The increased reliance on FDRs flies in the face of fairly recent recommendations from the probation inspectorate contained in the SFO review on Hanson and White, the two men who murdered the London banker, John Monkton.

7.1.6 The expedited report [forerunner of the FDR] presented to the court on 26 August 2004 lacks any significant information about Elliot White’s previous supervision, drug history and motivation…

8.6 Where an offender under the supervision of the Probation Service appears in court for breach of a previous order a full Pre-sentence Report based on a full current OASys assessment should be prepared by the offender manager wherever possible.(Serious Further Offence review: Damien Hanson & Elliot White, 2006)

We can see here sound advice arising from a tragedy, but in just a few years that sound advice has no bearing on the most appropriate report type. Short memories prevail.

The workload measurement tool likes FDRs for obvious reasons and will like them even more when the new target is 80%. Good performance will then be reaching this higher figure. But dig a little and ask performance of what, with what risks, in whose best interests, meeting the duty of care to staff, in the interests of victims and public protection? Just a few months back it was proposed that good performance would equate to FDRs in domestic violence cases!

The more you strip out professional values and standards, the easier it is to achieve technocratic performance which may look the works in a managerial pie chart but be far less convincing in the real world, especially one where after the past decade 'performance targets' are widely discredited because they invariably fail to tell the full story of what is really happening to service delivery.

10. Toil: We are told that if you are in the Green you cannot accumulate toil. This is not occurring in all offices, but it’s a ‘logic’ that is being applied. What on earth is going on?

11. Morale. We hear staff are increasingly demoralised with the WMT.

12. Signing off. The test of staff confidence in the WMT will be in the signing off process. Are you signing off?

13. Relations with sentencers. The drive to make efficiency savings impacts on our relations with the courts and those who write reports are in the frontline. Managerial restrictions have been imposed on the use of suspended sentences and the numbers of requirements that may be proposed. Whatever the merits of these adjustments there is evidence that changes in practice are impacting on relations with the courts – the courts complaining about ‘unrealistic’ proposals. We would ask members to let the branch know of complaints from the courts. It has been reported that in Southampton the use of suspended sentences has been ‘relaxed’ in response to complaints. These adjustments which are all part of ‘demand management’ should be risk assessed before they are imposed.

The branch wants to take forward the concerns that have been identified thus far. But we want to be clear our view that the tool is not fit for purpose is a commonly held view. We know staff in individual offices are raising concerns and meetings are being held. This piecemeal approach may lead to some improvements in some areas. In a short space of time the tool seems to have become subject to local mutations which defeats the whole object of the exercise – that the new WMT would gain and hold the confidence of staff with regard to the fair allocation of manageable workloads. What are we to look forward to – 3 LDUs, 3 WMTs? because that’s the way it seems to be heading.

We will be seeking a meeting with the management side to formally lay out our concerns. So, in confidence, we need your feedback and experiences of the WMT.

The next branch meeting is in Basingstoke on 20th November – try and be there.

We have since been informed by a member of senior management that we should now write back to the newspapers and tell them of the change in the fortunes of the TPOs. It has been asserted that if we do not we are committing a "deception". This branch does not engage in deception, lies, or falsehoods… A deception is knowingly making a misrepresentation.

Napo nationally is encouraging branches to seek increased engagement with local media and to write to local MPs. We know that in addition to the branch writing to the media, members also wrote to their MPs. The branch recently wrote to every MP in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. We have received a good response and several have asked for meetings. We will be arranging meetings and will let members know of dates as if possible it’s a good thing to have a member who is also a constituent of the MP at the meeting. Campaigning and lobbying can be effective. We thank all members who have written to their MPs and we encourage those who have not got round to doing it, to do it – because it can make a difference. There is evidence that it does make a difference.

The campaign goes on. We hope that we will not need to write to the media next year about graduating TPOs without permanent contracts. We hope the £90,000 spent on training each one will be invested in full time permanent employment.

Download file

Download file

‘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;’

Have you noticed the recent emails from IT telling you about your responsibilities to know and understand the updated 2009 policy, how it puts the entire onus on members. It was released in May but it’s taken until September for HPA to get the message out. HPA should follow its own policy and set a proper example. It's called practicing what you preach.

Can you ever recall being in any forum/team meeting/chief officer briefing, anytime, anywhere, when the subject matter was the email and internet communication policy?

Have you ever had ‘adequate training’? Ever been asked whether you feel adequately trained?

Hampshire probation should provide some adequate training. In recent times it is almost becoming the norm in disciplinary actions for the management to do a trawl of emails.

The note below appeared in national Napo News in April.

April 09, 2009

FROM NAPO NEWS APRIL 2009: BE CAREFUL

Napo is representing members in a huge number of disciplinary cases at present. Members should be aware of what is happening throughout much of the country and should be very careful it does not happen to them.

