You are:

Annual report

Foreword

Following a successful first conference of the new group in May, we set off to deliver a challenging agenda in the face of morale-sapping government cuts, pay disputes, and seemingly endless 'efficiency' and spending reviews.

At the heart of our strategy is the desire to have a departmental approach to all terms and conditions including pay systems.

This is hampered in no small measure by the department's apparent indifference to equality and consistency, most blatantly characterised by its refusal to carry out a departmental wide equality audit.

Good progress has been made in the convening of cross-department Whitley sub-committees that may in turn lead to a more coherent approach to pay in 2009.

We have obtained a commitment from the secretary of state, Hazel Blears, that the permanent secretary will work with the pay leads across the department to take a strategic look at the various pay arrangements, and importantly that all bargaining units will be required to complete equality impact assessments before annual pay awards are implemented.

In line with the general civil service approach, DCLG is keen to move towards shared corporate services covering a number of areas in the drive for further efficiencies.

This does not apparently extend to pay though and there is continued acceptance of the ludicrous position whereby a department with no more than 6,000 staff has at least 7 different pay systems to negotiate, maintain and administer.

The GEC will continue to press these points but we face an uphill battle when the department is reluctant to interfere with the so-called independence of the bargaining units.

Nevertheless 2008 was a year in which, to coin a popular phrase, we ticked a lot of boxes, working hard on behalf of members and preparing ourselves for the battles ahead which I hope we can face with growing experience and confidence.

Martin Kenny, group president

2008 GEC

Attendance for DCLG+GO GEC meetings 2008

GEC meetings held in 2008 were on 5 and 6 February, 29 and 30 April, 17 June, 9 and 10 Sept, 19 and 20 November.

Table showing attendance record for GEC meetings 2008
Name
Possible
Actual
 
Mark Baker (Grp Ass Sec)
9
5
 
Bob Barron (Group Sec)
2
1
Transferred Feb
Ian Barton
5
5
Started June
Steve Battlemuch (Vice President)
5
5
Started June
Leon Bond (Editor)
5
5
Resigned Aug
Tony Brazier
4
4
Retired Aug
Tony Conway (Grp Ass Sec)
9
7
 
Neil Cort
9
9
 
Colin Cox
9
2
 
Lara Dean
9
7
 
Rachel Edwards (Organiser)
9
7
 
Jon Gamble (Treasurer)
9
8
 
Chris Hickey
9
8
 
Jeremy Hughes (Grp Ass Sec)
9
6
 
Anne-Marie Ingram
9
6
 
Karen Johnson
9
7
 
David Jones
4
4
Started Sept
Liz Keegan
9
9
 
Martin Kenny (President)
9
9
 
Nora Milward
9
9
 
Steve Mulcair
9
7
 
Matt Richards
2
0
 
Peter Royle/Tricia Smith - Job Share(Website)
1
1
Started November
Roger Thomas
9
4
 
Linda Weatherhead (Group Sec)
9
9
Joined Feb
Jo Wilmott
9
2
 

Absence from GEC meetings covered by apologies and due to other urgent union business, sick leave or domestic leave.

List of abbreviations used in this report

CLG - Communities and Local Government
GEC - Group Executive Committee
GO - Government Office
PINS - Planning and Inspection Service
RCU - Regional Co-ordination Unit

Section 1. Pay and reward

Departmental pay

A department wide pay claim was served on the permanent secretary of CLG on 8 May 2007 covering CLG HQ, Planning Inspectorate, Government Offices, QE11 Conference Centre, Fire Service College, Standards Board for England, Ordnance Survey. Duplicate claims were served on all the bargaining units. The claim highlighted significant inconsistencies across the department areas.

The GEC have pushed for coherence across the department and a department -wide equal pay review, however the department have been reluctant to interfere with the independence of the bargaining units. It is our view that the equality duties rest with the department and action is being pursued nationally by way of judicial review to seek to establish this.

Some progress has been made in the convening of cross-department Whitleys and there is optimism that as a result there will be a more coherent approach to pay next year. We have also solicited a commitment from the secretary of state, Hazel Blears, that Peter Housden would work with the pay leads across the department to take a strategic look at the various pay arrangements within the department and also that all bargaining units would be required to complete equality impact assessments before annual pay awards are implemented.

CLG pay

Despite assurances in last year's pay deal that things would be different this year, PCS was not able to begin serious negotiations with the department until January. This was entirely due to difficulties with the remit setting process between CLG and Treasury. We are at the time of writing balloting on the outcome of pay negotiations for 2008.

