The following details have been supplied by PCS DWP Group:
Management announce further staff moves Bradford and Kilmarnock Benefit Centres to transfer to Fraud and Error Service.
As part of management’s ongoing strategy of moving work around DWP, management have announced the transfer of further staff from the benefits directorate. Management say that this is an attempt to manage workloads due to a number of factors, including the reduced IBRA outputs from ATOS. This latest announcement follows on from significant staff moves from DWP Operations into Child Maintenance Group (CMG) to meet CMG’s increasing staffing demands and the perceived reductions in work in the remainder of mainstream operations.
The two sites involved are Bradford and Kilmarnock. Most of the staff at Bradford, and all of the staff at Kilmarnock, will transfer on a temporary basis to the Fraud and Error Service (FES) from January 2014. The Kilmarnock site has already been earmarked for transfer to CMG and the intention is still that the Kilmarnock transfer to CMG will take place in Quarter 4 of 2014/15. However in the interim staff at this site will transfer temporarily to the Fraud and Error service, part of the Operational Excellence Directorate.
At the Bradford site the majority of staff will transfer on a temporary basis to the new Fraud and Error Service (FES). The remaining staff will continue to undertake benefit directorate work.
It is expected that all AO grade staff will transfer with approximately 50% of AA and EO grades and 2 HEOs. All staff at Kilmarnock will transfer to FES on a temporary basis. This transfer is expected to take place from January 2014 and the Bradford staff are expected to return to benefit directorate work by the end of December 2014. The majority of Kilmarnock temporary transfers are expected to then move to CMG in early 2015 as originally scheduled with approximately 20 staff returning to other work.
The staff that transfer will be expected to undertake work similar to that which has previously been undertaken by the benefit integrity centres at Hastings (transferring to CMG), Ilford and Ramsgate. The latter sites transferred into FES from November 1st 2013. The work of the integrity centres is seen by management as a key part of the department’s strategy to combat fraud and error.
PCS have pressed management to ensure a fair and transparent process for selecting staff to temporarily transfer to FES or remain on BD work. Management have indicated that they expect volunteers to be sought at Bradford and will return to discuss with PCS if there is any need for selection. Any local difficulties should be raised with your local PCS representatives in the first instance.
It should be noted that there are no proposed changes to terms and conditions or location associated with this temporary transfer.
As management seek to balance staffing across operations there will no doubt be other significant movements of work across operations in the coming months.
PCS will continue to press management for details of their strategy and continue to press for increases in staffing as PCS are concerned that significant processing backlogs are building up in parts of operations.
22.11.13
Benefit Directorate Contractual Start and Finish Times
The following details have been supplied by PCS DWP Group:
Paragraph 2.5 of the BD FWH Agreement states "An employee cannot be required to come in earlier or stay later than their contractual start or finish times. However, an employee may choose to do so where there is work available to be completed, in agreement with their line manager."
An employee's contractual start or finish times will be as stated in their contract, or in their agreement using the Working Pattern Agreement Template or in the case of original standard contacts for full time employees, as used in DSS and DWP, which did not state specific start and finish times, be within the terms of the Working Patterns Glossary of Terms definition of a "Standard Working Week" which is "36/37 net weekly hours worked in a standard pattern between the hours of 08.00 - 17.00 Monday to Friday."
However, employees recruited over the last 10 years may have been employed on a contract for a "Non-Standard Working Week" which is defined as "weekly contracted hours worked in a standard pattern over a maximum of any 5 days (including Saturday and/or Sunday) within the service day of individual businesses." Some employees may therefore have a contract which supports a management requirement to work to 19.00. The problem DWP appears to have is that they cannot, using their own records, simply produce a list of who these staff are.
Most full time employee's are not employed under the terms of a "Non Standard Working Week" contract so the standard working pattern for full-time employees, to which most employees default if flexi time is suspended, would be:
Benefit Directorate Flexible Working Hours Agreement
- Contractual Start and Finish Times -
Paragraph 2.5 of the BD FWH Agreement states "An employee cannot be required to come in earlier or stay later than their contractual start or finish times. However, an employee may choose to do so where there is work available to be completed, in agreement with their line manager."
An employee's contractual start or finish times will be as stated in their contract, or in their agreement using the Working Pattern Agreement Template or in the case of original standard contacts for full time employees, as used in DSS and DWP, which did not state specific start and finish times, be within the terms of the Working Patterns Glossary of Terms definition of a "Standard Working Week" which is "36/37 net weekly hours worked in a standard pattern between the hours of 08.00 - 17.00 Monday to Friday."
However, employees recruited over the last 10 years may have been employed on a contract for a "Non-Standard Working Week" which is defined as "weekly contracted hours worked in a standard pattern over a maximum of any 5 days (including Saturday and/or Sunday) within the service day of individual businesses." Some employees may therefore have a contract which supports a management requirement to work to 19.00. The problem DWP appears to have is that they cannot, using their own records, simply produce a list of who these staff are.
Most full time employee's are not employed under the terms of a "Non Standard Working Week" contract so the standard working pattern for full-time employees, to which most employees default if flexi time is suspended, would be:
- Monday to Friday, 08.36 – 17.00 or 08.00 – 16.24 (National); or
- Monday to Friday, 08.48 – 17.00 or 08.00 – 16.12 (London Pay Zones).
