DWP Grievance Procedure changes to align with CSEP from 14 October 2013

The following has been supplied by PCS DWP Group:

 

PCS defends rights at work

DWP Grievance Policy, Procedure and Advice have been revised following consultation but not agreement with the Departmental Trade Union Side (DTUS). The revised procedure is effective from 14^th October 2013. Changes have been introduced to align DWP procedure with Civil Service Employee Policy (CSEP) for grievances.

PCS has worked to ensure that the changes not only comply with statutory rights at work but also retain many of the standards and best practices established in DWP. It is important that there should be no misunderstanding that the New Grievance Policy, Procedure and associated guidance does not introduce any contractual changes.

DTUS has engaged in consultation without any intent to remove any contractual right. DTUS made significant progress to improve the original revised presentation of changes during the consultation process.

This outcome is underpinned by the support for the National Campaign, against threats to our rights at work, given by PCS members in DWP.

Revised presentation of rights

The revised presentation of the right to raise a grievance is published on the DWP HR intranet site as Policy, Procedure, and Advice and “How to” guides, including How to –

·        Use Mediation to resolve conflict

·        Decide the best route for resolving a grievance

·        Recognise and deal with vexatious and malicious grievances

·        Recognise harassment, discrimination and bullying

·        Investigate discipline and grievance cases

·        Hold a discipline or grievance meeting

·        Recognise and deal with ‘other complaints/grievances’.

The new Policy replaces both the Grievance and Harassment Discrimination and Bullying Policies to align DWP with CSEP procedure.

Scope of new policy

The new policy and its related procedures apply to all employees, including those on probation, fixed-term appointments and temporary workers.

The policy is not to be used to deal with complaints arising from the application of other policies and procedures that include an appeal mechanism, for example, discipline poor performance and/or attendance.

Material detriment

The issue or decision that is causing concern will normally be implemented or stand, unless unreasonable material detriment can be demonstrated. Grievance Advice Q&A 3 provides further guidance on such cases.

Three routes to resolve grievance

There are 3 routes down which an employee can go to resolve their grievance. These are not meant to be sequential; the most appropriate route should be used depending on the type of grievance. The 3 routes are:

            • Employee Action

            • Manager Action

            • Management Investigation

Use of the Employee Action and Manager Action processes does not mean that an employee’s complaint is not important or is any less serious than a complaint taken through the Management Investigation process. The aim is to use the most suitable process related purely to the nature of the complaint and the achievement of resolution in the most appropriate manner (Procedure 3)

            All cases of Harassment Discrimination and Bullying must be dealt with by Management Investigation (Procedure 3.4).

Employee Action

The new procedure puts an emphasis on employees trying to resolve work-related problems and issues themselves which may include Mediation (Procedure 3.6 -3.7).

However if the employee has tried but not been able to resolve any issue, or reasonably feels unable to attempt to resolve it, they may refer the matter to their line manager for Manager Action. If the grievance concerns the line manager, the employee should speak to the countersigning manager or another appropriate manager. (Procedure 3.8)

Manager Action

The new Procedure (4.1-4.3) explains that Manager Action could be the employee’s line manager taking action to resolve the problem or reconsidering an earlier decision (e.g. refusal to allow time off or rostering) which has resulted in the grievance being raised. It could also be the line manager providing advice, coaching or signposting the employee to mediation or other sources of help to enable the employee to resolve the matter.

The employee may refer for Manager Action if they are unhappy about a management or organisational decision. They would normally raise the issue with their line manager, or the manager who made the relevant decision, as soon as they become aware of its impact.

Where the grievance is wholly or partly about a decision taken by the line manager, and the matter is significant the employee can refer the matter to their countersigning manager. In very exceptional cases, such as when gender is an issue, the employee can refer to another manager.

Management Investigation

            Management Investigation means enquiring into the complaint, giving notice of meetings and recording the discussions before reaching a decision. (Employees have a right to be accompanied by a colleague or trade union representative to meeting). However, a manager does not need to take action via the Management Investigation process to change a decision, this can be done under Manager Action and it is preferable for the decision to be changed under Manager Action wherever possible (Procedure 5.2).

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. 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 (Procedure 5.3).

Management Investigation examples

Examples are given under Procedure 5.4 of circumstances where complaints would be dealt with by Management Investigation. They normally need to be about the relationship between the employee and the Department, and may potentially fall under the jurisdiction of an Employment Tribunal. Procedure 5.5 confirms that this is not meant to be a complete list but indicative of the type of case which would normally be appropriate for Management Investigation. Grievance Advice Q&A 2 provides definitive guidance:

Q2 Can a matter be dealt with under Management Investigation if it is not listed at Procedures paragraph 5.4?