The GEC recommended rejection of the offer since it:

  • failed to protect the existing living standards of the overwhelming majority of members;
  • did not include the revalorisation of pay ranges in line with inflation;
  • offered no significant improvements to progression;
  • did not address the continuing scourge of low pay.

As the next pay review settlement date will soon be upon us (1 August 2009) PCS will be asking members to send a clear message that we expect the Board to put right in the 2009 pay review what it has put wrong in 2008.

In particular, with inflation at a comparatively low level, it ought to be possible to commit to restore and indeed increase the real value of maxima and milestones in 2009 so that staff can recover the ground lost this year.

However, we are mindful that while headline inflation is low according to the January official statistics the price of fuel & light was up 36.3%, transport fares up 14.2% and food up an average of 10.4%. All of this was offset by drops in mortgage payments and cheaper goods on the High Street, thereby accentuating the usual trend for inflation to be higher for the lower paid who spend a greater proportion of their incomes on the essentials.

Members have been shocked by the large bonuses the SCS hand out to themselves and PCS will continue to campaign for a more cohesive and fair pay system throughout CLG. In order to fund this it will be essential to allow staff to share genuinely in any efficiency savings. We believe that the Board's explanation that there is no money is utterly unconvincing bearing in mind the excessive number of contractors, consultants and agency staff and the money frittered away on VER/S schemes which were accompanied by heavy recruitment.

Government Offices

Last year started with PCS being in dispute over the imposition of a below inflation pay increase and ended with the imposition of a 3 year award with at least in year 1 a below inflation pay increase.

Until conference 2008 PCS continued to press for improvements in the 2007 pay settlement and to persuade the network that it should achieve the best remit possible from Treasury prior to the 2008 pay negotiations.

Members continued to support the work to rule but the GEC agreed in June to suspend its action in order that the 2008 negotiations could proceed. The action brought by members appeared to have an impact in as much as all 2008 maximums were increased by 2% the most allowed by the Treasury and the negotiations did result in the maximum amount allowed via recyclables.

Overall the settlement is worth 4.4% in 2008, 3.8% in 2009 and 3.6% in 2010. The difference stems from a fall off in the recyclable element in years 2 and 3.

All maximums were increased by 2% each year, with minima being increased by 12.3% over the 3 year period. By 2010 AAs and equivalents will all be on a single rate, AOs with 5 or more years, EOs with 6 or more years, HEOs and SEOs with 7 or more years and G7s and 6s with 8 or more years seniority will be guaranteed to move to the maximum.

The actual pay rates are on the PCS web site and were copied to members.

The following other areas should be highlighted. Firstly the step based progression system has gone. The GO Network argued that it could not afford to cover the additional costs and give everyone a pay award. Secondly 'not achieved' markings will no longer be guaranteed a pay increase. This latter point has been something that the network has wanted for a while and whilst we did manage to persuade the official side to lessen the impact of this we could not persuade them to withdraw it.

PCS formally rejected the pay offer as it did not meet the union's national pay campaign objectives. As members had already voted to endorse the objectives and support industrial action, exceptionally PCS did not formally ballot members on the pay offer. A further round of members' meetings were held in order to identify any additional issues and build support for the national campaign.

The GEC agreed at its November 2008 meeting that it needed to take stock of any national discussions, particularly around the treasury remit guidance, which would allow PCS to reopen discussions with the GO Network in line with the settlement. It was agreed to issue some campaigning material and arrange members meetings to consider the way forward.

A number of outstanding issues are being raised with the GO Network including the equality audit, potential alignment of the AA/AO grade and also issues relating to box markings on annual reports.

PINS

On pay we saw the imposition of the 2007 pay award after it was rejected by a ballot of members in February. This reflected members' anger at the lack of a decent increase particularly for those at the maximum of the pay scale. This was followed up with an indicative industrial action ballot on pay in July which was taken into negotiations with management on the 2008 pay claim.

Clearly our main concern is with the remit process where Treasury set the rules and control the amounts available for pay increases.

Consequently our local pay work has been linked very closely to the national campaign on pay. We have actively taken part in the national pay campaigns, balloting members and preparing for the Industrial action which was scheduled to take place at the end of the year. This action was suspended in the light of concessions which were made by Sir Gus O'Donnell from the Cabinet Office on behalf of the civil service and the government.

PINS final offer was received towards the end of 2008 which amounted to a majority of members who are on the maximum of their pay scales receiving just 2% consolidated money and various non-consolidated elements. PCS recommended rejection of this offer but by 54% to 46% PINS members voted to accept it.

Ordnance Survey

Members in OS had waited 3 years for the finalisation of a new pay structure based loosely on job families. An offer was received in July that was divisive, in that it gave a very small number of staff big increases in assimilation to the new structure but 64% of staff would have received less than 2% consolidated in the first year.