King Jones Kith and Kin Web Quiz
Either way, don’t forget to include your name, workplace location
details and your PCS membership
number if possible. The quiz is only open to members (and we will check). Also
include the name of the quiz on your entry.
Gadzooks King Jones here, for those who weren't at the 2013 AGM I am no longer
the Branch Chair.
I thought to mark the passing of my reign with a quiz about my kith and
kin.
So here is the last King Jones kith and kin quiz
– fitting that it is the first on-line branch quiz hosted by me being King of
the Branch IT also.
Question 1
My final year of reign may not go down as Gloriana, but who was
the final monarch of the Tudor dynasty. Was it?a) Henry VIII
b) Edward IV
c) Jane Grey
d) Mary I
e) Elizabeth I
Question 2
During the Regency period; when the Prince Regent ruled by proxy, who
was the King who was unfit to rule.Was it?
a) George I
b) George II
c) George III
d) George IV
e) William IV
Question 3
Which monarch introduced the Poll Tax and faced the peasants' revolt. Was it?
a) Richard I
b) Richard II
c) Elizabeth I
d) Elizabeth II
e) Matilda
Question 4
Which King was forced to sign the Provisions of Oxford in 1258? Was it?
a) Henry I
b) Henry II
c) Henry III
d) Henry IV
e) Henry V
Question 5
What is the name of Queen Victoria's residence on
the Isle of Wight? Was it?
a) Balmoral
b) Windsor Castle
c) Osborne House
d) Buckingham Palace
e) Highgrove
Question 6
Which monarch bought Buckingham House (now Palace), owned by the Dukes
of Buckingham, for his wife. Was it?
a) George I
b) George II
c) George III
d) George IV
e) George V
Please send your
paper based answers to Jacqui “I actually thought that Martin was of nobility when I first
started around here, I’ll have you know” Dunkerley, Room C122A, Warbreck House to
arrive no later than Friday 13th of December 2013.
The winner will
receive a mystery prize. Please remember
that only members of the Fylde Central Benefits and Services Branch, excluding
Branch Executive Committee can enter the quiz.
20.11.13
SHARED SERVICES - MEMBERS’ MEETINGS
To all members of PCS Fylde Central Benefits and Services Branch in Steria Shared Services
Dear Colleagues
The purpose of this post is to advise members of meetings to discuss the outcome of the negotiations on the privatisation from the Shared Services to Steria. The outcome was:
A facility time has been applied for, for you to attend one of the meetings, please make every effort to do so.
Yours sincerely
Duncan Griffiths - Branch Secretary
Dear Colleagues
The purpose of this post is to advise members of meetings to discuss the outcome of the negotiations on the privatisation from the Shared Services to Steria. The outcome was:
- SSCL will recognise PCS across the new company and will continue to talk to us about job protections, restructuring and all terms and conditions issues. There will now be “Meaningful Talks” post transfer to develop the protections already agreed.
- The transfer will be covered by the “New Fair Deal” on pensions and SSCL will be an “admitted body” to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. This means that staff transferring will remain in their current scheme with no change to contributions or benefits. This includes application of civil service compensation terms and ill health provision.
- There will be no material changes for at least six months, including compulsory redundancy and offshoring of work. SSCL commits to “take whatever steps it can reasonably make to avoid the need for compulsory redundancy for the duration of the transformation period of 2 years”.
- There will be no offshoring of any functions for at least a year.
- No sites will close for at least a year (including a special commitment from Defra that the Alnwick and York offices will continue to operate as they are for at least 20 months after transfer. Talks are on-going on extending this commitment to other sites).
- If and when proposals for site closures or offshoring are made, SSCL will consult with PCS for a minimum of 90 days before proceeding.
- A “Redeployment Protocol” for former DWP and Defra staff who TUPE transfer to SSCL guarantees that any staff who may be declared surplus as result of restructuring will have a right to apply and if successful be redeployed to a role in either department and their executive agencies. These staff would have priority access to the Civil Service Vacancies portal in the same way that surplus civil servants do.
Friday 22nd November 2013
Tomlinson House Canteen
Tomlinson House Canteen
10:30am or 2:00pm
A facility time has been applied for, for you to attend one of the meetings, please make every effort to do so.
Yours sincerely
Duncan Griffiths - Branch Secretary
Government has inflated the fit for work figures
The government inflated estimates of people on a disability benefit subsequently found to be ‘fit for work’, a Labour MP has said, suggesting cases are much more widespread than is actually the case.
Work and pensions select committee member Sheila Gilmore MP said she has received an admission from employment minister Esther McVey that the official figures are “not clear” and had secured a promise to “ensure greater clarity in future”.
