Victimised over safety? That will be £1,200 please

Workers victimised for raising safety concerns will soon have to pay £1,200 if they want to seek justice at an employment tribunal. Unions have branded the move, announced last week by the government, 'a disgrace'. National union body TUC said the plans to introduce fees for tribunals covering the gamut of employer safety and employment law abuses will price low-paid workers out of justice and will mean workers will feel less able to raise safety problems at work. Changes scheduled to take effect in summer 2013 include measures that mean anyone who believes they 'suffer a detriment, dismissal or redundancy for health and safety reasons' may be required to pay an initial fee of £250 and a further £950 if the case goes to a tribunal, the maximum 'level 2' charges under the new system. A safety rep complaining of an employer 'failure to pay for or allow time off to carry out safety rep duties or undertake training' - denial of the legal right to safety rep training makes up the lion's share of safety-related tribunal cases - will have to stump up £160 to kick off a case and a further £250 to take it to tribunal. The same 'level 1' charges apply to workers complaining about an employer's 'failure to pay remuneration whilst suspended from work for health and safety reasons whilst pregnant or on maternity leave.' TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: 'It is vital that working people have fair access to justice, but introducing fees for tribunals will deter many - particularly those on low wages - from taking valid claims to court. Many of the UK's most vulnerable workers will simply be priced out of justice.' He added the government move means 'workers will be more likely to be mistreated at work as rogue bosses will be able to flout the law without fear of sanction.' UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis said it was a 'disgraceful move that tips the scales of justice heavily towards employers, and denies legal redress to those who do not have the cash to pay for it.'

HSE pulls the plug on rock show lies

A claim by a rock show promoter that stars Bruce Springsteen and Sir Paul McCartney had the plug pulled on them at a Hyde Park concert for 'health and safety' reasons has been rubbished by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Kevin Myers, HSE's deputy chief executive and a self-confessed 'longstanding Bruce Springsteen fan', attended last week's Hard Rock Calling gig. In a statement critical of gig promoter Live Nation, he said he 'was doubly disappointed to hear Live Nation give 'health and safety' as the reason for cutting short Saturday's gig. The fans deserve the truth: there are no health and safety issues involved here. While public events may have licensing conditions dictating when they should end, this is not health and safety and it is disingenuous of Live Nation to say so.' HSE's top rock fan added: 'It's ironic that this excuse has been used in relation to Bruce Springsteen, who certainly knows what real health and safety is all about - look at the words of 'Factory' from Darkness on the Edge of Town referring to the toll that factory work can take on the health of blue collar workers. People will now only be able to speculate what the final number should have been. Given that he'd already played Wrecking Ball and that Paul McCartney was on stage, how about Don't let me down?' Westminster Council said the three hour show, which had over-run, was brought to a close by the organisers, not the authorities. In an email to the Wall Street Journal, Live Nation Europe chief operating officer Paul Latham subsequently shifted the blame for cutting The Boss short from health and safety to the well-heeled residents of some of London's most expensive neighbourhoods. 'Suffice to say the residents of Park Lane and Mayfair may not be numerous but they wield inordinate power over the Gogs and Magogs of City Hall and Parliament,' he wrote.

DWP Norcross Closure – Important Advice for the one to one interviews

The following has been provided by the Branch Chair, Martin Jones:

The "capture document" is not fit for purpose, so you will need to ensure that any points you want considering are raised afresh. They will not be picked up by the standard questions you may be asked; you will need to alter the "agenda" of the meeting (as will everyone else).

I would make the following points at your interview:

1. Travel time to Peel Park is infinity. Do not deviate from this wording. (It is infinity because you can only get to a certain point and then you would have to sit and wait for a bridge to be built. Whether or not you drive is irrelevant as unless you began work after 15.1.07 you mobility conditions of service are by public transport.) The Department has accepted that there is no safe route to Peel Park. This has been reconfirmed, so ignore any attempts at an alternative presentation and just keep repeating the points.

2. You are not willing to breach your mobility conditions of service. Or

3. You may be willing to breach your mobility conditions of service when you receive confirmation in writing of the level of compensation to be paid under Workforce Management policies.