Also there would be no consolidated increases in the second year and only 2% in the third year.

After initial rejection of this 2007 offer, negotiations began again in September. OS went back to Treasury for more money but received a standard form "no" response. PCS negotiated a better distribution of money but the offer has still not been equality assessed, management have gone back on a joint commitment to review the new pay structure to address members concerns about unfairness, and we have had to apply to the central arbitration committee to secure basic information such as paybill (which was only provided after we received the latest offer and showed a £0.8 million shortfall in the figure we were provided with for modelling purposes).

PCS members rejected the offer in a climate of significant coercion. Prospect, being the larger union, went to their members without a recommendation who then voted to accept. Management have imposed the offer but PCS have sought further talks and a re-opening of the second and third years based on the assurances from Gus O'Donnell in relation to national negotiations.

The review of the pay structure will continue with the hope that we can secure significant improvements to a system that has delivered arbitrary and inequitable results on assimilation to date. We will also continue to press for full equality assessments.

QE11 conference centre

Despite significant efforts by QE11CC to appropriately reward staff in an extremely competitive environment, remit approval was limited to an overall increase of 3.86% on a one year deal.
The pay offer provides that all staff falling within the middle tranche (just about everyone) will get a 4% consolidated increase as a result of this offer. The offer has been imposed but discussions about use of efficiency savings will commence in the New Year.

Standards Board for England

SBE suffered considerable delays in the approval of their remit from CLG and were limited by restrictions from the sponsor department. The final offer was disappointing with the total allowable spend being 3.5%, with only 2% for basic cost of living increases, on a one year deal.

The offer provided for an underpin for lower paid workers of £600 and for performance increases of between 2.35% and 3.15%. Most staff received an overall increase of at least 4.35% by combining basic pay and performance pay. We have a commitment to review the pay structure and the appraisal system next year as well as to review the family friendly provisions.

Section 2. Efficiency, spending reviews and job cuts

Shared services

In line with the general civil service approach, DCLG is keen to move towards shared corporate services covering IT, estate holdings, finance, procurement, and HR (including learning and development) across the department. It has set up "work streams" to look at each of the corporate services that might be offered on a shared basis.

As things stand, the project appears to be slow moving and it seems as if the Executive Agencies, GOs, and NDPBs will be allowed to decide whether they participate in all or some or none of the shared services that might eventually be launched.

This "voluntarism" casts a huge doubt over any attempt to undertake a meaningful cost/benefit analysis as that rather depends on which parts of the Department join a share service immediately, how many shared services they join (i.e. theoretically an Agency might choose to participate a finance shared service but not an HR service), and which parts of the Department might join at a later date.

From PCS' perspective, the attractions of shared services are not as obvious as they appear to be to the Departmental Board, especially in a Department as small as CLG. DfT, for example, has spent a fortunate on setting up shared services, money it will not recover, when it could have saved a fortune simply by aggregating its spending power in a shared procurement service.

For our members there are three broad issues to consider. First, the quality of service they enjoy as service recipients. Secondly, the security and quality of their jobs as service providers. Thirdly, whether they will benefit from any savings the Department might make if adopts shared services in a way that is genuinely "more efficient."

Within the context of those concerns PCS has raised a wide range of issues including the need for effective consultation, comprehensive business cases,
no compulsory redundancy or mobility, no outsourcing, the need for Equality Impact Assessments. PCS will press on all these issues in its meetings with the project manager.

CLG

The Department has not had to lose large numbers of staff or carry out any major relocations on grounds of efficiency. What "efficiencies" there have been are due largely to the Spaceflex programme to bring flexible desking to CLG in an effort to reduce office space requirements in London.

PCS has fought to get a full Equality Impact Assessment done for this project and a staff survey to determine whether the pilot space on the 3rd floor in Eland House is indeed delivering what the consultants claim for it. Both of these pieces of work, key tests it will need to pass for PCS approval, are due to begin in January.

There was also the closure of the Garston office with all permanent staff moving to Hemel Hempstead. This move, which started poorly with no equality impact assessment or consultation with staff was finally undertaken professionally by staff following a preference exercise and some tough negotiating around the excess fares that would apply.

Government Offices

Branches will recall that the GO review announced a reduction of at least 33% staff in post from October 2004 until December 2008. It was also accepted by DCLG and the Treasury that GOs should become strategic. Hence the current GO restructuring exercises have been driven by these two objectives.

In additional GOs have been required to finding savings of 15% over the spending period 2008 - 2011 and this was linked to the introduction of the Business Operating Model.