The Labour MP for Edinburgh East queried the government figures on 27 September. She said the response this month from the minister conceded that the government had effectively inflated the numbers found to be fit for work while receiving Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). This was because only fit for work assessments overturned through a formal tribunal process were removed from the headline figures. Cases overturned in an informal “reconsideration” process used prior to these formal appeals were still lumped in with the ‘fit for work’ group. Sheila Gilmore said: “Up to now we thought that the assessment was getting about 1-in-10 fit for work decisions wrong – far too many in most people’s eyes – but now we know the government have been fiddling the figures, the reality could be much, much worse.” She added: “It now turns out that informal appeals to officials – as opposed to formal ones to judges – were being taken into account. This has clearly masked the true extent of the failings in the ESA assessment process,” noting that the revelations suggest “that rather than trying to fix the test to reduce the number of incorrect decisions, ministers’ priority is to fix the figures to downplay the extent of the problem.” Fit for work figures, normally the subject of a high profile government news release, were omitted from the latest quarterly government statistics, published in October. The real figures show the overwhelming majority of ESA recipients are genuinely not fit for work due to ill-health or disability.
18.11.13
Bullying at Work Guidance for members
Bullying
and harassment is a major problem within many workplaces, however often it
remains a hidden problem and can be accepted or even encouraged by the culture
of an organisation.
Bullying
at work can never be acceptable. The TUC believes that all workers have the
right to be treated with dignity and respect at work and any form of bullying
is totally unacceptable behaviour. In addition it can lead to work related
stress and ill health for many workers.
What is workplace
bullying?
Usually if a
person genuinely feels they are being singled out for unfair treatment by a
boss or colleague they are probably being bullied. Although there is no
comprehensive list of bullying behaviours, and there is no one type of person
who is likely to be a bully, the list below should give an idea of some of the
behaviours which constitute workplace bullying.
Bullying
behaviour can include:
- Competent staff being constantly criticised, having responsibilities removed or being given trivial tasks to do
- Staff being shouted at
- Staff being persistently picked on in front of others, or in private
- Having promotion blocked
- Regularly making the same person the butt of jokes
- Constantly attacking a member of staff in terms of their professional or personal standing
- Setting a person up to fail by overloading them with work or setting impossible deadlines
- Regularly and deliberately ignoring or excluding individuals from work activities
- Staff having their views and opinions ignored
The extent of
bullying
The extent of
bullying varies from employer to employer, and sector to sector.
A large
survey on bullying at work by the University
of Manchester showed
that:
- 1 in 10 workers had been bullied in the last 6 months
- 1 in 4 workers had been bullied in the last 5 years
- 47% of workers had witnessed bullying at work
Another
survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that 20%
had experienced some form of bullying or harassment over the past two years.
The survey also reported that the groups most likely to become victims of
bullying and harassment are black and Asian employees, women and people with a
disability. Nearly one third (29 per cent) of Asian employees or those from
other ethnic groups report having experienced some form of bullying or
harassment compared with 18 per cent of white employees. Employees with
disabilities are at least twice as likely to report having experienced one or
more forms of bullying and harassment compared with non-disabled employees.
Research has
also shown that while managers and supervisors are more likely to be the bully,
they can also be bullied. For example, almost equal numbers of workers with and
without supervisory responsibility report being bullied in the previous nine
months, and 9% of senior managers report being targeted by bullies. However the
most common type of bullying is by a manager against a subordinate.
Workplace
bullying is also a major concern for safety representatives. The TUC survey of safety representatives published in
2006 showed that one in three safety representatives say bullying is a problem
in their workplace with 15% viewing it as a major hazard of concern to workers.
However within the public sector the figure rose to 18%.
The cost of bullying
The main cost
of bullying is to the individual being bullied. Stress and ill health can
become part of the daily life of those being bullied. Symptoms can include:
anxiety, headaches, nausea, ulcers, sleeplessness, skin rashes, irritable bowel
syndrome, high blood pressure, tearfulness, loss of self confidence, and
depression. In addition employers pay a high price for failing to tackle
bullying because of lost time by staff being affected by stress and ill health,
lost incentives when morale is low and reduced work output and quality of
service in organisations where bullying is endemic. Also workplaces with a
culture of bullying are likely to have a much higher staff turnover.
However it
must be recognised that bullying is not just a question of an individual
picking on someone weaker or more vulnerable than them. Often it is a symptom
of the culture within the organisation. If an employer makes it quite clear
they will not accept bullying, and are prepared to take action against anyone
found to have bullied a colleague then bullying can be stopped in its tracks.
The Law
Employers who
fail to tackle bullying are breaking the law. All employers have a legal duty
under the Health and Safety at Work Act to ensure the health, safety and
welfare of their employees. That includes protection from bullying and
harassment at work. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations
also require employers to assess the nature and the scale of workplace risks to
health and safety, ensure there are proper control measures in place, and take
action to remove or avoid these risks wherever possible as far is as reasonably
practical.
The Health
and Safety Executive also states that 'there should be systems in place to deal
with interpersonal conflicts such as bullying and harassment'.
The
Employment Rights Act 1996 allows employees to claim unfair dismissal if they
are forced to leave their job because of actions by their employer or a failure
to deal with any complaint. This can include failure by the employer to protect
their employees from bullying and harassing behaviour. Often harassment is
motivated by a workers sex, sexuality, race or disability and in these cases
claim may also be able to be taken under the appropriate equality legislation.
Causing a person harassment, alarm, or distress is also a criminal act and in
certain circumstances the police can charge the harasser with a criminal
offence. Also under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 victims of
harassment can seek civil injunctions against behaviour, which causes distress.