Yes. The list in Procedures paragraph 5.4 is illustrative of cases suitable for Management Investigation as defined in Procedures paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2.

However, where the issue remains unresolved following Employee Action and/or Manager Action, and the employee believes, after reflection, that it is reasonable to do so, they may have their grievance dealt with under the Management Investigation procedure.

It is not the Department’s intention that managers and employees should spend more time discussing how a grievance should be progressed as it would take to investigate the matter.

            Requesting a Management Investigation

If the grievance is appropriate for Management Investigation, the employee must:

·        raise the complaint on form after a period of reflection but within 30 working days of the event or issue taking place

·        be clear about the grounds for the grievance and the specific issue they want resolving

·        describe what they have done so far to resolve the complaint themselves through Employee Action or Manager Action - if the employee has not taken these courses of action they should explain why

·        stick to the facts

·        avoid using language which might be considered insulting or abusive

·        state what outcome is being sought

If the grievance concerns the line manager, the G1 form should be sent to the countersigning manager. A manager should not conduct a Management Investigation about their own decision – in such cases a different, independent manager should always undertake the Management Investigation.(Procedure 5.7 -5.8)

If the complaint can be resolved by Employee Action or Manager Action, the manager should meet with the employee to discuss the complaint and make a decision to resolve the issue. This action normally concludes the matter. (Procedure 5.10)

Where Employee Action or Manager Action is not appropriate, the manager must decide on a course of enquiry. There are two possible courses under Procedure 5.11:

·        HDB Cases - In all cases of alleged harassment, discrimination and bullying (HDB), the manager’s first step is to telephone the HR Mediation & Investigation Service (tel 01324 591552) for advice. HRMIS will advise on mediation or other possible courses of action. Where mediation or another course of action is not appropriate, the manager will refer the papers to HRMIS.

HRMIS will investigate the matter and make a decision on whether the complaint is upheld or not upheld. The manager will then review the resulting report with the employee and initiate any resulting action (Procedure 5.12).

·        Other grievances - In all other grievance cases the manager will investigate and be the Decision Maker. If, exceptionally, the line manager cannot undertake the investigation (e.g. because they cannot currently devote the time or the grievance is about a decision the line manager has made), an independent investigator of an equivalent or higher grade will be appointed and they will undertake the investigation and provide a report. This is a matter for local decision. (Procedure 5.13)

Right of Appeal

The CSEP procedure was revised to meet DWP standards. The right of appeal is covered under Paragraph 6 of the new procedure. There is one right of appeal in this procedure. Appeals can be made against:

·        procedural errors; and/or

·        decisions, including cases where new evidence has been raised that may change the outcome of the original decision.

Appeals will only be raised against decisions made under the Management Investigation process. (Procedure 6.2)

Appeals must be heard, where this is possible, by someone senior to the person who made the decision being appealed. If this is impossible due to operational circumstances, or for some other reason, the appeal may exceptionally be heard by a manager at the same level as the Decision Maker. Someone other than the employee's line manager should appoint an appeal manager where it is the line manager's decision that is being disputed e.g. a local HR expert or a more senior local manager might appoint an appeal manager (Procedure 6.3)

Whoever appoints them, the appeal manager must not be the decision maker, the decision maker’s line manager or the employee’s countersigning manager unless the employee agrees that they can be. 

Appeal managers must be demonstrably independent in that they or their line manager must not have been previously involved in the disputed decision. For example they must not have been involved in the grievance to date and must be able to take an objective view of the information presented. To ensure independence there must be sufficient distance between the appeal manager and the day-to-day issues discussed in the grievance (Procedure 6.4).

Collective grievances

A procedure for collective grievances is imposed under Grievance Procedure paragraph 7. However, Grievance Advice Q&A 21 confirms that an employee’s case may have to be considered individually. This will always happen where there are issues of employee confidentiality and/or the grievance includes material issues specific to the individual.

Fundamentally flawed cases

In cases where the Departmental Trade Union Side has serious concerns that, in individual cases, the process followed or the decision is fundamentally flawed, they may put the issue to DWP HR Specialist Services for advice on how the case could be remedied (Procedure 3.5).

PCS guidance for Branches

The right to raise a formal grievance and appeal is under the Management Investigation process. This includes HDB complaints.

Employees are expected to try to resolve issues under Employee Action or Manager Action in the first instance where possible. Branch Briefing DWP/BB/126/13 provides guidance on the statutory right to be accompanied at grievance and disciplinary meetings.

Cases of non-compliance with DWP Procedure 5.3 and Advice Q&A 2, for Management Investigation, which are not corrected locally at SEO level or above, should be reported by Branches to PCS at the address below.