Guidance was issued to Branches on local discussions and campaigning. Branches were reminded to relay any problems on work loads to the GEC. As part of this approach the November GEC meeting agreed to give full support to the North West Branch in its campaign to keep the Liverpool Office open.

The GONTUS has also raised two particular areas of concern with the GO Network, additional ministerial and childcare protection work.

In November 1874 staff were based in Government Officers, with 176 staff being out of their GO. A further VER/S scheme was published with around 200 staff being expected to be released up to March 2010. Overall it is expected that the total Staff in Post in Government Offices will fall by another 250- 350 by April 2011. Most of this cut stems from the final transfer and wind up of EU functions and cuts in Admin support.

Again in November there were 67 staff either designated as surplus or pre-surplus and this figure is expected to grow as EU work winds down and the additional cuts start to bite.

Facilities management/ PAM

The revised PAM structure is now in place. Each GO has a team which is centrally managed via two central teams. The GO health and safety people are looking at alterations to the H&S policies.

Centralisation of planning and transport casework

The initial post implementation review was copied to sub committee members for further comment. Those received were taken forward with RCU.

European programmes

Price Waterhouse Coopers reviewed the GO closure plans. RCU accepted most of the findings which confirmed that additional money was required from CLG. This was forthcoming and the GO Sub Committee were advised to raise any issues firstly with its own GO board.

The significant issues appeared to be in GOWM who accessed about £1.1 million additional money in the 2008/09 financial year. Staff in the EU teams may remain until June 2009 - March 2010. This has resulted in an increase in the use of TP, across the GO network currently 15%. The GONTUS reminded PLC/RCU that posts should be filled formally and work is progressing on how this could be resolved. Joint discussions involving CLG and RCU continued on the issue of the transfer of ERDF Audit functions from GOs to CLG. CLG agreed that staff could move on a voluntary basis. There remains some uncertainty about grading and posting arrangements however.

The intended transfer of ESF Audit functions whilst originally being on a voluntary basis became a major problem in November when DWP decided that it would make it compulsory but not into Audit work.

PCS has questioned both if it is a Machinery of Government (MOG) transfer and if the Cabinet Office Statement of Practice on staff transfers in the public sector (COSOP) is being followed. Briefings have been issued to the members affected and a What's Going On issued. The Group has also liaised closely with the Council of Civil Service Unions (CCSU) so that the Cabinet Office would consider if its own guidance was being adhered to.

Registry

The GONTUS objected to outsourcing of functions in GOEM's and sought assurances that the revised national agreements would be followed. Details of the review are still awaited.

Finance and procurement

Teams of 3.5 posts per GO were established in June. A national team of the same strength will be based in a GONW.

Review of corporate functions

The review is focussed on RCU and central functions some of which had only just been created.

Tree preservation order appeals

This function transferred to PIN's Bristol on 1 April 2008. Staff were allowed to apply on a voluntary basis.

PINS

We have been involved in discussions with management at a group and local level on the CLG Shared Services Review though these discussions are at a very early stage.

Similarly we have been involved in discussions on Planning Reform Bill and the Fast-Track Householder Appeals and have maintained a critical but open approach to this new development as it has made its way through the pilot. Once again we have sought to see any reduction in the quality of jobs which the PINS workforce will be expected to do in future.

Also we have been dealing with the implications of Management's evolving structure for the organisation of PINS which came swiftly on from the regionalisation of PINS only a short time ago.

The consequence of these changes has been a loss of expertise from certain areas of the business which it is taking time to recover from. This is something that we have regularly warned about.

Plans for longer term workforce planning are expected to emerge during 2009 which PCS will have to keep a careful eye on.

Operational efficiency programme

The Pre-budget report of 2008 referenced the work of the operational efficiency programme in looking at the potential for alternative business models, commercialisation, new market opportunities and, where appropriate, alternatives to public ownership in both Ordnance Survey and the QEII Conference Centre, amongst other agencies.

In our submission to the Treasury Select Committee's inquiry into the 2008 pre-budget report PCS expressed concerns that if Ordnance Survey was run as a commercial enterprise then mapping would not be consistent across the country and mapping imperatives would be driven by markets.

The organisation has an important role in providing data to other government departments such as Ministry of Defence, Department for Transport and Land Registry who rely on accurate data.

Additional costs imposed by a commercial provider would be passed on to the taxpayer and consumer. Ordnance Survey generates income (5% returns on its revenues) by selling data and copyright and this would be lost to the Exchequer if privatised.

We argued that any proposal to privatise the QEII Conference Centre would result in losing the income it generates, and could pose a security risk because of its location.

We are concerned that a private company running it would profit from government-funded building up of the infrastructure. It is an efficient operation with secure bookings and income that are expected to continue to generate revenue for the Government, with increases in business likely in the lead up to the Olympics.