4. If you have individual circumstances that apply, and there is an Equality aspect to these, add the following : When you have read the EIA, advise that that the EIA is not fit for purpose as it does not deal with your situation (or anybody else's for that matter.) Ask for this to be reviewed to take account of your circumstances. Raise any other individual issues, e.g. Health issues and ensure these are noted down.

5. Be aware that unless the campaign is successful, Norcross will close, so consider your alternative options, which are basically redeployment or an exit package. Be ready to deploy these in your interview unless you are prepared to go to Peel park and accept compensation under Workforce Management policies. The fact that they are not on the table currently is not relevant. The issue is to oblige these options to be considered. Redeployment may require what is known as a "doughnut" or vicinity exit package in order to create vacancies. The Department will want to avoid this for fear of a stampede at Warbreck, so it is in their interests to resolve particular cases. If you need representation, contact Jon Colgan.

6. Ignore any question asking you what your normal mode of transport is. This is a trick question and is not relevant unless you began work after 15.1.07. Just respond that travel time to Peel Park is infinity.

7. In short, members have rights, but only if they exercise them.

London Olympics 2012

Fylde Central Benefits and Services Branch Support London Olympics 2012.

I am sure we are all looking to some aspect of the London Olympics 2012 that is billed as the ‘The Most Ethical Yet’.

We must be aware of the millions of workers in third world countries that are employed in the global supply chains of multi-million-pound industries making the goods with the Olympics Logo for the games. These people are not getting their fair share from the vast share from the vast profits generated by the Olympics.

The War on Want Campaign is staging a campaign fighting to ensure that the Games Organisers and Committee follow ethical practices in producing Olympic branded goods - namely Adidas and Nike.

Researchers investigated working conditions in Chinese factories producing goods bearing the Olympic Logo found children as young as 12 years old who should be at school, adults earning 14p per hour and other employees being made to work up to 15 hours per day. China appears to ignore any Human Rights and Health and Safety Regulations.

We should be appalled by this recent modern day slavery which is nothing less than shameful.

PCS support War on Want and we ask you to be aware of the products that are bought bearing the Olympic Logo. Their is a need to regulate and promote decent work (in supply chains) and workers must be able to seek justice in the UK when they suffer explotive practices.

Please visit our stand where we have a display of information.

Venue Warbreck House Canteen

Date Tuesday 24th July 2012

Time 11.30am – 2.00pm

Norcross Closure – Members Information Meetings

The purpose of this post is to advise members of forthcoming meetings to discuss the closure of the DWP Norcross site.

The details of the meetings are as follows:

Thursday 12th July 2012

Norcross Canteen - 10.00am

Norcross Canteen - 2.00pm

Forty five minutes facility time has been requested (and agreed by DWP and BBW) for you to attend a meeting, please make every effort to attend.

The meetings will be to feed back from recent meetings with the employer and to discuss members’ issues.

If you have not yet joined PCS then there is still time to join (click here) and attend the meeting.

Only members will be able to attend the meetings.

Ben Wallace MP speaks to the Minister, Chris Grayling...about Norcross

Ben Wallace MP has provided the Branch with a short letter detailing that the closure of the Norcross site is a provisional decision based on suitable transport links being put in place for Peel Park access, a plan needing to be signed off by the Minister prior to DWP giving notice on their contract with Telereal Trillium to lease Norcross.

A copy of the letter can be found here.

Protest at government attack on safety rules

The following has been supplied by the TUC:

Protesters demanding the government 'Stop it, you're killing us' gathered outside the London HQ of the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) on 3 July. The event, attended by over 50 placard and banner waving union and safety campaigners who want the government to stop eroding legal safety protection, came a day before the end of a government consultation on 14 measures that could see some safety rules, including the cranes register, axed. The event, which was organised by the Construction Safety Campaign with the support of unions and bereaved relatives group Families Against Corporate Killers (FACK), heard a succession of calls on the government to reverse its deregulatory policy. Commenting on the proposal to scrap the two-years-old Notification of Conventional Tower Crane Regulations, GMB national health and safety officer John McClean said: 'In the ten years before the tower crane regulations were introduced nine people were killed and there were 25 serious injuries in more than 60 accidents involving cranes in the UK. There are around 1,500 tower cranes in the UK and around 1,000 in use at any one time. These lifesaving regulations only came into force in 2010 and there has been insufficient time to evaluate the effect of the regulations on public safety.' He added: 'GMB is demanding that the register must remain in place. The regulations play a real part in saving lives and reassuring the public that the construction industry is taking the safety of workers and the public seriously.' FACK's Hilda Palmer said it was 'lunacy' to replace, or axe regulation, as companies will stop taking safety seriously. She added that cuts to the Health and Safety Executive's budget meant the safety watchdog is now 'reactive rather than proactive in dealing with unsafe work practices'. A request by protesters to meet a minister received no response.