However the
priority for trade unions must be to prevent people being bullied in the first
place. That means trying to eliminate it from the workplace. To do that it is
important to focus on the bullying behaviour rather than the bullies
themselves. This recognises that some people who bully do not do so knowingly,
but specifically reflect a culture that is being allowed to develop within the
workplace.
Further information
There is
advice for individuals on bullying on the TUC website at: http://www.tuc.org.uk/tuc/rights_bullyatwork.cfm
In addition,
ACAS have produced guidance on bullying and harassment at: http://www.acas.org.uk/a_z/bullying_harassment.html
The main
charity working in this area is the Andrea Adams Trust. They produce resources
and help on workplace bullying http://www.andreaadamstrust.org/
There is also
advice on the PCS website found at the following: www.pcs.org.uk. Go
to Knowledge Centres/Equality/Advice and
Guidance/Bullying at Work Guidance
13.11.13
Shared Services News
The following has been supplied by PCS HQ:
Thank you again to all PCS members who supported the very successful strike on 25 October and then showed that you were ready for another potential day of action on 31 October.
Ever since the government announced Steria as the preferred bidder PCS has constantly pressed for assurances to protect your jobs and terms and conditions. Detailed talks with the cabinet office with Steria were difficult. But well attended union meetings and your action definitely brought about a change of attitude by them and made it possible for us to achieve additional protections for you. It is a fact that most of the assurances now in place have only been achieved through detailed negotiations supported by your action and were not on offer when we first met the cabinet office and Steria.
PCS are now being consulted on the final the wording of formal letters that will commit Steria/SSCL and the Government in detail to the protections we have secured. Despite the privatisation on 1 November the campaign to defend our jobs, improve our terms and conditions and against off shoring continues, including media and political campaigning.
Talks begin with Steria/SSCL
PCS met with Steria/SSCL Chief Operating Officer, Jeannette Smith and one of her transformation leads on 6 November. PCS made clear our principled opposition to privatisation and off shoring. The meeting was constructive and progressive. At this meeting PCS and Steria/SSCL agreed –
You will be kept informed by regular PCS bulletins. Look out for details of union meetings on your site.
If you are not already a PCS member now is the time to join the union and help secure jobs and conditions in SSCL.
Marion Lloyd - NEC
Beth Lamont - National Officer
Thank you again to all PCS members who supported the very successful strike on 25 October and then showed that you were ready for another potential day of action on 31 October.
Ever since the government announced Steria as the preferred bidder PCS has constantly pressed for assurances to protect your jobs and terms and conditions. Detailed talks with the cabinet office with Steria were difficult. But well attended union meetings and your action definitely brought about a change of attitude by them and made it possible for us to achieve additional protections for you. It is a fact that most of the assurances now in place have only been achieved through detailed negotiations supported by your action and were not on offer when we first met the cabinet office and Steria.
PCS are now being consulted on the final the wording of formal letters that will commit Steria/SSCL and the Government in detail to the protections we have secured. Despite the privatisation on 1 November the campaign to defend our jobs, improve our terms and conditions and against off shoring continues, including media and political campaigning.
Talks begin with Steria/SSCL
PCS met with Steria/SSCL Chief Operating Officer, Jeannette Smith and one of her transformation leads on 6 November. PCS made clear our principled opposition to privatisation and off shoring. The meeting was constructive and progressive. At this meeting PCS and Steria/SSCL agreed –
- our shared objective is to work together to avoid compulsory redundancies.
- we will have detailed talks about offshoring and seek to reach agreement on job protection
- staff who are successful at interview for Civil Service posts will be released subject to notice periods etc.
- we will aim to agree a formal PCS union recognition agreement before Christmas.
- PCS national officials and reps from DWP and DEFRA will continue to represent you until new SSCL reps are ready to step up.
- SSCL will continue to collect Union subs from source (check off).
- PCS can arrange members meetings with reasonable paid time off to attend.
- PCS will meet the Steria/SSCL Chief Executive at the earliest opportunity.
- That we would have at least another two negotiating meetings before Christmas.
You will be kept informed by regular PCS bulletins. Look out for details of union meetings on your site.
If you are not already a PCS member now is the time to join the union and help secure jobs and conditions in SSCL.
Join PCS – Fill in the form here
Marion Lloyd - NEC
Beth Lamont - National Officer
HSE ‘glibly under-states’ work death toll
The following details have been provided by the TUC:
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) “glibly under-states and under-estimates the scale of the killing” at work, a top academic has charged.
Steve Tombs, professor of criminology at the Open University, said HSE statistics released under ‘an all time low’ headline on 31 October are “underestimation and, frankly, misrepresentation”, adding the headline figures exclude work-related deaths to members of the public and all occupational disease deaths. “The end result of this trawl through official, albeit buried, data takes us from 148 deaths to almost 14,000 deaths in 2012/1013,” he said. “But the under-estimate does not stop there. As the HSE now openly acknowledges, there are significant categories of deaths – at sea, or associated with the airline industry, for example – which are occupational but recorded by other agencies. But by far the biggest omission are the deaths of those who die whilst driving as a normal part of their work. This omits some 800–1,000 deaths per annum – from those who deliver ‘meals on wheels’ to district nurses, postal workers and lorry drivers – because such deaths are recorded as road traffic rather than occupational fatalities. Still, these additions do not capture the full scale of the problem of work-related deaths. For while the HSE’s data on fatal occupational illness is an estimation, as it acknowledges, it is in fact a gross under-estimation.” The professor concluded: “Workplace deaths are not, of course, reducible to numbers. Every death creates ever-widening ripples of emotional, psychological and financial harms through families, friends and communities. But the injustices experienced by those so bereaved are surely compounded when an agency of the state glibly under-states and under-estimates the scale of the killing. And, if the HSE cannot present this problem accurately, what hope that it might actually do its job and seek to prevent and respond to such deaths adequately?”