We will continue to monitor the progress of this programme in the lead up to the Budget and also the implications of the trading fund review for both organisations.

Section 3. Personnel, terms and conditions

Department

PCS has for some time now had a mandate to try to achieve a common set of terms and conditions for staff working in DCLG including GOs and the agencies. Motions in support of this objective were passed at this year’s group conference, and are reported on elsewhere in this report.

Achievements this year have been slower than we might have hoped, but real improvements have been made in certain areas.

However, there are on-going problems. As reported elsewhere, the gender, disability and race legal duties are placed on the department as a Crown department.

Further, the department also has overall responsibility for health and safety and data protection. In spite of this, most of the equality and diversity policies in particular continue to be essentially dealt with in the individual bargaining units at the insistence of management.

However the departmental trade union side (DTUS) was successful in reaching agreement with management on the establishment of four new departmental whitley sub-committees covering equality and diversity, learning and development, corporate services and finance and business planning.

The intention from the TUS side is that the sub-committees will eventually make real progress in identifying best practice (both from within and without the department) which can be translated into common terms across the whole of CLG. The problem is that the GOs refuse to participate in any of the sub-committees

DTUS also agreed a new department–wide Industrial relations agreement, which expands and reinforces the terms of the departmental staff handbook. Unfortunately, while CLG HQ and the agencies have signed up to the agreement, the GOs have not.

It is a similar picture for the grievance procedure. DTUS were able to negotiate the department’s replacement of the department wide grievance procedure with one that also applies across the whole of the department – with the exception of the GOs. Nonetheless, the fact that DTUS were able to persuade an initially reluctant department to keep this as a department-wide policy is an important breakthrough.

There has been GO involvement in some departmental initiatives, albeit on a rather ad-hoc basis. For example, RCU have agreed to roll out the Fitness2Live Wellbeing tool (see Departmental Health and Safety), and the GOs are participating in the pilot staff survey being run in HQ, Ordnance Survey and GOs.

Yet in each of these examples, the attitude of RCU is very much that they are choosing to participate in something which the department as a separate entity is running, and the department is not attempting to consult DTUS on these issues on a coherent, department-wide basis.

One of the key actions for 2009 is to persuade the department to introduce a departmental-wide flexible working policy, based on work already done on this issue, and in line with the commitments and requirements of the gender equality scheme 2007-2010.

CLG

It has been a quiet year for the handbook. Some guidance on volunteering, the Career Transition Centre and on bullying and harassment has been developed but not for inclusion as terms and conditions in the handbook. PCS has however managed to fend off management proposals for a substantial reduction in the sick absence trigger points. We are hoping however, to proceed with work on a long term absence/rehabilitation policy which should ensure that managers, HR and other interested parties work together and follow established good practice in this area.

For no good reason whatsoever the department has continued to fail to provide any proposals for harmonisation of terms and conditions for ex-Home Office or ex-Dti staff. HR seem indifferent to the disregard this signals to staff (you’re not really meant to be here) and the demotivation it generates.

Government Offices

There has been a significant amount of work done by the GONTUS in this area over the past year. We received proposals on amendments to seven chapters of the GO guide which were considered, negotiated and agreed. The chapters were those that dealt with; conduct, performance, attendance, sick leave, dispute resolution, equality and diversity and harassment and bullying.

The first four areas listed were of greatest importance and possible impact as they deal with the fundamental issues that affect staff at work everyday. The proposed changes were wide ranging, careful consideration was given by the GEC to the impact of those changes before negotiations with RCU began. As a result significant improvements were secured:

i) Staff are now entitled to have representation at all stages of the grievance process to try and deal with the problem, this includes the informal as well as the formal stage.
ii) Sick leave trigger point has remained at 21 days but with an added ‘safety net’ of support from your line manager after 10 days.
iii) a consistent approach when trying to resolve issues across the GO Guide.

Changes to the equality and diversity and harassment and bullying chapters provided an opportunity to re-launch both policies and raise awareness of them and of current legislation amongst staff.

Only minor changes were made to the dispute resolution chapter as legislative changes are expected in April 2009.

PINS

The annual staff review system was imposed on members without agreement from the trade unions early in the year and we will continue to fight hard and issue guidance in order to defend members’ positions. Similarly we have worked alongside Prospect at all times, offering solidarity and assistance in respect of Inspector issues which include a number of registered disputes.

On the IT front we have battled hard to ensure as good a service as possible for staff including regularly scrutinising the planning casework system(PCS) and the faster links for inspectors (FLI) system, raising issues of service and quality. It is heartening to see that some note is starting to be taken of our long battles on these issues.