Norcross Closure Announcement

To all members and potential members of the PCS Fylde Central Benefits and Services Branch

The purpose of this post is to inform members who may not already be aware but today, 27th June 2012, the employer has announced that the DWP Norcross site is to close.

The employer in an earlier meeting, and elsewhere has indicated that there will not be any DWP job losses or job losses in any of the contractors for the DWP as a result of today’s announcement. You may also be aware of the amount of work that has been undertaken by the Branch in raising the issue of job cuts and the potential of a site closing with the local MPs and local council leadership. There has been a fair degree of coverage in the media about these meetings and our campaign to defend jobs and promote the economy of the Fylde.

We do not believe that the decision announced today defends jobs nor does it promote the economy of the Fylde. It merely cements in the two thousand five hundred job losses that there have been in the over the last few years and means that it is highly unlikely/ impossible for there to be any return of those numbers of jobs.

What happens now? 

The Branch has today written to the employer setting out a series of questions regarding the closure. The topics include; confirmation that there will not be any job losses in the DWP (including FLSMs etc) or the contractors (including catering, cleaning, messengerial, security etc), that no work will move away from the Fylde, details about the units that may be going to other sites, and the question of members potentially being posted outside of the mobility conditions of service. This is merely the tip of the iceberg.

I will keep members informed of any updates.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Again if you require copies of the five circulars that have been issued over the last couple of months, which include details about your conditions of service and potential options then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Remember that it is important that members at Norcross actively support the Campaigns that the Branch/ PCS take forward.

Yours sincerely

Duncan Griffiths

Branch Secretary

Government can't leave safety to business

The following has been supplied by the TUC:
The government's insistence that workplace safety laws hold back the economy and that safety enforcement is a diversion business could and should do without is 'a cynical - and ultimately deadly - lie,' a new report has charged. The new issue of the safety journal Hazards magazine examining the government's safety strategy notes: 'Your life just got a little bit cheaper. Safety regulations and enforcement are out of favour, and for more and more workers, this could mean they are out of luck.' It adds 'this immoral government strategy will exact a high human and economic cost.' The report is critical of ministers for giving business the inside track on policy making. It says this privileged access comes both in face-to-face meetings and increasingly in policy initiatives like its Focus on Enforcement, where only a business viewpoint is sought. Hazards says while safety minister Chris Grayling is happy to hold regular sessions with business lobby groups to hear their safety wish list, relatives group Families Against Corporate Killers is still waiting a year after requesting an audience. The journal notes: 'The government would prefer to limit the business of consultation to business,' and points to the May 2012 Focus on Enforcement consultation which asked just those British chemical firms covered by the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations (COMAH) - those with the potential to cause the worst devastation if they go bang - how they'd like their safety enforced. 'No-one else - certainly not the workers or local residents who would be blown to smithereens - gets a look in,' it concludes.

Whistleblowing law undermined by the 'back door'

The following has been supplied by the TUC:

'The government is bringing in an amendment which will undermine the law on whistleblowing 'by the back door', an employment law expert has warned - and the protection of safety reps and whistleblowers is in the firing line. David Lewis, professor of employment law at Middlesex University and convenor of the International Whistleblowing Research Network, has written an open letter to business secretary Vince Cable attacking the lack of consultation over an amendment to whistleblowing provisions in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which was presented to parliament on 23 May. The section 12 one-line amendment introduced in the Bill would mean disclosures made by whistleblowers would have to be 'in the public interest' in order to protect the individual if they are made redundant or suffer detriment as a result of doing so. Professor Lewis warns in his letter to the business secretary this will inhibit potential whistleblowers from making important disclosures about wrongdoing. Lewis told human resources magazine Personnel Today: 'My prime concern with this amendment is that most people have a choice whether to blow the whistle or not and they will keep quiet if they think it is the safest and most sensible option.' He added: 'What the bill is going to do is drop a bomb on the whistleblowing provisions by simply saying there is now going to be a public interest test for all cases in all circumstances, which completely sabotages the legislation.' He said that while a review of the legislation was needed, this change has been brought in 'by the back door' without consultation. The amendments would apply to the section 43B whistleblowing provisions in the Employment Rights Act 1996. Section 44 of this Act covers protection for safety reps raising concerns about workplace safety. It is believed the legal changes if introduced would have a dramatic impact on safety rights at work, leaving safety reps and whistleblowers without essential protection. Whistleblowers' charity Public Concern at Work says the 'public interest' qualifier would apply to any whistleblowing, including where 'the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered.'

