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.