A business process review is being started which is looking at a replacement for the planning casework computer system. It appears that this review is being conducted in a spirit of trying to learn from the mistakes of planning casework system which in its introduction avoided taking into account the opinions of the workers on the ground. We will watch this space with interest.

Ordnance Survey

Whilst OS are sinking a significant amount of money into a new HQ building in Southampton they are also shutting regional offices and encouraging staff to work at home. No proper risk assessments are being done and in some areas there is no office to go to and no choice. Home workers get a desk, a chair and a computer and £30 a month to cover all the expenses.

The choice for those who have had offices that have closed is to work from home or use Regis offices (these have to be booked in advance, have no storage area and charge for everything including printing and photocopying). PCS has been negotiating with management to ensure proper assessments are completed, the working environment is appropriate and that staff are properly compensated for working from home.

Standards Board for England

Standards Board are conducting a comprehensive review of all of their policies in conjunction with the union. These reviews are to update policies that are not relevant and hopefully improve them in light of statutory obligations and best practice.

Family friendly policies and some areas of discipline and grievance have already been dealt with and consequential amendments have been made to terms and conditions.

Section 4. Industrial relations

Department

2008/09 was a year in which some real improvements were made to the industrial framework applying within the civil service section of the department, as opposed to its component parts (CLG HQ, GOs, PINS, QE11 CC, and Fire Service College).

Departmental Trade Union Side reached agreement with departmental management on the establishment of four new departmental Whitley sub-committees covering corporate services, finance and business planning, equality and diversity, and learning and development.

These sub-committees provide a real opportunity to discuss with departmental management key issues affecting staff across the department (such as the move towards shared services), identify and spread best practice within the department, and promote equality of opportunity irrespective of where staff work. In these senses the sub-committees represent a serious step towards a departmental perspective on staff issues.

The downside is that the committees have not been as well prepared by the department as they could and should be and their authority is not properly recognised by departmental officials. Nevertheless it is very much early days and PCS is committed to making serious progress made in the organisation and work of the sub-committees during 2009/10.

Much more problematic is RCU’s point blank refusal to participate in any of the sub-committees, effectively arguing that the GOs are somehow distinct from a department which has conceded, in published documents, its responsibility for the GOs, including its legal responsibilities for GO staff. There is a real sense of the GOs being run as some sort of fiefdom – a situation which is increasingly ridiculous in a department which wishes to move towards shared services and which is under severe financial pressure.

The departmental trade union side will continue to press the department to adopt a more coherent, genuinely departmental wide, approach to industrial relations, one that includes the GOs. The department’s agreement to replace the departmental wide grievance procedure with another procedure applying across the department (with the exception of the GOs) was therefore to be especially welcomed.

DTUS had to apply a great deal of pressure on this issue – there was a serious danger at one point of the department talking of its desire for shared HR services whilst breaking up those common terms and conditions of employment that already exist in the department, beginning with a shared grievance procedure.

In this context the departmental wide industrial relations agreement reached in September 2008 was an especially important breakthrough, establishing a shared understanding as to how industrial relations should be dealt with across the department. In essence the agreement reiterates the terms of the departmental staff handbook on industrial relations but it does so in a lot more depth and some 8 years after that handbook was launched.

Obviously, fine words about how industrial relations should be conducted will need to be matched with real practice and we have already experienced some problems in that regard. Nevertheless a formal agreement that sets out in detail what ought to happen when measures potentially affecting staff are being considered by management is both positive and helpful and one which we can seek to hold management to.

Again the real problem with the agreement is that whereas CLG HQ and all the Agencies have signed up to it, GOs have not. The relationship between the GO Network and CLG continues to be a problem for PCS. Clearly the amount of government departments involved in GO’s makes a neat solution hard to achieve. However the inclusion of GO staff in the life of the department remains a key PCS aim for 2009.

CLG

This year was a curate’s egg for industrial relations but one which has finished with a sour taste in the mouth. Although good work has been done on a department-wide industrial relations agreement and a new TUS vice-chair appointed full-time, day to day relations have suffered.

This has also coincided (perhaps not accidentally) with a management initiative to reduce the maximum facility time entitlement for PCS reps to 40% from 1 April 2009.

While management have undertaken not to reduce the overall amount there is little question that they see this as a means of reducing the effectiveness of PCS operationally.

Presently the vast majority of PCS activists survive on slivers of facility time and PCS depends on their own goodwill with a handful of full-timers dealing with the detailed work on negotiation and commentary on bargaining issues. These reps also deal with most of the cases regarding legal issues (such as race, gender and disability discrimination).

