Ewan Hall GMB Convenor

Transcription

1 Ewan Hall GMB Convenor Mobile: Mr J Barrett Assistant Director Early Help and Learning Cumbria County Council Lonsdale Building English Street The Courts Carlisle CA3 8NA 4 th March 2016 Dear John Re: Children s Services Early Help and Targeted Youth Support In line with the Children s Services (Targeted Youth Support) Statement of Change document dated 21 st January 2016, GMB welcome the opportunity to contribute and provide constructive feedback to the wider consultation process across this service area. GMB also acknowledge that meaningful consultation involves giving the group or body consulted a fair and proper opportunity to understand fully the matters and about which it is being consulted and to express its views on those subjects, with the consulting employer thereafter considering those views properly and genuinely. GMB feel that if reshaping is conducted in a manner that still retains the confidence of our Members and their voices are heard and valued, then we might be able to consider the best will have been done to meet a difficult situation. Local authorities are required to comply with their statutory equality duties when making decisions about the service they provide including decisions to introduce redundancies through service restructuring. This would involve conducting service specific and robust equality impact assessments (EIA) for such decisions to make sure they do not adversely affect different groups, e.g. on the basis of disability, gender, etc. At the time of writing we do not appear to be in receipt of an Equality Impact assessment for this service area and whilst we will check our records, we would ask you to confirm if an EIA has been sent to GMB. GMB Cumbria Public Services Branch, Cumbria County Council, Lonsdale Building, The Courts, Carlisle, CA3 8NA

2 We further note the need for the council to demonstrate a fair application of the Management of Change policy along with People Management s role to mitigate the impact of reductions in the workforce with particular emphasis on those employees with caring responsibilities, those with part-time roles and those households where both earners work for the Council. GMB further acknowledge the challenges facing the Council and the significant budget reductions resulting from the Government s continued austerity programme. However, the consultation process should explore, in full, alternatives to redundancy indeed, this is a standing item on the HR1 agenda. As service reviews continue across the Council, GMB will continue to advocate for mitigation factors in an effort to minimise and reduce any likelihood of compulsory redundancies with the following being considered: Savings in the non-staffing budget Employee reductions due to natural wastage Voluntary severance/redundancy Voluntary transfer to part-time work or job share (including consideration of pension provision) Reviewing or ending the use of agency staff/epw Redeployment and retraining to other posts within the authority where actual or potential vacancies, as a result of reshaping, exist Having considered the Statement of Change we note the proposed changes to this service structure and would ask if the revision is workable, sustainable and does it demonstrate improvements on the exiting delivery method with the anticipation of better service outcomes? GMB has a number of observations and concerns with the current proposals: a. It is our understanding that recently TUPE staff, who are in scope of this review, are on a range of terms and conditions, varied and possibly inaccurate job descriptions and various salary grades. GMB have noted that entering into this reshaping programme without providing clarity to these issues has caused unnecessary anxiety and further complexity to the wider process. GMB are aware, that following a TUPE exercise, the employer can initiate a change to employment contracts and job descriptions, for example, on the basis of economic, technical or organisational (ETO) reasons. However, whilst the employer may argue that the current Statement of Change is for organisational reasons, it may have been wise to highlight, more clearly, this was their intention during the transfer process, this usually being achieved by way of a measures letter in contemplation of the TUPE transfer. For example, the planned reduction in management grades could have been more transparent during the TUPE consultation period.