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) “glibly under-states and under-estimates the scale of the killing” at work, a top academic has charged.
Steve Tombs, professor of criminology at the Open University, said HSE statistics released under ‘an all time low’ headline on 31 October are “underestimation and, frankly, misrepresentation”, adding the headline figures exclude work-related deaths to members of the public and all occupational disease deaths. “The end result of this trawl through official, albeit buried, data takes us from 148 deaths to almost 14,000 deaths in 2012/1013,” he said. “But the under-estimate does not stop there. As the HSE now openly acknowledges, there are significant categories of deaths – at sea, or associated with the airline industry, for example – which are occupational but recorded by other agencies. But by far the biggest omission are the deaths of those who die whilst driving as a normal part of their work. This omits some 800–1,000 deaths per annum – from those who deliver ‘meals on wheels’ to district nurses, postal workers and lorry drivers – because such deaths are recorded as road traffic rather than occupational fatalities. Still, these additions do not capture the full scale of the problem of work-related deaths. For while the HSE’s data on fatal occupational illness is an estimation, as it acknowledges, it is in fact a gross under-estimation.” The professor concluded: “Workplace deaths are not, of course, reducible to numbers. Every death creates ever-widening ripples of emotional, psychological and financial harms through families, friends and communities. But the injustices experienced by those so bereaved are surely compounded when an agency of the state glibly under-states and under-estimates the scale of the killing. And, if the HSE cannot present this problem accurately, what hope that it might actually do its job and seek to prevent and respond to such deaths adequately?”
People Performance Disagreements
The following details have been supplied by PCS DWP Group, please read them carefully:
Mid-year indicative ratings
This article clarifies the process for resolving disagreements under the new Grievance Procedure.
Discussion with manager
The aim of the performance management system is to encourage open and honest discussion between the employee and manager to deal with difficulties or disputes at an early stage so that they can be resolved along the way. Regular performance discussions throughout the year allow the employee and manager to discuss issues informally as they occur. The final end-of-year assessment should not come as a surprise to the employee.
The new grievance procedures are for use to resolve People Performance disagreements. All grievances should be resolved by Employee Action or Manager Action if it is possible to do so satisfactorily (Grievance Procedure 4.6).
Where this is not possible, employees may raise their issue formally under the formal grievance procedures. It is best practice to try to resolve disagreements informally in the first instance and only resort to formal action as a last resort. However, the right to raise a formal grievance and appeal is available under People Performance Procedure13.
Summary of grievance process
There is a procedural emphasis on informal action, under the Employee Action or Manager Action options where possible in the first instance, with a requirement for mangers to engage constructively with employees. The revised grievance process is simply summarised under Grievance Procedure 4.3:
Employees are expected wherever possible to progress their issue using the Employee Action or Manager Action procedures. Managers are required to engage constructively with employees to ensure the Employee Action and Manager Action procedures are meaningful and effective.
However, the right to raise a formal grievance remains under 4.3 (supported by Grievance Advice Q&A 2) on the basis that:
Should the issue remain unresolved and, upon further reflection, the employee believes it is reasonable to do so, employees may have their grievance dealt with under the Management Investigation procedure.
The employee may submit their case for Management Investigation on form G1 after a period of reflection but within 30 working days of the decision/event or issue taking place (Grievance Procedure 4.7).
Mid-year indicative ratings
This article clarifies the process for resolving disagreements under the new Grievance Procedure.
Discussion with manager
The aim of the performance management system is to encourage open and honest discussion between the employee and manager to deal with difficulties or disputes at an early stage so that they can be resolved along the way. Regular performance discussions throughout the year allow the employee and manager to discuss issues informally as they occur. The final end-of-year assessment should not come as a surprise to the employee.
The new grievance procedures are for use to resolve People Performance disagreements. All grievances should be resolved by Employee Action or Manager Action if it is possible to do so satisfactorily (Grievance Procedure 4.6).
Where this is not possible, employees may raise their issue formally under the formal grievance procedures. It is best practice to try to resolve disagreements informally in the first instance and only resort to formal action as a last resort. However, the right to raise a formal grievance and appeal is available under People Performance Procedure13.
Summary of grievance process
There is a procedural emphasis on informal action, under the Employee Action or Manager Action options where possible in the first instance, with a requirement for mangers to engage constructively with employees. The revised grievance process is simply summarised under Grievance Procedure 4.3:
Employees are expected wherever possible to progress their issue using the Employee Action or Manager Action procedures. Managers are required to engage constructively with employees to ensure the Employee Action and Manager Action procedures are meaningful and effective.