Staff who have worked without incident for twenty years, doing their work, leading a normal life and expressing their thoughts about the work and their employers, are suddenly finding themselves charged with gross misconduct and threatened with dismissal, either in Probation or in Cafcass. How has this happened?

There are in general two reasons in my opinion. Firstly, the Probation Service has become a much more punitive organisation. As it has become more punitive towards its clients, so it has towards its staff. It will not brook dissent. Cafcass too is affected by this autocratic attitude towards staff. Secondly, the Service is under massive financial pressure. Areas are faced with having to reduce staff. redundancy is expensive. It is much cheaper to dismiss someone.

This, unfortunately, is the bald truth. Matters which once would have been brought up with a quiet word, or more officially in supervision, are suddenly appearing as allegations of gross misconduct. Arguing with a line manager, capability issues, making a mistake, perhaps an error of judgment, become disciplinary offences. Often these are categorised as gross misconduct, but how can that be? The answer is that if all else fails, senior management/employers can use the heading of ‘disrepute’, which is gross misconduct. It seems to us that managements around the country have got together on this because we are faced everywhere with members charged with bringing the service into disrepute. Anything, any inadequacy of performance or any semblance of disagreement with the Service can, if it has any connection with the world outside the office, result in a charge of disrepute, or potential disrepute.

What, then, should members do?

Firstly, remember that your office email belongs to your employer. Do not write anything in an email that you would not write in a letter. Secondly, remember that your employer can access anything on your email, even if deleted. Thirdly, do not say or write anything publicly about your employer in a personal capacity. If you have concerns or criticisms raise them through Napo, then you are protected. Apply this to websites (including the Napo website) and Facebook too. Fourthly, be very careful about all your conduct both within and outside the office. Fifthly, do not go into any meeting which could discuss your conduct without a union representative present. Remember, you are entitled to this. Finally, Napo finds an increasing number of staff making allegations against other staff. Sometimes they do not even realise that they are making an allegation when they complain about a colleague. So please don’t do this unless it is so serious that it cannot be avoided. Go and talk to the colleague about the issue. Most importantly, go to union branch meetings and voice your feelings there. Defend your values in a concerted way instead of individually. Also, make clear that Napo is strong and will support you. Be assured we have a very good record of defending members in representations.

To: Assistant Chief Officer /Area Manager

Cc: Branch Chair and/or Health & Safety Rep, Line Manager & Health & Safety Advisor

FORESEEABILITY NOTIFICATION

My workload figures indicate that I am working beyond my contracted capacity. According to service calculations I am currently working in the red. The calculation for the last four week period shows that I was required to undertake 129.41 hours of work in my 68.04 hours. This is almost a 100% excessive workload and this is untenable.

This excessive workload is adversely affecting my health in the following
ways:
- increased levels of anxiety keeping up with workload,
- sleeplessness,
- headaches,
- lack of concentration.

I am worried for my own health in the event that my excessive workload persists and I believe that the demands currently being placed upon me are unreasonable. I am formally placing on record my concern that unless my situation is alleviated through a return to a reasonable workload, then there is a significantly enhanced risk of my disability (long term depression) being exacerbated and my being signed off work sick as a consequence of stress at work.

My excessive workload has now persisted for a significant length of time. The most recent service calculation prior to implementation of the new WMT (December 2008) detailed that I was in the red by 13.02% excessive workload. Moreover, this followed on from repeated calculations that I was in the red and individual as well as team requests for action.

The extent of my symptoms coupled with their increasingly regular manifestation Indicates to me that the likelihood of my suffering significant ill health is becoming increasingly imminent.

Under the Health and Safety at Work Act, I have a duty of care for my own health whilst at work (Section 7). Excessive workload leading to stress is recognised as a risk to health. Under the same legislation the Service also has a duty of care for my well being (Section 2). Failure to take all reasonable steps to observe this duty properly can render the Service liable for damages.

I believe that a reasonable approach would be either that you do not allocate any further cases/reports/duties to me and/or that you remove work from me until such time as my workload returns to an agreed and manageable level.

Under these circumstances, I believe it is unreasonable to expect me to take responsibility for shortcomings in my own work, notably in record keeping. As you know, my difficulties in coping with excessive workload are exacerbated by the sub-standard IT systems that are currently in use.

I expect that, as a reasonable employer who is concerned to minimise the risks posed to your staff by excessive workloads, you will be able to advise my line manager on how to rectify this situation.

