|
Laboratory Out-of-Hours
At a meeting with management last week, the union’s negotiators expressed concern at the slow rate of progress in implementing the agreement locally. Management responded by citing the difficulties in getting such a large number of individual rotas agreed locally and then approved by general management. Significant progress had been made in Microbiology and Haematology although progress was slower in Biochemistry and Pathology. Progress on the Questions and Answers Sheet also remains slower than hoped for, but a ‘final draft’ has been given to management and staff side negotiators for approval/amendment.
(posted 17/06/2010)
Top of page
AfC update
Not a lot to report, but the review outcome job analysis questionnaires are now being processed as are a number of review submissions that somehow became lost in the system. The hundreds of reviews that are in the ‘undecided’ category have been referred to the Scottish Terms and Conditions Committee(STAC). A first meeting was held earlier this week between STAC officers and NHS GG&C job evaluation leads and another is planned for July .It is hoped that at least some of the outstanding review decisions could be made without reference to further review panels organised by STAC.
(posted 17/06/2010)
Top of page
Pay Review Body visit to Glasgow
The Staff Side of the Area Partnership Forum had met with visiting members of the NHS Pay Review Body (PRB) on 20th May. Whilst the Staff Side members had emphasised the issues faced by staff including below inflation pay rises, low pay issues in the lower pay bands, recruitment and retention problems etc the visitors had a very clear pre-arranged agenda of items that they wished to talk about. Worryingly, the chief of these was to find out our response to the question of whether we would accept the idea of a zero pay rise to protect jobs. On having this idea soundly rejected, the response was ‘so you would rather see fellow employees put our of a job to protect your pay rise’. At the meeting with Support Services staff, the question from the PRB had morphed into ‘are you expecting a pay rise next year?’
(posted 17/06/2010)
Top of page
New policies on Capability & Workforce Change
The management and staff sides of the NHS GG&C Area Partnership Forum have agreed two new policies. The Employee Capability Policy and Procedure is “designed to deal with those cases where the employee is lacking in some area of knowledge, skill or ability, resulting in a failure to be able to carry out the required duties to an acceptable standard”. The Workforce Change Policy and Procedure is “designed to enable change and maximise security of employment” and “outlines support related to redeployment, retraining and voluntary severance, ensuring we retain their skills and experience for the benefit of the organisation”. The policies are available on Staffnet or may be downloaded from here: Capability Policy Workforce Change Policy
(posted
17/06/2010)
Top of page
UK review of on-call
Branch members may have been aware that a UK review of on-call arrangements for staff covered by AfC had intended to come up with a single system for all staff undertaking on-call. Due to the number and complexity of arrangements currently in place across the UK it has been agreed that it will not be possible to develop a single system for all staff undertaking on-call. The UK Review Group will therefore now work towards agreeing a set of principles which will be issued to NHS organisations across the UK who will then be required to develop a system “locally” within the guiding principles. The position within Scotland will be decided by the Scottish Terms and Conditions Committee and Branch members will be consulted and kept informed of progress on this matter.
(posted 06/04/2010)
Top of page
Laboratory Out-of-Hours agreement signed
The long-awaited NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde local agreement on out-of-hours working in laboratories has been signed by Jane Grant (Chief Operating Officer) and Ian Reid (Director of HR) on behalf GG&C management and by Regional Officer Gordon Casey and Group Secretary Ian Forbes on behalf of Unite. A copy of the document may be downloaded here.
(posted 06/04/2010)
Top of page
Unite levies Branch funds to support BA dispute
Members may have seen a classic case of mis-reporting by the press at the end of March. Unite’s Executive Council decided to impose a levy of 2% on Branch funds to help support the BA cabin crew who are in dispute. This was reported by much of the press as Unite imposing a mandatory levy of 2% on Unite members! The Branch fund levy money will be in addition to the money the union is paying to crew in strike pay. Tony Woodley, Unite joint general secretary said: "This is an unprecedented move and it shows that Unite is absolutely determined to give our members all the support they deserve in winning this battle against the BA bullies. "We continue to search for a decent settlement in this dispute but cabin crew are not going to be driven back to work for lack of resources."