David Burke

Group Assistant Secretary

PCS condemns DWP’s announcement to transfer 10 sites to Child Maintenance Group

The following details have been provided by the PCS DWP Group:

DWP has announced today their plans to compulsorily transfer 10 offices into the Child Maintenance Group (CMG). The transfers are due to take place between January 2014 and March 2015. The offices, with estimated dates of transfer, are:

Walsall Pension Centre (Jan-Mar 2014)

Plymouth Benefit Centre (Jan – Mar 2014)

Leicester Pension Centre (April to June 2014)

Leicester Benefit Centre (July – Sept 2014)

Coatbridge Benefit Centre (July – Sept 2014)

Newcastle Contact Centre (July – Sept 2014)

Newcastle Benefit Centre (Sept – Dec 2014)

Glasgow Springburn Contact Centre (Sept – Dec 2014)

Kilmarnock Benefit Centre (Jan – Mar 2015)

Greenock Benefit Centre (Jan – Mar 2015)

Management intend to move 2,000 staff into CMG through these transfers. The general intention is to transfer all of the staff on site into CMG. However there are some sites where the grade mix does not reflect the grade mix required by CMG and so some staff are expected to remain in their current business and not transfer to CMG.

Staff who do not transfer will either have work moved to them or will be redeployed into other DWP offices. Management were unable to clarify how these staff will be identified or selected, but are most likely to be in the AA, EO or HEO grades. Management have assured PCS that this transfer is not a precursor to compulsory redundancy for any of the staff in these offices.

These transfers come on top of the announcements earlier this year of staff transfers to CMG at Tyne View Park Pensions, York and Ravenhurst Benefit Centres, Hastings Benefit Integrity Centre and the Visiting Booking Centre in Birmingham.

Garston and Bootle Contact Centres

In addition to the transfer of these 10 sites, management will also be seeking around 200 staff from Garston and Bootle Contact Centres to agree to transfer on a voluntary basis to Birkenhead CSAC. Management are confident that they will be able to secure these numbers through voluntary transfers. If this is not achieved, management have committed themselves to talking to PCS again before deciding if any other measures may be required.

Why do CMG need extra staff?

CMG requires these additional staff in order to be able to deliver the new Child Maintenance scheme while also continuing to administer the old Child Maintenance scheme. The requirement for these 2,000 additional staff for CMG is based on DWP’s assumptions of the numbers of people who will take-up the new Child Maintenance Scheme. Once the new scheme is fully implemented, and as the numbers on the old scheme decline, the staffing requirements of CMG are also likely to reduce accordingly. CMG’s long term plan is to concentrate the vast majority of its work in the main CSAC’s, but this is not expected to happen before 2016.

How have these sites been selected?

Management made clear that the reason was location. CMG management were keen to have the transferring sites in geographical clusters, located as near as possible to their existing main locations. This is because it makes it easier for them to manage rather than having the offices spread around the country. It will also mean that many of the staff transferring into CMG should be within redeployment distance of the main CMG sites.

However CMG have stated that there are no immediate plans to close any of the transferring offices and move all the staff into nearby CMG sites. Any future estates rationalisation would only be done as part of the ongoing DWP review of all DWP sites.

Impact on terms and conditions

Staff will continue to work in their existing office and there will be no changes to members’ contractual terms and conditions. However CMG does operate some departmental HR policies differently to DWP Operations. In particular they operate a more restrictive flexi time policy than the flexi arrangements that applies in most of DWP Operations. Also CMG does not allow its staff to have a 10 minute morning and afternoon break. The feedback from members who transferred into CMG in the earlier wave of transfers has been overwhelmingly negative once members came face to face with the reality of CMG’s unnecessarily restrictive working arrangements

PCS demands no detrimental changes

PCS has pressed management to agree to no detrimental changes to these working arrangements as a result of this change of duties. There is no reason at all why being rebadged as CMG should lead to the loss of paid breaks or to worse flexi arrangements. We fear that management may be about to make the same mistake as happened with the TPIP transfer where a change of role was combined with an attack on members working conditions.

Further talks agreed

PCS has made this case to management very strongly. Management have now agreed to further discussions, after today’s announcement, with PCS on this issue to try and agree working arrangements that can be agreeable to all concerned. This transfer should not be used to impose worse conditions on the staff transferring, but rather to harmonise working conditions at the optimum level across all of DWP Operations, including CMG. PCS is continuing to seek a resolution to this issue to protect members working conditions.