Name: XXXX Office XXXX Team Date: 2009

With the exception of Trevor Williams, East of England Regional Offender Manager and Director of the Probation Trust Programme - all others named are HPA board members. As you can see there is uncertainty about ‘sense of direction’, about ‘positive reasons’ for becoming a trust, and about ‘freedoms and flexibilities’ which were intended as the main attraction, the 'must have'. And yet with HPA's application for trust status going at full steam, questions were being asked about what it would all mean. And nobody knew. Think of all the money and staff resources that have poured into the quest for trust status. Think of leadership which says 'follow me but I don't really know where we are going'. It's more the Grand Old Duke of York than Henry at Agincourt! Where is the vision that well-paid leaders go on about? (my italics, below, in the text)

“…Bryan Nanson asked if Boards were in a position to know the implications and differences in becoming a Trust. The Chair added that it was a national position that there was not a clear understanding of what the freedoms and flexibilities will be. Lucy Docherty understood there would be more freedom in the decision-making process at Board level, and asked what the plans were around governance structures to reflect that position. Tina Harris asked about the success rates, and Alan Wainwright wanted to know what the positive reasons were for doing this...

...In response to the question about positive reasons, Trevor Williams admitted this had been problematic. The initial concept of Trusts had changed significantly due to economic circumstances. It was now clear that Trusts would be classed as Non-Departmental Public Bodies; this designation would give a clearer view of what organisations were and how they related to the centre. This would impact particularly on the operation of Chairs and Boards; to be very open and accountable. The freedoms being worked on were very modest compared to those expected at the beginning of the process...."

Read the full Minutes at:

http://www.hampshire-probation.gov.uk/PDFs/Board%20Minutes/BoardMinutes190109.pdf

A: There is a briefing paper, download below, which provides greater details, but in a nutshell: Job Evaluation is a method to determine the pay band that reflects the demands of your job. In JE it’s important to guard against bias, or nepotism influencing outcomes. JE is not an objective exercise like measuring with a ruler; it is a process that depends on both the evidence and the interpretive judgments of those who sit on the panels – which should have a union – management balance. By looking at various factors, and thus weighing up the job demands, the panels seek to reach agreements on appropriate pay bands in an open manner’

Q: Is job evaluation working effectively in Hampshire probation?

A. No, and it has not worked well for over a couple of years. Unfortunately the management side chooses to repeatedly breach the principles that underpin JE – the four principles are: Joint Ownership, Equalities Issues, Training and Openness.

Q: If there any evidence to support these allegations of repeated breaches.

A: There is ample evidence. There is evidence of HR using devices to interfere with the deliberations of JE panels; there is evidence of panels being operated without trade union representation (inherent bias), there is evidence of HR using untrained staff on the panels, there is evidence of using a panellist from another area to the exclusion of local representation.

Q: But last year the unions refused to sit on a panel. Surely that was obstructive as there are staff anxious to have their posts evaluated. It is not fair to delay the process, is it?

A: We remember that episode well – we had our travelling expenses denied - although we had attended and subsequently withdrew due to management manipulation of the process. Sometimes it is right to refuse to do something as a union representative if you know that by doing it you will be participating in a process that would be in breach of the principles of JE – principles that exist to ensure fairness and avoid preferential treatment. The stance taken by the unions was later vindicated when the management side withdrew the controversial devices they had been using. Belatedly it was acknowledged that they were open to misuse. We never established whose bright idea it was in the first place to micromanage the panels.

Q: Napo has been accused of focusing on principles and not getting on with the procedure.

A: Members are entitled to fairness and should rightfully expect that procedures are governed by principles that value fairness and openness; that those making judgements as to rates of pay should be properly trained.

Q: Management has described the procedures as ‘ambiguous’, ‘cumbersome’ and ‘complex’.

A: Those words are used to justify breaching the principles.

Q: I find it hard to correlate these tensions over JE with the ‘capability assessment’ submitted last year by HPA as part of their pre-trust application, which indicated a positive working relationship with the unions on job evaluation.

A: The assessment was not jointly authored. Last year, after we saw the assessment, we observed to the management side: “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.”

Q: But the panels are meeting again, so everything is now honky dory?

A: No: Napo, however, must participate in panels to ensure members and staff are represented. However, we maintain that the current HPA approach does not adhere to the principles of joint ownership, equality, recognise the need for appropriate training, or is as transparent and open as it could and should be.

Q: But now all there is to do is evaluate a few new posts and do reviews for those post holders who seek re-evaluations of their bandings.

A: You would think so and the JE manual is clear on the process. Unfortunately as HR remains wedded to the view that the procedures are cumbersome, the propensity to take arbitrary shortcuts remains. HR/management usually end up being hoisted by their own petards. Whilst in the meantime those waiting for assessment are left in states of frustration.

Q: How long does it take to get a job reviewed?

A: Anything from a month or two up to eighteen months so far.

Q: Does everyone go through the same process?

A: We truly hope that will be the case in the future, but over the past two years the assessments, documentation and the gateway to reviews has lacked consistency. To treat applicants differently in respect of assessing pay bands shows that the approach is fundamentally flawed.

