|
Public Sector Pay
The NHS unions have sought clarity on a number of matters concerning pay following statements by the government relating to the budget.
The Department of Health has stated that the government’s announcement on a public sector pay freeze does not extend to pay band increments. The Treasury has stated in a note of clarification to all government departments that ‘those staff who are entitled to pay progression will continue to receive it.’
There is some confusion regarding the position of those who earn up to £21,000 p.a. We have sought clarification on whether government policy is for a flat rate payment or a minimum £250 pay rise. The DH has confirmed that the Chancellor's statement was ‘an error’ and the statement in the Treasury's "Red Book" is that ‘at least £250’ is the policy. This of course impacts on the role of the NHS Pay Review Body over the next two years and we expect further information on this soon. We and the other unions are committed to the NHS PRB having a role despite the pay freeze.
The decision that increases to public sector pensions will be linked to the CPI rather than the RPI is certain to lead to a reduction in the future value of NHS and all public sector pensions will be a priority issue for Unite. This will be taken forward by Unite in consultation with the other public sector unions and advice will be taken on a potential legal challenge can be undertaken.
Karen Reay and Dave Fleming
Unite Health Sector National Officers
(posted 04/07/2010)
Top of page
NHS mileage allowances and lease car schemes
We have had reports that a growing number of NHS employers are attempting to impose lease car arrangements on staff who currently receive regular user mileage allowances. They are using the threat of the public transport mileage rate if staff refuse to accept a lease car. If an employer offers a lease car it is reasonable for an employee to refuse if s/he already uses a car to carry out duties at work. The imposition of lease cars is a blatant attempt by employers to reduce their mileage payments since the public transport rate is significantly below regular user rates.
It is essential that we ensure that individuals are not pressurised or threatened into accepting a lease car and giving up their regular car user allowance.
Please note the following advice-
1. Any proposals must be discussed with the recognised trade union representatives.
2. Members who are car users should be surveyed on their opinions in relation to the employer's proposal- where appropriate, an indicative ballot of affected members may be undertaken on whether to accept or reject the proposal
3. If the view of staff is that the employer's proposal is unreasonable and further discussions with the employer fail to resolve the position, then the following action should be taken:
a. The employer should be told that staff are not prepared to either accept a lease car or subsidise their employer at 24 pence per mile.
b. Staff should give notice to their employer that they are no longer prepared to use their private cars for work unless they are fully reimbursed for the cost of motoring.
c. where the use of a car is necessary for the performance of their duties, staff should indicate that they are prepared to use a pool car provided by their employer. They should also state that they are not prepared to take responsibility for this car outside working hours but are prepared to collect it at the beginning of the day from the employers workplace and drop it off at the end of the working day. In this way they will incur no tax liability.
d. alternatively, staff can state that they will use public transport instead of a car, if it is only the public transport rate that is to be reimbursed.
If the scheme is imposed and regular car user allowance is deducted from individuals without their consent legal advice must be sought and a grievance lodged asap
NB. It is essential that workplace reps ensure that their regional officers are informed where employers have acted unreasonably in this way. Within NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde e-mail regional officer gordon.casey@unitetheunion.com and group secretary ian.forbes@ggc.scot.nhs.uk and within NHS Forth Valley email michael.fuller@unitetheunion.com .
Points to note.
•Regular users are required to purchase a car to carry out their duties at work and are paid a lump sum allowance and a mileage rate. Purchasing a car is usually a 3 year commitment that remains a personal liability, even after an employer offers a lease car.
•Standard users are paid a mileage rate up to 58.3 pence per mile for a larger car.
•Lease cars require the employee to pay for personal use but this is then taxed by the HMRC as a benefit, typically attracting £2,000 extra tax liability for the employee. Many employees do not want a lease car if they have already provided their own.
•Therefore a reduction to a mileage rate of 24p per mile represents a massive reduction and means that employees are subsidising their employers in using their own cars for work.
Karen Reay and Dave Fleming
Unite Health Sector National Officers
(posted 04/07/2010)
Top of page
Election of Unite General Secretary
The union’s national executive has called an election for the post of General Secretary. It is the intention of Glasgow Health Service Branch to consider any possible nominations at its meeting on Tuesday 31st August. It is also possible for workplace groups to nominate for the post. The ballot rules and guidelines may be downloaded from the union’s website:
http://www.unitetheunion.com/about_us/unite_2010_gs_election.aspx
Nominations from workplaces must be made at a meeting held in July or August 2010 using the procedure laid out in the ballot rules and regulations referred to above. All workplaces must give at least seven days notice to the members of the workplace using the sample notice included as Appendix 1 of the ballot rules and guidelines. Nominations will not be valid unless a meeting of the workplace has been convened and the nomination endorsed by the meeting.
(posted 04/07/2010)
Top of page
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
|