PCS’ Reaction

PCS condemns the decision to strip 2,000 staff out of DWP Operations. While we welcome the decision to create an additional 2,000 staff in CMG we firmly believe that these extra posts should have been filled by new recruits and not by robbing staff from other parts of DWP.

PCS does not accept that either the Pensions, Benefits or Network Services Directorates are in a position to sustain the loss of so many staff. Workloads remain very high across DWP Operations, with our members operating under excessive pressure and stress.

There are huge backlogs of work in Pensions, targets regularly being missed in Benefits and annual leave is already subject to excessive restrictions in DWP Operations. Incredibly, at the same time that Contact Centre Services has agreed to lose 2 Contact Centres, the management there are talking to their staff about what extra measures may be needed to meet the current shortage of staff.

Thousands of jobs to be cut

It makes no sense to cut staffing in DWP Operations in this way. These 2,000 staff cuts come on top of the recent exit package announcement seeking 1,700 staff to agree to leave DWP Operations in March 2014. When attrition is taken into account, Operations will have lost several thousand staff, but with no reductions in workloads. Cuts on this scale can only lead to more backlogs, more missed targets, more calls left unanswered and ever worse customer service. It can be expected that this will also put additional pressure on members in Job Centres when benefits go unpaid.

PCS has put all of these concerns to DWP management. We received a rather complacent response claiming that there is capacity to lose all these staff, but with little explanation as to where this additional capacity was. Given the anticipated increases in workloads through the recent announcements of increased conditionality, and the need to convert 8 million claims to Universal Credit by 2017, there is no obvious spare capacity within Operations.

More staff not less

Management should be recruiting more staff now. We fear that the loss of these staff from Operations will simply place even more pressure on members to meet ever-increasing targets. This is unacceptable. 25,000 staff have left DWP since May 2010. DWP must stop haemorrhaging staff and begin to recruit and promote staff across all parts of DWP to end the remorseless pressure our members face and to deliver the high quality customer service the public expects.

The GEC will meet, after taking the views of branches and members involved in the transfer into account, to consider how to take forward our staffing campaign in the light of these savage staffing cuts. Members will be consulted and involved in future plans

Civil Service Reform- Changes in DWP from 14 October 2013

The following details have been supplied by PCS DWP Group, please read them carefully:

The Civil Service Reform plans to change civil service terms and conditions in all government departments. The changes to be imposed from 14th October 2013 following consultation but not agreement, with the Departmental Trade Union Side (DTUS), will impact on:

• Privilege leave and annual leave
• Probation
• Discipline and Grievance Policies
• Attendance Management
• Mobility
• Sick pay

Privilege Leave and Annual leave
The 1½ days historically awarded as privilege leave around Christmas/New Year and for Maundy Thursday will be abolished for new employees but permanently converted to annual leave for current staff with entitlements revised to 23½, 26½ and 31½ days. Improvements have been also gained for new employees as reported in DWP/BB/092/13.

Every employee will be expected to reserve a day’s annual leave because the Department will continue to close to the public for one day in the Christmas/New Year period. The Queen’s Birthday is unaffected and will continue as the sole privilege day.

Discipline and Grievance Policies
Revised Discipline and Grievance policies, based on civil service employee policies, will replace the current DWP policies covering Discipline, Grievance and Harassment, Discrimination & Bullying.

PCS has worked to ensure that the changes not only comply with statutory rights at work but also retain many of the standards and best practices established in DWP.

This outcome is underpinned by the support for the National Campaign, against threats to our rights at work, given by PCS members in DWP.

Attendance Warnings and Appeals
DWP Attendance Management Policy and Procedure for warnings and appeals will be amended. The two warnings under the current procedures will simply be renamed to align with other policies:

• An Oral Improvement Warning is renamed as a First Written Warning
• A Written Improvement Warning is renamed as a Final Written Warning

The only other change is the introduction of a specific right of appeal for each stage of the warning process and against dismissal and/or the level of compensation awarded.

These changes align DWP with Civil Service Employee Policy and ACAS guidance and are consistent with contractual and statutory rights.

Changes for new employees only
Changes to three policies will impact on new employees only from 14th October 2013. These are:

• Probation
• Mobility
• Sick pay

Probation for new employees only
From 14th October DWP will introduce the principle of “earned entitlement” into the annual leave policy so that, during their six-month’ probation, new employees will have access to 50% of their annual leave. They will qualify for the other 50% when their probation is passed and the appointment has been confirmed.

Mobility for new employees only
New employees will be mobile to any Civil Service post anywhere in the UK providing both the post and its location are reasonable. New guidance will help managers decide reasonableness. This new Civil Service mobility policy will apply to new recruits who take up post on 14th October or later and to employees of other government departments who: (a) voluntarily transfer into DWP, and (b) were recruited into the Civil Service on 14th October 2013 or later.