However, the right to raise a formal grievance remains under 4.3 (supported by Grievance Advice Q&A 2) on the basis that:
Should the issue remain unresolved and, upon further reflection, the employee believes it is reasonable to do so, employees may have their grievance dealt with under the Management Investigation procedure.
The employee may submit their case for Management Investigation on form G1 after a period of reflection but within 30 working days of the decision/event or issue taking place (Grievance Procedure 4.7).
6.11.13
TUC questions HSE’s low injuries claim
The following details have been supplied by the TUC:
The TUC has warned that apparently conflicting evidence in the Health and Safety Executive’s new workplace injury statistics raise worrying questions about the safety watchdog’s claim that injuries are now at “an all time low.”
Figures for 2012/13 published by HSE on 30 October “show an 11 per cent drop in major injuries compared to 2011/12,” the safety enforcer reported. A news release announcing the new provisional figures was headed: “Workplace major injuries hit an all time low for 2012/13.”
According to HSE between April 2012 and March 2013 there were 19,707 reported major injuries such as amputations, fractures and burns to employees, a rate of 78.5 injuries per 100,000 employees) – compared with 22,094 in 2011/12 (a rate of 88.5 per 100,000 employees).
The fatality figure of 148 deaths was the second lowest figure on record.
TUC head of safety Hugh Robertson said lost time figures cast doubt on HSE’s best ever claims, noting “the statistics show that the number of days lost through workplace injury is up from 4.3 million to 5.2 million, which implies that the number of people injured is actually going up. So which is correct?” He said recent changes to the reporting regulations, RIDDOR, mean “it is almost impossible for anyone to use the HSE statistics to measure accurately what is happening to workplace injuries.” He added: “It would also be good to know how much under-reporting has changed as a result of the introduction of Fee for Intervention which, coupled with the ban on pro-active inspections in many workplaces, may mean that employers are far less likely to report an injury. But because the whole reporting system has changed that is almost impossible to know.” Robertson concluded: “What that means is that it is almost impossible to prove what we all suspect which is that the government’s policies over the past three years have driven up the number of injuries.”
The TUC has warned that apparently conflicting evidence in the Health and Safety Executive’s new workplace injury statistics raise worrying questions about the safety watchdog’s claim that injuries are now at “an all time low.”
Figures for 2012/13 published by HSE on 30 October “show an 11 per cent drop in major injuries compared to 2011/12,” the safety enforcer reported. A news release announcing the new provisional figures was headed: “Workplace major injuries hit an all time low for 2012/13.”
According to HSE between April 2012 and March 2013 there were 19,707 reported major injuries such as amputations, fractures and burns to employees, a rate of 78.5 injuries per 100,000 employees) – compared with 22,094 in 2011/12 (a rate of 88.5 per 100,000 employees).
The fatality figure of 148 deaths was the second lowest figure on record.
TUC head of safety Hugh Robertson said lost time figures cast doubt on HSE’s best ever claims, noting “the statistics show that the number of days lost through workplace injury is up from 4.3 million to 5.2 million, which implies that the number of people injured is actually going up. So which is correct?” He said recent changes to the reporting regulations, RIDDOR, mean “it is almost impossible for anyone to use the HSE statistics to measure accurately what is happening to workplace injuries.” He added: “It would also be good to know how much under-reporting has changed as a result of the introduction of Fee for Intervention which, coupled with the ban on pro-active inspections in many workplaces, may mean that employers are far less likely to report an injury. But because the whole reporting system has changed that is almost impossible to know.” Robertson concluded: “What that means is that it is almost impossible to prove what we all suspect which is that the government’s policies over the past three years have driven up the number of injuries.”
Christmas Leave in Pensions Directorate
The following details have been supplied by PCS DWP Group:
Members will be aware of messages that have gone out via the management chain concerning levels of leave over the festive period within the Pensions directorate. PCS has continued to raise concerns with management about some of the messages that have been escalated to group office by concerned members.
Background
The DWP wide policy on leave throughout the year says that 18-25% of available staff can be allowed annual leave at any one time. Any variation has to be authorised at OSN level with a justification based on business need.
Earlier this year in Pensions directorate, a message went out indicating that the 25% allowance would be applied on December 23, 24, 30 & 31 December on English and Welsh sites and in addition on 27 December & 3 January for Scottish sites. However Pensions management also said that they intended to restrict annual leave to just 10% cap on January 2 & 3 in English and Welsh sites. Despite regular contact and objections from PCS management pressed ahead with planning within these leave quotas with many staff being expected to express a leave preference by the end of September.
In parallel to this a message went out across the directorate that if key performance measures were achieved then the 25% leave allowance could be increased to 33% over the festive period apart from 2 & 3 January.
Update
PCS have met management at both Operations level and at directorate level to attempt to resolve the situation with festive leave in Pensions. PCS has argued that the cost to the business of maximising leave over the festive period is minimal and the effect of denying leave has a long term negative effect on staff morale and wellbeing. PCS pointed out to management that in previous years there have been examples where staff have been requested to work over the festive period only to be sent home early because of low work volumes.
PCS has asked national Operations management to lift the 25% limit on annual leave over the festive period. Operations management agreed verbally that Managers should try and give staff more than the 25% annual leave over the festive period wherever possible, while acknowledging there were some areas of Operations where this would not be possible due to operational pressures. However this message has yet to be confirmed in writing.