Fit-for-work checks should be scrapped, say GPs

The following has been supplied by the TUC:
'Family doctors have called for an end to the work capability assessment introduced by the government in a bid to get more people off benefits and back to work. The British Medical Association's conference last week called for the fit-for-work checks to be scrapped because of the harm they do to vulnerable patients. The doctors, who represent GPs from across the UK, called instead for a more vigorous and safe process which takes into account the needs of long term sick and disabled patients. Dr Laurence Buckman, chair of the BMA's GPs Committee, said: 'When 40 per cent of appeals against the assessments are successful at tribunal hearings something is clearly very wrong with the system. Being in work is good for people's overall health and well-being, but GPs are seeing too many patients who genuinely need to be on incapacity benefit coming in very concerned and confused by the system.' He added: 'It's not fair on these patients but it could also have a wider impact as well - having a lower income may lead to people having a poorer quality of health and could therefore increase health inequalities for our nation as a whole. The government needs to look again at the whole assessment process and replace it with one that is fit for purpose.'

HSE health expertise 'destroyed by stealth'

The following has been supplied by the TUC:

The retirement in May 2012 of the chief medical adviser for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has left its Employment Medical Advisory Service (EMAS) close to collapse, a top HSE trade union rep has warned. Simon Hester, a frontline HSE field inspector and chair of the union Prospect's HSE branch, made the warning in a 22nd May letter to The Guardian. 'Twenty years ago EMAS was an internationally respected source of occupational health expertise employing 60 occupational health doctors and 62 nurses. It is now down to 2.2 doctors, only one of whom is full-time,' he wrote. 'Successive years of cuts and 'reviews' (three in the past five years) have effectively destroyed by stealth an organisation committed to the well-being of the nation's workforce.' Citing official HSE figures, he warned well over a million people are currently suffering from ill- health caused by or made worse by their work, 'all relying on medical help from an ever-stretched NHS, the vast majority suffering from preventable illnesses. If the government truly believes prevention is better than cure it must reverse the cuts to HSE and rebuild a service that can help protect the UK workforce.' HSE's ability to respond effectively to workplace health and cancer problems has been damaged by the demise of its medical wing, campaigners have warned.

PCS HQ Email Distribution

Email gathering
A growing number of PCS activists and members now receive information about PCS campaigns from HQ by personal email. This enables PCS to communicate quickly and efficiently and is increasingly important given the restrictions placed by some employers on workplace communications. 

Members can now give us personal email and mobile phone details through our quick sign up form which can be found here.

Government publishes 'sunsetting' bill

The following has been supplied by the TUC:

The government has published a Bill that will build 'sunsetting clauses' into new regulations and that includes a presumption the laws will be scrapped unless a government department argues for their survival. The government also says the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill will include measures for 'reducing inspection burdens on businesses of all sizes and increasing SME access to reliable, consistent advice on complying with regulations in areas such as trading standards, health and safety and environmental health.' Business secretary Vince Cable said: 'The measures in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill will help make Britain one of the most enterprise-friendly countries in the world. It will improve our employment tribunals, reform and strengthen competition enforcement, scrap unnecessary red tape and help ensure that people who work hard and do the right thing are rewarded.' When the Bill was flagged up in the Queen's speech earlier this month, a TUC spokesperson commented: 'Despite all the evidence, the government retains its obsession that businesses are over-inspected. Changes introduced last year mean that most employers will never have the benefit of a health and safety inspection unless they report a death or serious injury. This will mean employers will be both less likely to report injuries, and also will be less likely to take adequate measures to protect their workforce.' He warned: 'We are already seeing evidence that fatalities seem to be rising in many industries as businesses cut back on health and safety. If the government continues to give the message that good health and safety is a burden then this can only increase.' New research has confirmed that official inspection and enforcement has a positive and lasting effect on workplace safety, with no evidence of the burdens on business or job creation and retention claimed by the government.