Sick pay for new employees only
New employees will have access to one month’s full pay and one month’s half pay in their first year of service. This will rise annually (to 2:2, 3:3, etc.) over five years to a maximum of five months’ full pay and five months’ half pay in the fifth year and beyond. This new policy will apply to new recruits and some transferees from other departments who take up post on 14th October 2013 or later.

Impact on promotion
Some government departments will apply the new terms and conditions to employees who gain permanent promotion. DWP has not committed to do this now or in the future. DWP expects to “achieve a comparatively high rate of migration to the new policies through external recruitment and relevant inter-department voluntary transfers.”

PCS Policy and Action
Further guidance will be provided for members. The Civil Service Reform plans to change Civil Service terms and conditions are politically motivated – part of a more general attack on the rights of workers and trade unions stemming directly from ministers. They are not being driven by robust professional personnel policy considerations or good reward principles.

The PCS National Executive Committee (NEC) has provided guidance for the DWP Group Executive Committee (GEC), published in Branch Briefing DWP/BB/014/13, which will continue to guide our on-going opposition to unacceptable changes.

DWP Group Conference, in May 2013, agreed Policy A208 on Civil Service Reform. Conference noted that the Civil Service Reform Plan requires each Department to undertake a review of their terms and conditions ensuring that terms and conditions are "comparable with, but not beyond, what a good, modern employer would provide." Conference rejected any assertion that civil service standards should not be a precedent for improvements for all workers. Equal pay for women, for example, was established in the civil service 10 years before the Equal Pay Act

PCS is opposed to detrimental changes and two tier conditions of service and will continue to demand that all members must have the best terms and conditions and will take all necessary action to achieve this objective.

Shared Services and ISSC2 - UPDATE

• PROTECT CIVIL SERVICE JOBS AND SERVICES
• NO TO OFFICE CLOSURES
• NO TO OFF-SHORING

Your PCS representatives continue to meet with the Cabinet Office, DEFRA, DWP and UK SBS Ltd (BIS). We have made representations to the highest levels to attempt to stop any staff transfers to SSCL on 1st November.

It is clear that their proposals if allowed to go ahead is driven by the need to deliver cuts, “efficiencies”, and the LEAN agenda and will mean:

• job losses and site closures within a year
• off-shoring work
• staff transferring to SSC Ltd losing civil service status.  

We met again with management representatives from the Cabinet Office, DEFRA and DWP yesterday.  Further meetings are planned.

The Cabinet Office, DWP and DEFRA view, that key issues such as job protections, location protections and off-shoring, can be handled post-transfer, is not only utterly unacceptable, but entirely contrary to established best practice on the transfer of staff from the public to the private sector. 

We believe that the failure to properly carry out TUPE requirements to a reasonable timetable leaves Departments in a legally vulnerable position, and we are consulting our lawyers to explore our legal options.

NO CASE FOR CHANGE
PCS continues to argue for sight of the case justifying the transfer of work out of the Civil Service and Public Sector to a private supplier.  We reject the need to transfer and continue to push our case that these services should be delivered from the public sector, by Civil and Public Servants

Experience tells us that it will be impossible to reconcile the commercial aims of Steria with acceptable standards of data protection and service delivery nor with protecting the wider public interest. Steria are already clear that this move will not deliver the cost savings they need to without off-shoring, site closures and job cuts

Unless and until we can be re-assured to the contrary then our position remains in opposition to these proposals.

TIMETABLE TOO SHORT
PCS, together with other unions including FDA, have made direct representations to Stephen Kelly, the Governments Chief Operating Officer, to argue that the transfer date should be delayed to allow meaningful consultation with the Unions. His response, although introducing an element of doubt in that it recognises that the “planning assumption” is 1^st November, that the timetable is “indicative” and “may (be) subject to change” is unacceptable.  It does not give the firm guarantees we require if we are to begin meaningful consultation and make progress in these talks.

We have continually explained that we want to achieve a quality outcome for staff and shared services.  In doing so, we seek to protect the employment and best interests of the staff involved.  We remain unconvinced that the process of due diligence has been fully carried out, that a full range of job security and redundancy avoidance measures has been conducted, that discussions around pensions have been or even can be completed to the current timetable of November 1^st, and that the necessary harmonisation of different employers’ T&Cs can be discussed and agreed pre transfer.

We have now requested a meeting with Minister, Francis Maude.