10% Limit scrapped
Within Pensions Directorate PCS challenged the imposition of the 10% limit for January 2 & 3. Following PCS’ intervention, Pensions management have now agreed to remove this 10% limit and instead offer the standard 18 to 25 % on those days.
Unfortunately PCS is aware that the message that has been cascaded to Pensions managers is not to allow leave above 18% on 2 and 3 January. PCS will continue to press management to allow more staff to take leave on these days.
Pensions management have told PCS that a decision will be made at the end of November to increase to 33% the percentage for annual leave over the rest of the festive period. This decision will be subject to satisfactory performance measures being achieved by the end of November.
At present PCS are awaiting written confirmation from Operations wide management response to our approaches to management requesting that managers maximise the numbers allowed to take annual leave over festive period. Within Pensions directorate we would hope that management reflect upon their position and apply the highest possible percentage across the whole of the Christmas and New Year period.
The GEC consider the current position to be unsatisfactory and will be consulting members and branches as negotiations continue. We would hope that there is not a repeat of the action taken by some pension centre members last year. However members are indicating that this is a sensitive issue and there is a considerable amount of anger at the management position in many sites within the Pensions directorate.
Members will be aware of messages that have gone out via the management chain concerning levels of leave over the festive period within the Pensions directorate. PCS has continued to raise concerns with management about some of the messages that have been escalated to group office by concerned members.
Background
The DWP wide policy on leave throughout the year says that 18-25% of available staff can be allowed annual leave at any one time. Any variation has to be authorised at OSN level with a justification based on business need.
Earlier this year in Pensions directorate, a message went out indicating that the 25% allowance would be applied on December 23, 24, 30 & 31 December on English and Welsh sites and in addition on 27 December & 3 January for Scottish sites. However Pensions management also said that they intended to restrict annual leave to just 10% cap on January 2 & 3 in English and Welsh sites. Despite regular contact and objections from PCS management pressed ahead with planning within these leave quotas with many staff being expected to express a leave preference by the end of September.
In parallel to this a message went out across the directorate that if key performance measures were achieved then the 25% leave allowance could be increased to 33% over the festive period apart from 2 & 3 January.
Update
PCS have met management at both Operations level and at directorate level to attempt to resolve the situation with festive leave in Pensions. PCS has argued that the cost to the business of maximising leave over the festive period is minimal and the effect of denying leave has a long term negative effect on staff morale and wellbeing. PCS pointed out to management that in previous years there have been examples where staff have been requested to work over the festive period only to be sent home early because of low work volumes.
PCS has asked national Operations management to lift the 25% limit on annual leave over the festive period. Operations management agreed verbally that Managers should try and give staff more than the 25% annual leave over the festive period wherever possible, while acknowledging there were some areas of Operations where this would not be possible due to operational pressures. However this message has yet to be confirmed in writing.
10% Limit scrapped
Within Pensions Directorate PCS challenged the imposition of the 10% limit for January 2 & 3. Following PCS’ intervention, Pensions management have now agreed to remove this 10% limit and instead offer the standard 18 to 25 % on those days.
Unfortunately PCS is aware that the message that has been cascaded to Pensions managers is not to allow leave above 18% on 2 and 3 January. PCS will continue to press management to allow more staff to take leave on these days.
Pensions management have told PCS that a decision will be made at the end of November to increase to 33% the percentage for annual leave over the rest of the festive period. This decision will be subject to satisfactory performance measures being achieved by the end of November.
At present PCS are awaiting written confirmation from Operations wide management response to our approaches to management requesting that managers maximise the numbers allowed to take annual leave over festive period. Within Pensions directorate we would hope that management reflect upon their position and apply the highest possible percentage across the whole of the Christmas and New Year period.
The GEC consider the current position to be unsatisfactory and will be consulting members and branches as negotiations continue. We would hope that there is not a repeat of the action taken by some pension centre members last year. However members are indicating that this is a sensitive issue and there is a considerable amount of anger at the management position in many sites within the Pensions directorate.
TUPE – IMPORTANT UPDATE
PCS Commercial Sector has provided us with the following information further to circular CSA/MB/12/13 dated 15 July 2013:
On 18 July, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) handed down a long-awaited judgment in a Unison supported case – Parkwood Leisure Ltd –v- Alemo-Herron & Others (2013) C-426/11.
The case judgment has significant repercussions and all commercial sector members should be made aware of the details.
Case Background
Alemo-Herron and others were former employees of the London Borough of Lewisham who worked in the council's leisure department until 2002. Their employment contracts entitled them to pay increases in accordance with collective agreements negotiated from time to time by unison with the National Joint Council for Local Government Services (the NJC). Following an outsourcing exercise in 2002, they transferred to a private company, CCL Ltd., under TUPE.
In May 2004, they were transferred again under TUPE to Parkwood Leisure Ltd.
In June 2004, a new agreement was reached with the NJC that awarded a pay increase to relevant employees for the period of April 2004 to March 2007. As only public authorities can participate in the NJC, Parkwood was not a party to the negotiations for the new agreement and declined to comply with the new NJC terms.
