Summary
of the Branch Meetings held 17th & 18th May 2007
Background
Malcolm Campbell,
the Branch Secretary, opened by explaining that the Purpose of the meetings was
to update members on the single Status negotiations, seek their views and
advise them as to what should happen next.
He pointed out that
the revised deadline for negotiations was 31st May. This was fast approaching and it was unlikely
that agreement would be reached by then.
It was not clear what the council would do following the new deadline if
agreement hadn’t been reached. However,
they had stated that they were committed to trying to reach agreement Meetings were still scheduled beyond the cut
off date.
It was thought that
Pam Parkes may write to staff again asking them to accept if agreement couldn’t
be reached. Members were advised not to
accept the proposals unless there was a recommendation, to do so, from the
Trade Unions, enclosed.
The Branch would
endeavor to communicate quickly with members if no agreement was reached.
It was hoped that if
agreement wasn’t reached that nothing would be imposed.
The object of the
exercise was to bring all staff together on one set of grades and terms and
conditions. This was all part of the
“Green Book” agreement that came into being in April 1997.
This agreement gave
a 10 year deadline, to 31st March 2007, for all Local Authorities to
undertake the evaluation process and bring all staff onto equal conditions.
This council first set up “Steering Groups” in 1998 to look into this. These steering groups fizzled out within a
very short time. For the past 3 years
the Trade Unions have frequently asked when Single Status discussions would be
resumed.
Finally in the
summer of 2006 the Council woke up!
Weekly single Status
meetings were taking place and there were a number of issues being discussed:
Pam Parkes had
written again to staff outlining the Council’s position. Malcolm outlined the major factors of the
Single Status discussions.
Job
Evaluation
The major issue was
the Job Evaluation Process. A huge programme
had been undertaken. The Evaluation panels had comprised one representative
from HR and one from one of the three Trade Unions. There had been severe
slippages in timescales but these had occurred in other Authorities too.
The jobs where it
was thought the most obvious equal pay challenges might come from had been done
first. These were mainly in Social
Services and the ex manual grades. Jobs
that had been evaluated under the Greater
Concerns were
expressed over the lack of consistency of managers on completing the job
evaluation questionnaires. Lots had been
referred back from the panels where they were incorrect or incomplete.
Members who were
experiencing problems with their managers were asked to let the Branch Office
know, particularly if managers had not discussed the questionnaires with them.
The results of the
evaluations were due out within a couple of weeks and those dissatisfied with
the results had the right to appeal. It
was expected that there would be a huge demand for appeals.
Appeals
The appeals panels
would also comprise of a Trade Union Rep and an HR rep along with the member of
staff and their Trade Union representative.
A question was raise
because an HR presentation at Fairfield Halls had suggested all appeals would
be conducted in writing. M
Concerns were
expressed about there being no right of appeal if there was no change. It was pointed out that if members felt there
should have been a change, but there hasn’t been, the Unions would look at
these cases and try to pursue if they felt there was grounds, particularly if
this applied to a group of staff. It was
also stated that if they were granted an appeal, it might be worth lodging a
request for an evaluation once this exercise was over.
In response to a
question members were assured that the outcome of any appeal would not have any
adverse effect any other job.
Representation
Non members were
likely to be affected but if they joined, now, before the results were known
they would be entitled to representation too as they would already be members
when their problem (i.e. the outcome of the evaluations were known) arose. If they wait till they get the results they
would be considered a deathbed conversion and wouldn’t be entitled to
representation at their appeals. It was
pointed out that all members should spread the word.
Upgrading
Management were
proposing that all staff upgraded would be put on the bottom of the new
grade. The Trade Unions were not
agreeing to that! Back pay for up to six
years acknowledges they should have been on this grade up to six years ago but
refuses to recognise that they would have progressed up the scale in that
time. They were still arguing over this.
Working
Week
The Council still
wanted to extend the working week. Their
latest proposals were for 7.00 am till 7.00 pm Monday to Saturday.
The Trade Unions had
stated emphatically that Saturday working was not negotiable. This was a stumbling block for the
negotiations. They had advised the council Officers that if they dropped
including Saturday as part of the working week, agreement might be reachable on
other areas.
Trade unions had
asked why the Council were digging their
heels in over Saturdays particularly as they had accepted that the largest
majority of workers that would be adversely affected by this were women and yet
single status was supposed to be an exercise to ensure equality for all!
It was not yet known
whether they would be willing to drop this.
It was, however, blocking any progress on other issues.
Whilst the 7 till 7
proposal had been suggested by the Trade Unions it had not been a Unison
suggestion. A Unison General Purposes
Committee had rejected this proposal, however, as the
present system dictated that premium payments were not payable until 11/2 hours
outside of the current hours (i.e. 8.00 am till 6.30 pm), and the council were
offering to pay the rates immediately.
Therefore this may not actually constitute any great change and might be
acceptable.
To soften the blow
the Council had offered 5 years protection, for staff asked to work on
Saturdays, below spinal column point 28 and those who were due to retire and
three years protection for those above that point. New staff would be expected to work Saturdays
as part of the working week. The Unions
still felt this was still unsatisfactory as it created a two tier system which
disadvantaged future members.
The Council had
argued that the public expected services “24/7”. The Unions had rejected this claim but
pointed out that if that was the case, anyone working unsocial hours would
expect to be paid an enhancement to provide that service.