Safety cuts already causing hurt

The following has been supplied by the TUC:

The government's drive to reduce regulation and enforcement of workplace health and safety is already causing harm at work, the union Unite has said. The union has been asking its union reps how the changes are impacting on standards at work, ahead of the government's own progress report later this year. Unite reps have so far reported a worrying deterioration they link to a government-ordered downgrading of safety protection, which includes slashing enforcement by a third, exempting most firms from preventive inspections and cutting the Health and Safety Executive's budget to the bone. Unite reps say they are feeling the pain at work, with some reporting employers have cut back on personal protective equipment at work and are failing to properly report legally reportable injuries. They also point to work overload as a result of public sector cuts, a lack of action on stress and mental health issues at work, poor management of asbestos at work and a failure to take preventive action to protect women from reproductive risks. Unite intends to collate a dossier to demonstrate the positive effect of unions on health and safety and the problems they are facing as the safety cuts bite.

Civil Service wide overtime ban from 11th May to 31st July

The purpose of this post is to inform members of the continuing overtime ban throughout June and July 2012.

PCS has done everything possible to resolve the disputes over Pensions, the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, the Pay Freeze (and two more years of extreme pay restraint) however to date there has not been an acceptable outcome from the Government.

We have already witnessed over two thousand five hundred job losses from the Fylde economy due to the job cuts in the area and even more are now in jeopardy and many members are facing being made redundant, we have seen our pay frozen and the Government has announced another two years of extreme pay restraint (and unlike other areas of the Public Sector our Pay Progression isn’t separately funded meaning that we are treated even more unfairly than other public servants), our Pensions are under attack (we are being expected to pay more for our pensions, work longer and receive less) and our redundancy terms have been cut so that it is cheaper to get rid of us.

We are being asked to pay for the financial mess created by the bankers and the financial speculators and spivs, with our jobs, our pay, our pensions and our conditions of service.

The financial mess was none of our making. It’s their financial mess make them pay for it. It is time for members to show that they oppose the notion of being forced to pay for the excesses of the spivs.

Our reasonable demands are:

• No detrimental changes to our pensions and our redundancy payments
• Application and strengthening on the protocols to avoid redundancy
• An end to the pay freeze and a fair pay rise for all members

Potential Members

If you have not yet joined your Union, please complete and return the form found here.

Pay Fair: Why Regional Pay Doesn't Add Up

The following has been supplied by the TUC:

We all want to see fair pay for the nurses, teachers and others who work hard to deliver good public services. But on top of pay freezes, the government now wants to change the way pay is set in the public sector.

Instead of a fair, transparent national system, they want local or regional pay that would mean different rates for people doing exactly the same jobs, just because of where they live.

Here are just five reasons why it doesn't add up:

It's unfair

Regional pay could mean two nurses or teachers with the same skills and experience being paid differently in two different places - even though they're doing the same job. People should be paid based on their skills and the work they do, not where they live. Low pay could make it harder for poorer regions to attract and keep the skilled public sector workers they need.

Regional pay could also work against equal pay. Great progress has been made in the public sector in narrowing the pay gap between women and men. For instance, the Agenda for Change system in the NHS was designed to deliver equal pay. Bringing in local or regional pay could unravel this progress.

It's bad for the economy

Public sector workers are already feeling the pinch from pay freezes, the VAT rise and inflation. Regional pay would mean holding back pay for even longer in the parts of the country that are struggling the most.

Holding back public sector pay will take money out of public sector workers' pockets that they would otherwise spend in local shops and businesses. Taking demand out of the economy like this will hurt the private sector and widen the north-south divide.

It isn't backed up by evidence

The government has argued that public sector pay stops the private sector growing. In fact, there's no evidence to support this. There is an average of five people chasing every job vacancy, and up to 30 unemployed people per vacancy in some areas. It's the lack of demand in the economy, not the wages of nurses and teachers that is causing the problem.

It isn't what the private sector does

Most big private sector employers recognise that a national system is the fairest and most efficient way to set pay. In fact, companies like Waterstones, Greggs, Marks and Spencer, BT and Halfords all take the same sort of approach as the public sector: a national pay system with limited additions for London and the south east of England.