The employees subsequently brought claims for unlawful deductions from wages, arguing that, under TUPE, the contractual terms incorporating the NJC collective agreement had transferred to Parkwood, and, therefore, Parkwood was obliged to increase the employees' pay.
Court Judgement
The case has been running for a number of years with both parties appealing earlier decisions of the courts. However, the ECJ has now ruled in favour of the employer and held that employees who TUPE transfer to a new organisation are not entitled to benefit from collectively agreed terms where such terms are agreed after the date of transfer and where the transferee employer is not a party to collective negotiations - or in other words - the employer was not bound by the collective pay agreement following a transfer of employment.
Analysis
The judgement will be welcomed by transferee employers, particularly those who have received employees from the public sector.The judgement has been described as ‘explicitly political’ in so much that it marks a fundamental shift away from the concept of TUPE as a framework to protect employees towards being a protection of employers.
The court went further in stating that the legislation was not only aimed at safeguarding the interests of employees on a transfer but instead aimed at ‘balancing’ those interests against the needs of the new business and referred to the pre-standing collective agreements as impinging on the ‘freedom’ of employers to conduct business.
Repercussions
The government recently concluded a consultation on TUPE (to which PCS provided a submission via the TUC) and one of the government’s proposals is to change TUPE so that protected terms and conditions derived from collective agreements would be limited to one year from the transfer, after which time the new employer would be able to vary.
Unions are opposed to this proposal (which surprise surprise is welcomed by the various employers’ interest groups) on the basis that the removal of these basic protections for issues such as pay and conditions would have serious implications for workers. Our experience has been that where employers have broken away from collectively agreed terms and conditions this rapidly expands ‘two-tier’ workforces with the associated increased inequality, low pay and ‘race to the bottom’ for workers that follow.
The most important lesson to be learned from this - is that it is vital that we have strong union membership to protect collective bargaining - terms and conditions and secure agreements with any new company rather than relying on TUPE.
If you want more information about this issue or have any feedback or comments to make – please speak to your Branch Secretary or the local PCS rep who gave you this circular or to:-
PCS Commercial Sector
Phone: 020 7801 2667/2884
Fax: 020 7801 2888
Email: commercialsec@pcs.org.uk
On 18 July, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) handed down a long-awaited judgment in a Unison supported case – Parkwood Leisure Ltd –v- Alemo-Herron & Others (2013) C-426/11.
The case judgment has significant repercussions and all commercial sector members should be made aware of the details.
Case Background
Alemo-Herron and others were former employees of the London Borough of Lewisham who worked in the council's leisure department until 2002. Their employment contracts entitled them to pay increases in accordance with collective agreements negotiated from time to time by unison with the National Joint Council for Local Government Services (the NJC). Following an outsourcing exercise in 2002, they transferred to a private company, CCL Ltd., under TUPE.
In May 2004, they were transferred again under TUPE to Parkwood Leisure Ltd.
In June 2004, a new agreement was reached with the NJC that awarded a pay increase to relevant employees for the period of April 2004 to March 2007. As only public authorities can participate in the NJC, Parkwood was not a party to the negotiations for the new agreement and declined to comply with the new NJC terms.
The employees subsequently brought claims for unlawful deductions from wages, arguing that, under TUPE, the contractual terms incorporating the NJC collective agreement had transferred to Parkwood, and, therefore, Parkwood was obliged to increase the employees' pay.
Court Judgement
The case has been running for a number of years with both parties appealing earlier decisions of the courts. However, the ECJ has now ruled in favour of the employer and held that employees who TUPE transfer to a new organisation are not entitled to benefit from collectively agreed terms where such terms are agreed after the date of transfer and where the transferee employer is not a party to collective negotiations - or in other words - the employer was not bound by the collective pay agreement following a transfer of employment.
Analysis
The judgement will be welcomed by transferee employers, particularly those who have received employees from the public sector.The judgement has been described as ‘explicitly political’ in so much that it marks a fundamental shift away from the concept of TUPE as a framework to protect employees towards being a protection of employers.
The court went further in stating that the legislation was not only aimed at safeguarding the interests of employees on a transfer but instead aimed at ‘balancing’ those interests against the needs of the new business and referred to the pre-standing collective agreements as impinging on the ‘freedom’ of employers to conduct business.
Repercussions
The government recently concluded a consultation on TUPE (to which PCS provided a submission via the TUC) and one of the government’s proposals is to change TUPE so that protected terms and conditions derived from collective agreements would be limited to one year from the transfer, after which time the new employer would be able to vary.
Unions are opposed to this proposal (which surprise surprise is welcomed by the various employers’ interest groups) on the basis that the removal of these basic protections for issues such as pay and conditions would have serious implications for workers. Our experience has been that where employers have broken away from collectively agreed terms and conditions this rapidly expands ‘two-tier’ workforces with the associated increased inequality, low pay and ‘race to the bottom’ for workers that follow.
The most important lesson to be learned from this - is that it is vital that we have strong union membership to protect collective bargaining - terms and conditions and secure agreements with any new company rather than relying on TUPE.
If you want more information about this issue or have any feedback or comments to make – please speak to your Branch Secretary or the local PCS rep who gave you this circular or to:-
PCS Commercial Sector
Phone: 020 7801 2667/2884
Fax: 020 7801 2888
Email: commercialsec@pcs.org.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)