PROTECT MEMBERS JOBS AND CONDITIONS
We continue to argue for a contractually binding legal agreement in place to protect any members transferring.  This has to be between the current employer, the unions and the new employer if it is to have any meaning.  The Cabinet Office, DEFRA and DWP view – that work and people can be transferred without proper protections in place to protect jobs and services - is utterly unacceptable.  It is astonishing that your current employer seems prepared to leave you vulnerable in this way 

JOBS MUST BE PROTECTED
It is clear that Steria plans to cuts jobs, close offices and off shore work. That is the only way they can deliver the cost savings required by Government.  DEFRA, DWP and Cabinet Office are refusing to share with us their planning assumptions and appear to be taking little responsibility for the fate of their own staff if this transfer goes ahead. We continue to argue that job protections should be in place for at least 5 years including:

• the retention of Civil Service status (including exploring secondments)
• application of the current agreed Civil Service Protocols to avoid compulsory redundancies
• no compulsory redundancies

Furthermore we have argued that all staff should have on offer a choice including the availability of packages, secondments and redeployments in the event that they do not wish to transfer to SSCL. 

NO TO OFSHORING
We have argued consistently that no jobs or functions should be off-shored.  It is clear from discussions that this is driven by savings and will result in our members losing their jobs.  What is absolutely astonishing is that Steria confirmed yesterday in our meeting that the appropriate accreditations will not be achieved for them to –offshore work in time for transfer by 1^st November.  This is an outrageous state of affairs and argument alone for the timetable to now be put on hold. 

NO TO OFFICE CLOSURES
It is clear that Steria plan to close sites.  This is another area where the Cabinet Office, DWP nor DEFRA were prepared to set out their planning assumptions.  It is not enough to sort this all out post transfer and with only a guarantee of no change for only 6 months. We must have protections in place for at least 5 years. 

PROTECT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
We continue to argue that all terms and conditions should be harmonised to the best before transfer.  This is perfectly possible if good will is shown by DWP, DEFRA and Cabinet Office.  At the moment this doesn’t seem likely and they could give us no assurances on what they feel is appropriate beyond what they have to do under TUPE law.  We also want agreements in place that nothing will be changed in the event of transfers unless and until agreements have been reached with PCS.

PENSIONS
We have argued for an agreement above and beyond requirements in legislation. The arrangements coming into force 8^th October will mean staff transferring will be remaining in their civil service pension scheme with no change to contributions or benefits. Steria and the CO have now confirmed this, and that civil service compensation scheme should apply in any future redundancies. This is welcome and we await this confirmation in writing.

However, our concerns are around members who may have to seek redeployment within Steria moving away from their current role and civil service terms.  If the move is within the SSC Ltd Company then they will still remain in the civil service pension scheme and if in future they move to a civil service contract where ‘new fair deal’ applies they will be able to stay in the civil service pension scheme. We want an agreement to extend this to other terms and conditions including redundancy arrangements. We also want confirmation that if members are forced into posts in Steria then agreed pension arrangements are in place. We are awaiting Steria’s proposals on this.

It is also vital that arrangements for auto-enrolments must be in place from day 1. 

CONCLUSION
We are now at a vital stage.

We expect responses from the Cabinet Office on Tuesday and a meeting with the Minister later in the week.  If these are not helpful, all legal options to force a pause and rethink will be taken forward vigorously.

PCS will conduct a vigorous campaign including industrial action to defend members jobs and the services they provide. The rush to transfer shared services needs to be halted, and we need to make plain to the CO, to MPs, the media and the public that we will not stand by and let it happen.

• Please be ready to support this action in any appropriate way.
• Please attend any members meetings called to discuss this.
• Please talk to and sign up any non members – ultimately all civil servants will be affected.

Please go to http://action.pcs.org.uk/page/speakout/save-our-shared-services and send the e-action letter to your MP.

CHRIS BAUGH, ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY

MARION LLOYD, NEC

Grievance Rights - Please Read

The following details have been supplied by PCS DWP Group, please read them carefully:

“Statutory Right to be accompanied at grievance or disciplinary meetings Statutory rights at work

A worker who is invited to attend a disciplinary or grievance hearing has the right, under the Employment Relations Act 1999, section 10, to be accompanied by “a trade union official.”

A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision, in the case of Toal and another v GB Oils Ltd EAT/0569/13, held that, there is no statutory requirement for an employee's choice of Trade Union Official at a grievance hearing to be reasonable. (NB - Please read on to understand the context of this judgement)

The questions in this case were:

• Does the requirement for the request to be reasonable mean that the employer could object to the identity of the Trade Union Official chosen by the worker?
• Has a worker who chooses another Trade Union Official, in response to the employer's objection, waived any breach of the right to be accompanied by the first choice of Trade Union Official?