(posted 06/04/2010)
Top of page
Reviews: what is going on?
Senior representatives have been inundated with members/reps asking what the current position with outstanding/missing reviews. At the time of writing, ‘official’ information is thin on the ground but
a) The Job Evaluation Unit (JEU) phones have been disconnected in order to allow the staff to work rather than answer the floods of complaints;
b) The JEU staff are working their way through the queries and they will be answered;
c) The AfC Review Group are looking at the ‘undecided outcome’ reviews but current progress is slow;
d) No decision has been taken on what to do if there is a failure to agree on any individual undecided outcome review but there is a national blocked matching process that could be used;
e) No decision has been taken on an anomalies process (i.e. the unions want one, the management have yet to agree); and
f) A large number of individuals who submitted a review have not had any form of contact. It is believed that in most cases this is due to the review applying to more than one person but only one getting a letter. Other cases are due to review submissions having been misfiled (in a sub-folder, apparently). In Diagnostics alone the number who are complaining that they did not receive a letter is not far short of 100.
None of the above is ‘official’, merely information passed on by a number of involved individuals.
(posted 14/03/2010)
Top of page
Anger over modernising scientific careers
The Department of Health, in association with the devolved health departments, has published ‘Modernising Scientific Careers: the UK Forward’ to a barrage of criticism. The main point at issue is that the document appears to have ignored the many detailed responses submitted by the trade unions and professional bodies and continues to propose a model with three distinct groups: associates, practitioners and scientists. The modernisation would thus consist mainly of reinforcing the current three strands, albeit with some very welcome upgrading of the training etc available to the associates group. The document may be downloaded here and the Unite response here
(posted 14/03/2010)
Top of page
British Airways dispute
Members who have seen the British Airways management trying to appear reasonable and enlightened employers whilst attacking Unite for ‘trying to destroy British Airways as a company’ might wish to take into consideration the fact that BA have a policy of sacking their Hong Kong female cabin crew for the crime of becoming 45. Almost unbelievably, the nations ‘favourite airline’ has a policy which is ageist, sexist and racist all at the same time. At a recent employment tribunal, BA tried to defend their actions on the basis that 45 is the retirement age at their Hong Kong base and the women’s Hong Kong nationality excluded them from UK employment law. Happily, the employment tribunal found that the women, who are based at London Heathrow, are entitled to have their discrimination cases heard in a UK court. Unite’s national officer for civil aviation, Steve Turner, said “BA’s treatment of these women is disgraceful. There will be widespread revulsion that the national carrier has a policy of treating its overseas crew as second-class citizens. This practice reflects very badly on BA as an employer, but it also does profound damage to Britain’s reputation overseas.”
(posted 14/03/2010)
Top of page
Revised fit note from April 6
With effect from 6th April, the traditional sick note issued by GPs is to be replaced by a ‘fit note’. The fit note will offer two options for GPs to choose from: ‘not fit for work’ or ‘may be fit for work taking account of the following advice’. There are then four options that, ‘if available and with your employer’s agreement’ the person may benefit from: a phased return to work; amended duties; altered hours; and workplace adaptations. Further space is provided for a GP’s comments.
(posted 14/03/2010)
Top of page
Violence & aggression in Acute Division
According to
figures supplied to the Acute Division Partnership forum, 883 incidents of violence and aggression were recorded (and signed off) in the last six months of 2009. The majority (466) of the incidents
were of physical assault, followed by verbal abuse (169) and threats of physical violence (126). The most dangerous Directorates in which to work were Rehabilitation and Assessment with 359 icidents
and Emergency Care & Medical with 332. Safest Directorates were Oral health (1) and Diagnostics (7).
(posted 14/03/2010)
Top of page
AfC review statistics
The following ‘unofficial’ statistics have been revealed about the AfC review outcomes notified in January.
Reviews: 2485
No change in pay band: 60.4%
Increased pay band: 14.2%
Quality Assurance panel disagree with review panel: 15.4%
Quality Assurance panel unable to reach consensus: 9.1%
Job analysis questionnaire recommended: 0.9%
As previously reported, the AfC Review Group are examining each of the reviews where QA have disagreed with the review outcome or been unable to reach a decision and the first two percentages will change.