It's unpopular

According to a recent opinion poll only 28% of voters believe the idea of extending pay freezes for public sector workers outside of the south east and London would be fair. As few as 17% believe that real term pay cuts for public sector workers would help low pay regional economies. It's time that coalition MPs listened to their constituents, heard their concerns and put a stop to these damaging and divisive plans.

PCS condemns threats of compulsory redundancy for AA’s in DWP

Management have today announced the start of meaningful consultation for compulsory redundancy for up to 94 AA’s in DWP. Meaningful consultation is the start of the formal process that leads to compulsory redundancies.

The AA’s involved are those that management have deemed to be ‘surplus’. They are spread over all parts of DWP including:

Job Centres

Benefit offices due to be closed

Contact Centres (not TPIP sites)

Pension Centres

Shared Services
Corporate Centre

The staff involved will be notified on May 14th that they have been placed into meaningful consultation. The exact number of staff being placed into meaningful consultation may be reduced as some of the AA’s may still be offered promotion opportunities following the recent AA to AO promotion exercise.

No Business Reason

PCS condemns this decision to start meaningful consultation. There is no real business reason for doing so as there is plenty of work for all of these AA staff to do. DWP faces rising workloads and increasing unemployment. At such a time it is madness to threaten staff with compulsory redundancy. Every AA employed can take routine work off other staff allowing them to focus on duties appropriate to their grade. The removal of AA’s only means that higher graded staff have to do their own AA work instead.

Second time in meaningful consultation

Some of the AA’s being placed into meaningful consultation today are the same staff that were placed into meaningful consultation back in 2007. They were  only finally taken out of meaningful consultation two years later, following the agreement that PCS reached with DWP to resolve the 2007 DWP Pay dispute.

Plenty of AA work

Management have always claimed that there is no permanent role for these staff in DWP. PCS asserted back in 2007 that there was plenty of meaningful work for these AA’s to do then. The fact that they have continued to be employed on important and worthwhile work since then has proved PCS to be right. There is no reason why they should not continue to be employed to do this work.

Breach of 2009 agreement

PCS is very concerned that  moving some of these AA’s, who were taken out of meaningful consultation in 2009, back into meaningful consultation again now is a breach of the agreement that PCS reached with DWP in 2009 to resolve the 2007 pay dispute. PCS is also concerned that AA’s who were offered redundancy in 2007 will now be offered it again but on the greatly reduced terms of the new Civil Service Compensation Scheme.

PCS will defend AA members

PCS is determined to defend our AA members and to fight for their job security. We have successfully done so in the past and will do so again. We will make it clear to DWP management that we believe that none of our AA members should be made redundant when they wish to continue in employment with DWP. The union will do everything possible to protect their jobs, including, if necessary, balloting members across DWP to defend these members’ jobs.

Universal Credit

First Universal Credit Sites Announced

Management have today (17th May) announced the first tranche of offices that are to become Universal Credit (UC) service centres. 16 DWP sites and 2 HMRC sites have been named. The sites have capacity to house around 8,500 staff. The sites are:

DWP Benefit Centres

Bolton, Glasgow, Wolverhampton, Wrexham, Canterbury, Birkenhead, Cosham, Sunderland

DWP Contact Centres

Grimsby, Bootle, Dundee, Bangor, Paisley, Derby, Makerfield, Middlesbrough

HMRC

Blackpool Ryscar House, Merry Hill

These sites will be used to deliver the first phase of Universal Credit. This begins in April 2013 with the start of the UC Pathfinder and then expands as the first New Claims to UC start in October 2013.

Management are very keen to stress that these sites are for the first Phase 1 of UC and that further sites will be named to become additional UC sites in 2013 and then again in 2014 in order to deliver the subsequent phases of UC. From April 2014 new tax credit claims will become UC cases and from 2014 to 2017 all existing claims to working age benefits and tax credits will be gradually converted to UC. It is therefore important to understand that today’s announcement does not exclude any DWP Benefit Centre or Contact Centre from becoming a UC site in the future.

What if my office has not been named?