A recent survey showed that industrial relations are poorer in central government than in any other sector of the economy and if CLG is anything to go by you can see why. PCS believes that this reduction gives the lie to the department’s claim to encourage staff to “speak up and challenge” and the genuineness of its claims to want to deal with discrimination issues in CLG.

Government Offices

As can be seen from the previous section there has been intense activity through the national Whitley machinery on a number of important staff terms & conditions. These discussions, while difficult, have resulted in agreed improvements so on the face of it industrial relations work reasonably well in GOs.

The thorny issue of GO facility time remains unresolved however. Significant progress was made in securing the authority to delegate (and commitment to pro-rata funding) from most of the key sponsor departments.

Unfortunately a minority of departments have failed to agree, so frustratingly negotiations over GO arrangements are still to commence. The GEC agreed that the impasse was not acceptable and letters to departments seeking intervention were prepared for issue should no progress be made by 31 January 2009.

PINS

Your Whitley representatives have robustly defended our right to be heard and to be treated as equal parties in discussion. Certainly we have seen some improvement in the tone of industrial relations and this culminated in a useful industrial relations day between management and the trade unions.

We have been involved in discussions around the planning white paper, particularly around the issue of access to the planning system and the issue of the right to appeal being part of the democratic rights of working people and part and parcel of the welfare state as assembled after the second world war.

The Planning Bill has become law and we will remain vigilant to ensure that its proposals are not implemented to the detriment of the service we provide as an agency and to the quality and quantity of the jobs of our members in PINS.

Section 5 - equal opportunities

Department

Equal opportunity and diversity policies continue to be essentially dealt with in the individual bargaining units at the insistence of management. Indeed the NDPBs are not even included within the CLG Whitely system at all.

Consequently, PCS’s ability to engage the management team in departmental talks that would affect members irrespective of whether they work in HQ, GOs, executive agencies has been extremely limited.

Nevertheless, the gender, disability and race legal duties are placed on the department as a Crown department.

In PCS’ view equal opportunity and diversity commitments, policies and provisions should therefore be dealt with departmentally and the CLG board and the secretary of state should take a proactive approach to ensuring that all CLG staff are equally covered by the same equality and diversity policies and that these policies match or exceed best practice.

In this context 2008 saw PCS making progress in a number of areas but all too often continuing to be frustrated by the department’s self interested argument that “bargaining units” fundamentally must be responsible for themselves.

This latter argument has been used, for example, to reject PCS’ proposal that a departmental wide equal pay review be carried out.

Indeed at present there is not a single official anywhere in the department who appears to accept responsibility for ensuring that all parts of the department actually comply with the conditions of delegation, including the requirement to act in accordance with equality legislation.

Last year nevertheless saw two positive developments. Perhaps in the long run, the most important will turn out to be the establishment of the equalities and diversity sub-committee of the departmental Whitley Council, the first departmental forum for union-management discussion of equality issues for many years.

In a nutshell, the purpose of the committee is to:

  • develop and keep under review measures to promote and deliver equality of opportunity for staff, prospective staff and others working in CLG, promote dignity and respect in the workplace, create greater diversity in the workforce, and encourage the participation of all staff in the work of the department;
  • promote co-operation between management, staff and their trade union representatives in developing effective systems to deliver the above objective.

To that end, the sub-committee is bound to:

  • keep under review the equality arrangements and policies operating in CLG;
  • develop equality policies in relation to issues affecting CLG staff, stakeholders and contractors;
  • consider reports and submissions from DTUS representatives or members of the equality networks;
  • study monitoring data, making recommendations for remedial action or further research as necessary;
  • analyse reports or information provided by the Commission of Equality and Human Rights.

Of course any management can seek to gut any negotiations or committee by neglect.

The group executive committee is therefore committed to prioritising the work of this and other DWC sub-committee.

We want the equality and other sub-committees to become effective and authoritative bodies which lend themselves to a more coherent departmental approach to equality and other staff issues.

Despite the initial problems in the organisation and work of the sub-committee, and the obstructive attitude of the RCU/GO management (see the section of this report dealing with departmental industrial relations), the GEC therefore sees the establishment of the sub-committee as a very important and positive development.

We welcome the positive change in departmental attitude that allowed the equality and other sub-committees to be established and will press the department to provide the resources, and develop the policies and culture, that will enable the equality sub-committee to work effectively.

Another important breakthrough was Hazel Blears’ statement that she would ask all bargaining units in CLG to complete equality impact assessments (EqIAs) before annual pay awards are implemented. This followed a similar breakthrough in DfT and was the direct result of PCS pressure.

Hazel Blears statement represents a clear departmental decision that was made irrespective of the views of the bargaining units. It therefore has a certain political importance. Of course the GEC recognises that a ministerial commitment to action is not the same thing as ministers and senior managers actually delivering on that commitment.