Q: Have many staff had their pay bands increased?

A: The majority of posts that have increased in pay bands are in the support functions.

Q: The recent management restructure required JE panels to evaluate the new posts. Was Napo involved?

A: No, Napo was excluded, not invited, overlooked. A further example of everything except joint ownership.

Q: Are Napo nationally aware of the problems in Hampshire?

A: Yes, and they have made some helpful interventions and are monitoring the process closely.

Q: What do you hope for in the future?

A: We hope for a process that is neutral, a process that is transparently objective, where those seeking advice on JE are provided with clear and well-informed guidance. Regardless of what post is being considered we want all documentation, current and historical, in front of the panel. No more shortcuts, a level playing field for every applicant.

So it then becomes possible to look any member of staff in the eyes and say the JE process is fair, grounded in clear principles and has integrity.

JOB EVALUATION EXPLAINED

Download file

Diversity Learning Log:

Download file

Travel Allowances

Are you eligible to claim a mileage allowance for excess travel to your place of work due to an office closure or direction? If so please email us with details of the distance claimed, the mileage rate claimed and paid and the date of eligibility.

Programmes Training

Have you requested or been directed to undertake programme facilitator training? If so, which training have you undertaken? When? Were you or are you required to take annual leave for the training?

Any information on the above issues should be emailed to your Area representatives as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Model letter for MP

Download file

Model letter for media: this is for INFORMATION ONLY - do not send this to your local media.

Download file

The WWT was imposed by management. Napo did seek to reach agreement, but that proved impossible. The arguments over the FDR/SRDs was a final straw. If you recall domestic violence cases were going to be standardised as FDRs… (See entry 10/4)

One of the key principles underpinning workloads states:

"Confirmation that if new tasks are to be assigned to individual members of staff, clear designation of the amount of time to be allocated to those tasks and clarity as to the demands which will be relinquished to accommodate those new tasks will be provided, in advance of their implementation."

This does not tend to happen. Changes are made to working practices without prior assessment of their likely impact on workloads. We see rotas being introduced that tie up time that is not then reflected in timings. We see travel time not being clearly counted, but allegedly it’s part of ‘averages’ that have previously been validated through research and pilot studies. We have not seen the research. The timings often seem more indicative of a virtual reality rather than the real one where the clock is always ticking.

We are hearing expressions of discontent about the new WWT - that it is depressing morale. We don’t currently know how widespread these sentiments are. The subject of workloads will be at the centre of our next branch meeting on 25th September in Portsmouth. As a branch we need to examine all our options, but to do that effectively we need to hear the views of as many members as possible.

The cost of providing tax relief on pensions in 2007/8 was £37.6 billion according to HMRC figures - ten times the net cost of unfunded public sector pension schemes that are not backed by an investment fund. This is estimated by the Treasury to be £4 billion this year."

Thus the taxpayer pays almost ten times more towards private sector pensions and these payments are skewed towards the richest - 10 billion in tax relief, for instance, goes to those who earn more than £150,000.

Read on:

Download file

‘Napo agree that the conditions quoted within the NNC handbook (paragraph 35 – page A4/6). Heading – Additional Travelling Expenditure should be followed for 4 years. Can you confirm that staff will be paid this allowance according to their car user status; thus, for those who are currently ECU allowance holders, once they are no longer deemed to be so they will receive the casual car user rate of allowance.’

On the 12th June HR replied

‘After the buy-out of ECU (30th September 2009) all car user will go on to casual user rate. This rate will be claimed from 1st October 2009 and is clearly defined in the travel policy.’

The casual user rate is clearly defined in the policy - no one clocks up more than 8,500 annually so casual users affected by office closures and claiming Additional Travelling Expenditure (additional home to office mileage) must claim the higher rate. Napo's position is unchanged from the agreement reached with HR on the 11th June. We have taken national advice; we have this matter on the agenda for the next JNCC. These are agreed conditions of service and if they are to be changed locally it must be through negotiation.

The management side in this instance is seeking to change through diktat. They tell the unions that if you are not happy go to the JNCC as though only the unions have to show regard for the consultative machinery. The management side, if seeking to selfishly interpret a national code and condition, should at least argue their case and show respect for the JNCC process.

CONTRACTS: We do not know why staff are being asked to sign new contracts. HR have not discussed this with the unions. We advise that you seek advice before agreeing to anything. It is legally incumbent on the employer to consult about changes to contracts. Napo will represent members who seek such consultation.

Who should attend? The Conference is open to all members of Napo working in the Probation Service as PSOs, including Community Service Officers and Hostel Workers.

Napo’s PSO Conference has quickly established itself as a Conference not to be missed.

DOWNLOAD further details and registration form

Download file