PCS is concerned that members in DWP sites that are not named as UC sites will fear that their site may close as a result. Management have assured us that this is not the case. Sites not chosen to be UC sites will be required to maintain existing claims to legacy benefits during the conversion process which runs until 2017 and further announcements of more UC sites will be made over the next 2 years. Staff will also be required to continue to process those benefits that are not being subsumed into UC.

Management’s letter to all staff clearly says that “staff in all our sites still have a key role in delivering essential changes”. While this does not constitute an indefinite guarantee of a job for everyone it is nevertheless less an important assurance for the foreseeable future.

UC in the longer term

At this stage management are not able to say exactly how many staff will be required to process UC in the longer term. This will be ongoing work that is likely to be heavily influenced by the experience of UC in practice. Factors such as the take up of online claiming and the robustness of the new IT are likely to be important factors in determining this. Management have also made clear that they intend to consider alternative methods for delivering UC from 2017 onwards, but are unlikely to make any firm decisions on this before 2015.

HMRC Staff

As well as announcing 16 DWP UC sites, management have also announced 2 HMRC sites for phase one of UC. This will mean the HMRC staff on these sites will be transferred to DWP and become DWP staff. This is obviously a major issue for our PCS colleagues in HMRC, but it also has implications for DWP staff.

The staff transfer will take place under the principles of the Cabinet Office Statement of Practice (COSOP) that governs the transfer of staff within the public sector. This means that HMRC staff will transfer into DWP on their existing terms and conditions. There are differences in the staff terms and conditions that apply in DWP and HMRC, most notably rates of pay, which are generally higher in HMRC. PCS will be pressing for these terms and conditions to be harmonised for all staff on the best terms. Further discussions will be taking place with management on this. There is also further work ongoing to confirm what other HMRC sites may become UC service centres.

How will UC be organised?

Detail on this is still being developed but management have given some broad indicators. Online claiming with automated processing will be used as much as possible, though the extent of this is very dependent on the quality of the new IT systems that are being developed.

UC sites will be known as Service Centres. These centres will deliver both telephony and processing functions under a single management chain. PCS welcomes this as we believe that the separation of telephony from processing has not delivered good customer service and has been extremely unpopular among our members.

Job Centres and ex-PDCS offices

Job Centres and ex-PDCS Offices as well as HQ and shared services sites are not in scope for selection to become UC service centres. Job Centres will deliver the labour market services of UC from 2013. The exact detail of what this will mean is still being worked on. Pension centres will be largely unaffected by UC while Regional Disability Centres will be changing to become Personal Independent Payment (PIP) offices when PIP is introduced in 2013 to replace Disability Living Allowance. The future of Warbreck is uncertain in terms of what will happen after 2016, when the re-assessment of the DLA cases is concluded.

PCS Position

UC is a very large change programme for DWP and HMRC staff and will undoubtedly be unsettling to many of our members as they fear for their job security and their future during a period of change. PCS’ priorities for Universal Credit is to ensure that our members’ interests are fully protected. Specifically we will be seeking agreements with the employer that UC is delivered in a way that ensures there are no job losses or office closures, terms and conditions are protected and that UC work continues to be delivered in-house.

Grayling turns again to job killer 'claptrap'

The following has been supplied by the TUC:

Employment minister Chris Grayling has told employers he believes 'unneeded' workplace safety regulations 'stifle' economic growth. Speaking at an Enterprise Forum meeting in London last week, he said: 'That's why we are cutting health and safety bureaucracy. We're making good progress and I am determined to cut the number of health and safety regulations in half.' The minister responsible for workplace safety added: 'Of course we have to protect people against death and serious injury in the workplace and we won't do anything to risk this but if we stifle their employers with unneeded rules and regulations those people won't have a job in the first place.' Critics again refuted government claims about safety regulation being a job killer, pointing out that good safety enforcement makes business sense. Each 'accident' death at work costs over £1 million. Each occupational cancer death - and TUC estimates there are over 15,000 each year - comes at a cost to society of over £2.5m. Families Against Corporate Killers co-ordinator Hilda Palmer rubbished Mr Grayling's comments as 'ideological claptrap' based 'on no evidence whatsoever.' She said: 'Too many regulations don't kill people, too little regulations do and the government is failing to protect workers from serious safety risks.' The minister also trailed the publication of a new Health and Safety Executive guide intended to help businesses avoid unnecessary safety tests on portable electrical appliances.