Key points decided by the EAT include:

• A worker's right to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing, under s.10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, is not subject to the qualification that his or her choice of Representative is reasonable in relation to the identity of the Representative. The only qualification in s.10 in relation to the identity of the Representative is that he or she must fall within certain specified categories - essentially section 10 of the Act specifies a Trade Union Official.
• The employees, whose request to be accompanied by a particular individual was refused, did not waive their right under s.10 by later requesting a different representative. Statute and case law make it clear that it is not open to either the employer or the employee to waive a statutory requirement by any express or implied agreement.
• Section 11(3) of the Act provides for compensation of an amount not exceeding two weeks' pay where a tribunal finds that an employer failed to comply with s.10.This is not a penalty or fine, but is to compensate the worker for loss or detriment suffered as a result of the employer's breach. If there was no such loss, a tribunal cannot make a zero award, but the award should be nominal.

When can a worker be accompanied?
The statutory right to be accompanied applies to workers and not just employees. It therefore covers casual, temporary and agency workers too. It applies when:

• A worker is required or invited by his or her employer to attend a disciplinary or grievance hearing, and
• The worker reasonably requests to be accompanied at the hearing.

What are the rights of your PCS Rep?
A PCS Rep has the right, at the hearing, to:

• Address the hearing, but not to answer questions on behalf of the worker
• Confer with the worker during the hearing

A Trade Union Rep should also be allowed to participate as fully as possible in the hearing.

What is a disciplinary hearing?
A disciplinary hearing is defined (section 13(4)) as a hearing which could result in:

• The administration of a formal warning to a worker
• The taking of some other action in respect of a worker
• The confirmation of a warning issued or some other action taken.

What is a grievance hearing?
A grievance hearing is defined (section 13 (5)) as a hearing which concerns the performance of a duty by an employer in relation to a worker. According to the Acas statutory code of practice, paragraph 34, this would apply where the complaint is that the employer is not honouring the worker’s contract or is in breach of legislation.

The ACAS Code of Practice, paragraph 1, describes grievances as “concerns, problems or complaints that employees raise with their employers”. When a problem, is reported to management, this could impose a duty on the employer to take some action, since a failure to do so could result in a breach of the employer's duty of trust and confidence. Issues of harassment and bullying also impose duties on employers, and so involve a duty on the part of the employer. Issues of equal pay involve a duty, but a dispute about a pay rise would probably not, since there is normally no legal duty on an employer to award a pay rise.

Can a manager veto a Trade Union Official?
No. Under section10 (2a) of the Employment Relations Act 1999, the employer must permit the worker to be accompanied by “a trade union official” chosen by the worker.

If the chosen PCS Representative is not available at the time fixed for the hearing, then the worker has the right to postpone the hearing, under section 10 (4) of the Act, to another time which is reasonable and within five working days of the first working day after the date proposed by the employer.

The statutory right is a right that exists for all workers, no matter how many employees there are or whether or not there is trade union recognition by the employer.

Say no to the privatisation of our shared services

The following has been supplied by PCS DWP Group:

Please copy to all PCS members in DWP Shared Services

PCS is campaigning to stop government plans to privatise Shared Services in the DWP, DEFRA, the Environment Agency and UK SBS Ltd (BIS). The government has told PCS that current plans assume that all shared service staff will TUPE transfer to a private company called SSC Ltd on 1 November.

PCS believes that this privatisation will mean worse terms and conditions and less job security for hundreds of union members working in Shared Services who deal with your personal information. PCS are particularly concerned about the threat that once privatised this will be sent abroad.

PCS is also deeply concerned that your personal details and payroll information and the sensitive personal and government data – the names, addresses, and bank accounts of hundreds of thousands of Civil Servants will be privatised and sent abroad.

Please go to http://action.pcs.org.uk/page/speakout/save-our-shared-services and send the e-action letter to your MP.

PCS is opposing this privatisation in national negotiations with the government holding meetings of members in shared services and lobbying MP’s.

PCS believes that this sensitive work can and should be done efficiently in the civil service.

The cabinet office has announced the Preferred Bidder for the SSC Ltd contract is Steria UK. Steria - a French based multinational – will have the 75% share ownership and control of SSC Ltd. This will give Steria what is called a “Special Majority”, meaning that Steria can essentially do what it pleases with the company. Currently Government will retain a 25% stake but the Cabinet Office has also confirmed that the Government’s stake and interest will last for only 5 to 7 years. After that they do not guarantee further involvement.

PCS has now met Steria executives and we are about to begin a series of meetings to ensure the best possible protections for members.