(posted 18/02/2010)
Top of page
AfC successful reviews: GG&C predicted costs
In preparing the Board’s Financial Plan a modest provision has been made for the possibility of successful appeals with a recurring cost of up to £3 million per annum provided for. The Board has now reached the stage where it is considering appeals which have been made against Agenda for Change gradings, Several thousand appeals have been submitted, considerably more than had been originally anticipated and therefore there was a risk that the number that would be upheld would be higher than originally assumed. In recent weeks the Board has been working to assess the likely impact of Agenda for Change appeals on the 2009/10 financial out-turn. This work has confirmed that the recurring cost impact of successful appeals is likely to be some £2m to £3m higher than originally estimated and this has been reflected in the analysis of the Board’s recurring position. However, there remain a number of posts where review panels could not agree on a grade. These may be subject to further review and depending on the outcome of this review may generate a further cost pressure of between £1m to £2m in 2009/10.
(extract of NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde Mid Year Review of Financial Plan)
(posted 18/02/2010)
Top of page
Unions meet HR Director about AfC reviews
Following the angst about the outcomes of the review process, the Staff Side of the AfC Review Group, and a number of union Full-Time Officers active around the Area Partnership Forum (APF), met informally with the Director of Human Resources (Ian Reid) on Thursday 11th February. The purpose of the meeting was to explore how we might, in partnership, address the issues arising from the recent AfC Review outcomes (and the outcomes that will emerge on conclusion of the entire review process). A report of this meeting will be given to the APF on Wednesday 17th. Unite members will be kept updated on any progress by means of the group reps mailing list and the Branch website.
(posted 15/02/2010)
Top of page
Advice on Agenda for Change review outcomes
Members
that have requested and submitted review evidence following assimilation should have received a letter in the week beginning 25th January informing them of the outcome of that review.
Depending on
the outcome of the review, staff will have received one of three letters:
a) Your review has resulted in a higher pay band;
b) Your review has confirmed the original pay band;
or
c) The outcome of your review has still to be determined.
The current position is as follows
a) Most of those whose outcome led to a higher pay band should have already
been paid on that band in January and any arrears of pay due will follow.
b) For those whose review confirmed the original pay band, then that is the end of the agreed AfC process.
For these posts it is worth noting that the post will have been reviewed at least 3 times, by different panels.
c) The posts whose outcome has yet to be determined are those where the
Quality Assurance (QA) panel disagreed with the review outcome or where the QA Panel itself failed to agree an outcome. These are now being considered in partnership by the AfC Review Group and the
aim is to determine the outcome as quickly as possible.
Members who have not received their letter after having submitted review evidence should contact their line manager in the first
instance or contact the AfC Team at Tara House (0141 278 2620 / 2621). Members who requested a review but have not had the opportunity to submit evidence for review should urgently contact the
Group Secretary (ian.forbes@ggc.scot.nhs.uk).
The Union recognises that for those with an unsuccessful outcome there may be a limited number of members with grounds to lodge a grievance with
regard to the process that produced an unfair result. Members considering this require to understand that it must be concerned with the misapplication of the process - it is not possible to challenge
the pay band outcome or the level awarded for any of the 16 factors only that the job evaluation rules were not properly applied (e.g. a biomedical scientist post being matched to a nursing profile).
Members should in the first instance consult their local Unite representative if considering this approach.
Unite is of the opinion that there will undoubtedly be a very small number of
obvious anomalies following the completion of this exercise. The Union is working closely with other unions in seeking a partnership solution with management to address these issues. This should
provide a limited opportunity for some outcomes to be reconsidered. Further advice for members will follow when the process with management is established. Meanwhile members should discuss with their
manager whether this could be appropriate given the results in their area or profession.
(posted 12/02/2010)
Top of page
AfC review outcomes disappoint many
The majority of staff who received a review outcome letter last week were disappointed with the result. The overall statistics for the Health Board have not yet been revealed, but within the Diagnostics Directorate only around ten percent of reviews have resulted in staff being informed of an increased pay band. The majority, around sixty percent, have been told that there is no change to their AfC banding, with the remainder receiving the news that the result of their review is not yet finalised. This means that within Diagnostics only 29 people so far have been successful in their review submission.