3 b. With particular reference to TUPE staff, there remains a degree of ambiguity how assimilation will be implemented for this cohort of staff. Given that TUPE staff have a somewhat arbitrary grade, from their previous employer, how and by what process can the employer ensure a fair and transparent assimilation process takes place given these staff don t have a current county council post specification/grade? Is the suggestion, therefore, that all staff in scope will be subject to interview and no assimilations will take place or that only TUPE staff will be subject to interview? Individuals who have transferred into the council under TUPE and who are within scope of this reshaping are not clear how the assimilation process is going to apply to them given the points mentioned above. The threshold of 75% or more against key accountabilities should clearly apply but we remain concerned how the application of a grade match will be extended to the TUPE employees. c. Will the window for voluntary redundancy by extended past the assimilation process? d. GMB note that current management grades range between PCD and OS. The Statement of Change and new post specifications indicate that managers in the new structure will be annotated OS. Is there a reason for this change? e. Where there is potential for employees to be placed at risk, has management considered allowing employees to contemplate the council s Social Work training programme? f. GMB understand that directly prior to the reshaping process at least 6 new positions were recruited to the YOS department. Can you please clarify if this was the case? If indeed this was the case, and we accept that you have yet to confirm, was consideration given to holding these vacancies until the reshaping started to help mitigate the potential risk of redundancy? As with previous reshaping, GMB continues to have concerns, both through this service reshaping review and others, relating to elements within the Councils policy on the Management of Structural or Organisational Change in particular around assimilation. GMB do acknowledge that meaningful discussions relevant to the Council s Management of Change policy have taken place recently between the recognised Trade Unions and the employer and where concerns remain they are expressed below: Assimilation. Direct assimilation is GMB preferred outcome in the majority of circumstances and we do not feel that TUPE employees should be treated differently. Where the current post is substantially similar in role, scope, dimension, tasks and responsibilities including skills, the employee should be directly assimilated. However, the fundamental flaw is the insistence of a grade match as the primary qualifier since it is always likely to be the case that where restructuring is taking place there is likely to be grade differences between the

4 old and new structures. GMB believe this operates as a significant and arbitrary disadvantage and often precludes assimilation rather than achieving it, which in a redundancy scenario strikes us a somewhat counterintuitive. At present, and where the posts are substantially similar, the current policy prescribes a 75% match against each of the revised key accountabilities. GMB supported the previously agreed 75% match against the post as a whole, allowing for a more holistic view since we view this as being more properly aligned to the employer s duty to mitigate the risk of redundancy. We believe the current 75% match against each accountability has rendered it a harder test for employees who are already fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of the post in most circumstances and that this match, rather than by proposed new grade outcome, is the most efficient means to both achieve the changes required and fulfil obligations towards affected employees. Similar to re-grading panels, GMB believe, and operating on the same principled approach, that there should be a constructive role in the assimilation assessment process, particularly where assimilation is border line and the employer gives its employees no ability or opportunity to challenge or appeal the assimilation outcome after the assimilation panel has arrived at that outcome. Vacancy Preference Process. Affording ring fence status to employees who have not assimilated under circumstances described above and where they are subsequently considered for the remaining posts, within the wider ring fencing, before the post(s) is/are opened up to the wider workforce under AEP may be reasonably appropriate. However, GMB had genuine reservations around the limitations placed on employees who, by virtue of the recent policy, were limited to applying for either 2 grades above or below their current post whilst in the ring fenced structure. GMB welcome the policy move which now means that the process of employees applying for posts which are 2 grades above or below their existing grade will no longer apply. Alternative Employment Programme. Employment law encourages employers who are considering dismissing an employee by reason of redundancy to look for alternative employment for that person. In law, a failure to take reasonable steps to find alternatives to redundancy can make a redundancy dismissal unfair. Where an employee is subject to the AEP, GMB believe the employer needs to emphasise, through all reshaping and consultation meetings, that the law allows a trial period of up to four weeks (or longer if retraining is required) for employees to try the role before making a final decision. Currently, there appears to be no provision in the reshaping proposals to accommodate this duty and, in the event of any compulsory situation, could amount to a material factor in any unfair dismissal claim arising from it, particularly where a statutory duty was engaged but not acted on.

5 GMB have a shared interest in a properly run consultation process which seeks to minimise compulsory redundancies and potential damage to local services. However, whist not entirely explicit to this service area, we have expressed generic reservations with elements of the Management of Change policy, particularly around assimilation. We do, however, have concerns that this cohort of TUPE staff could be disadvantaged by not having a current and recognisable council job grade that would assist and enable them to assimilate. Recent changes to the Vacancy Preference Process are welcome and should benefit many employees. GMB has a number of specific observations and concerns with are set out in paragraphs A F above and to that end would welcome replies to each. In addition, the process or methods by which management within Children s Services (Targeted Youth Support) effectively evaluate the aims set out in the Statement of Change and in particular the impact on employee s health and wellbeing, post reshaping, is of paramount interest to GMB. Yours sincerely Ewan Hall GMB Convenor cc: All GMB convenors Dan Gow GMB full time officer File