We must have time to negotiate 
PCS are opposed to privatisation. It is clear already that if these proposals go ahead that:

• There will be significant job losses and site closures.
• There will be off-shoring of functions putting even more jobs at risk.
• Members will lose their Civil Service status and be transferred into the private sector.
• This is about achieving the Governments cuts targets.

The current proposal is to transfer staff to Steria on Nov 1st 2013 although the Cabinet Office have confirmed that this is subject to various approvals. PCS is vociferously opposing this, and demanding that the date is put back to enable genuine Meaningful Consultation to take place. If the Cabinet Office is serious about these talks then the timetable has to reflect this.

What we have done
PCS have met the Cabinet Office and have consistently argued that shared services should remain in the civil service.

We have raised our concerns with Sir Bob Kerslake, Head of the Civil Service, and sought assurances that there would be no loss of civil service status for staff affected and no off-shoring of functions currently delivered by those staff. We have also written to the Permanent Secretaries of DWP, Defra and the Chief Executive of UK SBS Ltd to confirm that failure to provide these assurances would establish a trade dispute. As these assurances were not given, a trade dispute now exists.

On Oct 2nd we met the Governments’ Chief Operating Officer, Stephen Kelly, to strongly press our concerns about the timetable. The meeting was positive, and Mr Kelly was open to our concerns. We were promised first sight of information as it became available, including the Treasury approvals process. We hope that this may lead to a more realistic timetable, enabling us to better protect the interests of shared service staff who may transfer. As we write we are waiting for a response as to whether the timetable will be put back to ensure time for meaningful consultation on an agreement which will protect staff if they transfer. We also want a guarantee that we can continue to discuss the principle of privatisation, including off shoring, and why staff should retain civil service status. We will keep members informed and as soon as we receive a response on this, issue a further briefing.

As a last resort PCS will ask members in shared services to take industrial action to defend our jobs and services.

What can you do

• Recruit a non member
• Go to - http://action.pcs.org.uk/page/speakout/save-our-shared-services and use the e-action to send a letter to your MP.
• Attend Branch meetings and feed in your views to your local reps.
• Support the PCS Campaign

Marion Lloyd - NEC
Chris Baugh - PCS Assistant General Secretary

Unions challenge new 'resilience' push

The following details have been provided by the TUC:
Journalists have added their backing to TUC concerns about the emergence of a resilience industry, intent on making workers 'man up' and shrug off the stresses and strains of work.

The union alert comes ahead of the 10 October launch by the government of a new workplace mental health 'pledge', which will urge employers to sign up to the resilience approach.

The TUC expressed concern last month over attempts to make workers more resilient rather than workplaces more healthy. Now press and public relations branch members of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) have warned: 'If this agenda is successful it is likely we will see the resurrection of arguments such as the 'egg-shell personality' put up as a defence against workers in stress claims. Workers who are not resilient enough will find hanging on to a job, taking a case to an employment tribunal, making a claim for compensation or possibly even getting benefits more difficult.'

The government's new draft 'Mental health wellbeing and resilience pledge', to be launched by workplace health czar Dame Carol Black on 10 October, will commit firms to 'providing staff with the environment and tools to develop and maintain emotional resilience and mental wellbeing, while raising awareness of, and providing support for, mental health issues in the workplace.' Dame Carol will be accompanied at the launch by health ministers Lord Howe and Norman Lamb and Lord Freud, minister for welfare reform.

Government marks freedom from safety day

The following has been supplied by the TUC:
Business minister Michael Fallon has been criticised by a top safety campaigner after he claimed a new round of cuts to safety regulations are 'good news for the growth prospects of UK companies.' Workplace health and safety measures dominated the cuts to 'red tape' highlighted by the minister.

These included barring 'strict liability' compensation claims for workplace injuries, dramatically curtailing workplace injury and disease reporting requirements, making it more difficult for employees to pursue workplace harassment claims against their employers and removing the requirement for the Health and Safety Executive to approve training and qualifications of appointed first-aid personnel. Marking 'Freedom Day' on 1 October, business minister Michael Fallon said: 'Reducing government interference is improving Britain's international reputation as a low-regulation, pro-business nation, but more must be done. To give our firms the best chance of winning on the global stage, we will press for more cuts in red tape in Europe, as well as at home.' 

But Hilda Palmer of the Hazards Campaign said the event marked 'freedom from having to give a damn about health and safety day'. She added: 'Workplace safety has been the top target of the government's attack on 'red tape' or, to you and me, the regulations that save our necks. There's lots of 'burdens' arguments given in justifying the move, all bogus.' She said properly enforced health and safety regulations not only save lives, they are good for the bottom line and protect responsible businesses from being undercut by the rogues.