The AfC Review Group are currently working their way through all of the not finalised group, but it is not known when this will result in final outcomes.
(posted 31/01/2010)
Top of page
Lab OoH agreement ready to be signed
At a meeting held last Friday (29th January), laboratory group representatives were given a copy of the draft agreement that has been presented to management for signature. The representatives were asked to take the agreement back to their laboratories and inform the Group Secretary (Ian Forbes) by Friday of any areas of implementation that require to be clarified by means of a jointly agreed with general management Q & A sheet. Meanwhile, representatives and members should continue with local discussions in partnership on shift/on-call rotas etc arising from the agreement.
(posted 31/01/2010)
Top of page
AfC review letters
NHS GG&C members of staff who submitted a request to have their Agenda for Change (AfC) pay band outcome reviewed should receive a letter (to be posted to their home address on 25th January) informing them of the status of their review. The letter will inform them that:
a) the review has resulted in a higher pay band; or
b) the review has not resulted in a higher pay band; or
c) the outcome of the review has yet to be determined.
There a number of reasons why members might receive the third letter - the main ones being that the review outcome has been deemed unsafe by the Quality Assurance panel or there has been a failure to agree by the panel. The AfC Review Group (which is a sub-committee of the Area Partnership Forum) will decide how to proceed with these reviews.
It is hoped that staff whose reviews have resulted in an increase will be paid on their new pay band at the end of January.
The above information is based on the meeting of the AfC Review Group meeting held on Tuesday 12th January.
(posted 15/01/2010)
Top of page
NHS pension choice
Members of the NHS pension scheme in Scotland should be receiving a pack from the Scottish Public Pensions Agency (SPPA) in February. The pack will contain a guide to the options being offered i.e. whether to remain in the 1995 scheme or transfer to the 2008 scheme. For most people the pack will also contain a personal illustration of the benefits at age 60 and age 65 for each of the schemes, based on your current information on salary and length of superannuable service. Some staff may receive a generic statement if their records do not have enough information to produce a meaningful personalised statement.
Members can access detailed information about the pension choice at:
http://www.sppa.gov.uk/nhschoice.htm
and a pension calculator is available at:
www.sppa.gov.uk/documents/ChoiceWebFinalv1191109_000.xls
A video presentation by Alvin Hall is also on the SPPA website
(DVD copies of the presentation will be supplied to Group Reps at the February Group Committee)
Members should note that whilst the SPPA are able to answer queries about the details of each of the
schemes neither they nor the union are able to offer advice on which of the schemes is most suitable for any individual.
(posted 15/01/2010)
Top of page
Michael Fuller awarded MBE
Congratulations to Regional Officer Michael Fuller who in the New Year Honours list was made a Member of the the Order of the British Empire for services to the NHS and Unite the Union in
Scotland. Michael is the lead NHS officer for Unite in Scotland and represents Branch members employed in Forth Valley and Golden Jubilee.
(posted
04/01/2010)
Top of page
Meeting dates for 2010
The 2010 meeting dates for the Branch can be viewed here and for the Group Representatives Committee can be viewed here. Group representatives should note that the February meeting will be held on Thursday 11th and not the 4th.
(posted 04/01/2010)
Top of page
Holidays can be delayed due to sickness absence
The European Court of Justice has reinforced it previous decision that annual leave and sick leave serve different purposes (reported here) by
ruling that an employee who was absent from work due to illness for a period that covered previously arranged annual leave was entitled to postpone their annual leave until such time as they are well
enough to take it.
(posted 04/01/2010)
Top of page
Branch library updated
The
latest additions to the Branch library are:
“Health and safety law 2009);
“Contracts of employment - resisting changes”; and
“Stress and mental health at
work”.
Copies of these and other items in the Branch Library (click here) may be borrowed via one of the senior reps. In case of difficulty, contact the Branch Secretary.
(posted 04/01/2010)
Top of page
|