Members at the
meeting said if the public want 24/7 services they should have to pay extra
Council Tax for that. If they knew there
was to be a charge they would probably realise they could live without it!
Premium
Payments & Overtime
These payments were
payable to staff working over and above the contractual 36 hours.
The proposals were
to reduce premium payments and overtime from time + ½ and double time on
Sundays and Bank Holidays to time + ⅓ and time + ¾ on
Sundays and Bank Holidays.
The current
situation didn’t take into account the whole of the
The Trade unions had
said they needed to know how this would affect people and asked for figures of
how many people on each spinal column point and the gender split.
Allowances
Other allowances were
being looked at too. As negotiations had
been bogged down by discussions over the working week, this issue was yet to be
looked at in detail. It was the main
subject for discussion at the next scheduled meeting. There was general agreement that the criteria
to market plussages need to be reviewed.
In response to a
question a member who was in receipt of an allowance which had replaced
overtime payments, it was pointed out that all allowances would be looked
at. It was also pointed out that these were
not consistent across boroughs.
The Council had
always had discretion to pay allowances or pay salaries inclusive of various
additional elements above spinal column point 28. They had tended to pay allowances. If they proposed changes to those above and
agreement couldn’t be reached there was always recourse to the Joint
Secretaries of the Greater
Equality
Impact Assessment
This was a detailed
analysis that the council were obliged to carry out on the effect their proposals
would have on each spinal column point and the gender split of staff. It was important that the negotiations were
subject to this. The Council officers had said that they had been checking that
their proposals were fair and that they did not discriminate, but that they
would not be undertaking the full assessment until they had a final proposal to
put to staff.
It had been pointed
out to them that there was no point in leaving it till then as the assessment
could send them back to the drawing board again and the Trade Unions wouldn’t
be able to make any recommendations until after they had seen the outcome
Equality Impact Assessment.
Back
Pay
The Unions had
accepted the proposal of 6 years back pay.
However there was disagreement on the fact that the council proposed
putting staff on the bottom of the new scale point.
The Unions had
rejected this as back pay was awarded as recognition of the fact that staff had
been unpaid up to now. To put them on
the bottom of the scale ignores the fact that in that time staff would have
progressed up the scale.
Members questioned
whether allowances that had been paid over the last six years would be deducted
from the lump sum. It was thought that
this was the case, but Malcolm said he would check.
Protection
for staff downgraded by job Evaluation
The two sides were
still arguing this point too. The
Council were still only offering 1 year as, their legal advice was that to
protect for any longer would perpetuate inequalities. The Trade Unions were still arguing that the
inequalities would be eroded as the new grades caught up.
The Trade Union
suggestion of a three year protection with a lump sum buyout of up to two
additional years was still being considered.
Funding
The Council were
saying there was a need to reduce overtime and premium payments to pay for the
costs of the Job Evaluation scheme and the resultant up-gradings. This had first been suggested as far back as
the first steering group meetings in 1998. When asked why they were so intent
on taking away money from staff they said that they needed to recoup the losses
created by Single Status.
It was pointed out
that they were trying to take the money from the very people who most benefited
from the allowances ie the lowest paid!
The Council knew
that this process was coming and had 10 years to prepare, but had put just £2m
aside for it. It had cost
The
Council’s Presentations
The HR presentations
had implied that the proposals were a done deal and concerns were expressed
from members about possible imposed implementation. It was pointed out there was a requirement to
ballot all staff which gave staff the opportunity to reject the proposals. Malcolm reiterated that if there had been no
recommendation from the Unions then all staff should be urged to reject the
proposals.
The larger the
number of staff that refuse to accept the changes the stronger the staffs’
position was. Members were encouraged to
respond to the most recent letter from Pam Parkes rejecting the proposals with
specific reference to Saturday working.
The draft letter was still on the website, it was a word document so
could be downloaded and amended to suit members’ personal views.
It was pointed out
that if a large majority were prepared to accept the changes, but certain
groups were not, the Branch would look at where those members were and what the
reasons for their objections. If there
were specific reasons for the rejection it might be possible to negotiate
something on their behalf.
Technically the
Council could terminate anyone’s contract by giving 90 days notice, but they
wouldn’t do that to all staff as they would need to recruit a whole new
workforce. It would be much easier for
them to reach agreement with the Trade Unions and have them recommend the
changes.
Flexi
In response to a
question it was not expected that single status would alter any departmental
flexi time agreements.
Working
Time Directive
A comment was raised
over what affect implementation of the working time directive would have on
Single Status. It was pointed out that
this was a separate issue that was likely to be part of negotiations with the
Council at a later date.
In
Conclusion
Malcolm pointed out
that the members and staff’s position would stronger if we all work together
and stand firm to resist the proposed unacceptable changes.
Members were
encouraged to respond to Pam Parkes letter, either by letter email or
telephone. The more responses they get,
rejecting the proposals the more they will have to listen to the Unions.
Members were
reminded that a draft letter was available on the Branch Website which was in a
word document so could be downloaded and modified to suit personal
circumstances.
Non members were to
be encouraged to submit letters too and were welcome to utilise the draft.
Non members should
consider joining now, before the results were known so they are in membership
before they need to call on the union for representation.