Nevertheless, having a departmental wide commitment that we can seek to hold departmental and “bargaining unit” management teams to is an important step forward. The GEC now has to apply the necessary pressure to ensure that, each year, all parts of CLG, including its NDPBs, address any equality issues highlighted by EqIAs undertaken before pay award implementation.

CLG

PCS agreed with management some equality impact assessment (EqIA) guidance which was recognised as a model for OGD’s to follow. However, practice is slow to follow good intentions and no significant HR policy has been accompanied by a fit for purpose EqIA and we continue to see repeated the same patterns of adverse impact in relation to the range of issues members confront. Recent work by PCS shows that those requiring PCS’s help in tackling unfair or unreasonable treatment are disproportionately female, from an ethnic minority background or are people with a disability.

Government Offices

Achieving equality and diversity for all staff is a key objective for GONTUS and as part of this commitment, it has lent its support and that of its branches, to the GO network equality activities that took place during equalities month. It has also continued to work with RCU in appropriately updating the GO guide chapters on equality and diversity and bullying and harassment.

This year, the RCU commissioned an equality analysis of recruitment and selection across the GO network. The report raises a few concerns for PCS in particular around possible bias against BME applicants at interview and possible bias towards younger people at interview. Whilst the report stresses these statistical relationships are weak or moderate, PCS is keen to follow up concerns with the RCU at an early opportunity.

PINS

PINS have been among the leaders on equality issues in CLG carrying out a number of equality impact assessments including trained PCS representatives in this work. Unfortunately the good progress made in this area has not resulted in many of the emerging recommendations from these being implemented in the workplace.

Ordnance Survey

PCS are engaged in an audit of the OS equality action plan. There has been a significant resistance to equality assess and review policies and procedures in OS with the application of policies and practices pointing to significant areas of discrimination and a reluctance to provide information on equality impacts. We have jointly agreed with management to seek independent assistance in reviewing the new pay structure and progression arrangements and the pay offer but, contrary to the secretary of state’s assurance, these have not been done prior to implementations. We will be pursuing these further in the new year.

Section 6. recruitment, organisation and learning

Organisation strategy

There has been a focus this year on building the organisational capacity of the DCLG-GO group and our collective strength. An organising sub-committee was established after the group conference in May 2008 and has met 4 times since.

Membership levels

The focus of the committee has been on establishing accurate information about membership and activist levels in each branch with the intention of targeting group support where it is most needed. The focus of 2009/10 will be on ensuring that all branches are providing comparable information about their membership levels.

Membership levels reported to the November GEC showed 2313 members, with a potential of 4314. This gives our density as 53%. Within this there is a wide range of figures with some branches having very high levels and some a lot lower. However the potential figure is subject to further scrutiny as clarity is needed in some areas around whether the potential members are ‘prospect’ grades.

The GEC agreed to target those branches with the lowest density membership levels with special letters and follow up visits.

Group executive committee (gec) liaison officers

The committee has also been concerned to ensure that each branch has a voice on the GEC. Where a branch does not have a representative on the GEC, they have been assigned a liaison officer. The role of the liaison officer has been clarified over the last year, and includes the requirement for them to make regular contact with their liaison branch and assist the branch in any campaigning activities.

CLG

Towards the end of this year, CLG(HQ) and DfT(c) separated into two new branches. In addition, the south eastern DfT/ODPM (Hastings) branch was dissolved. CLG members from that branch were moved into the CLG London branch whilst DfT members in Hastings were moved into the DfT(c) London branch.

Discussions have also started between the group officers and representatives in the Hemel Hempstead branch about whether or not members there would benefit from joining the CLG London branch.

Further work will be carried out by the organising sub-committee in the new year on ensuring that all branches within the group are sustainable and best suited to attracting a greater number of staff as members.

PINS

The last 12 months has also seen us building on our levels of activity in PINS we have conducted mapping work in several of the major processing areas and followed this up with recruitment materials. Similarly we have held regular stalls in the Atrium of Temple Quay House which has enabled us to maintain a high profile within PINS and beyond.

Campaign strategy

The focus of the organising sub-committee for the next year, will be to assist branches in improving their ability to mobilise members in support of important national and local campaigns.

Training

The organising sub-committee has made considerable progress to organising a group learning event. Following a presentation by Kim Burridge of the PCS organising and learning services department, the sub-committee has set in motion plans to hold a residential event by early summer 2009.

The purpose of the event would be to provide essential skills for new representatives but the event itself would have a group perspective so that the representatives could more readily apply these new skills to the situations they found themselves in. Branches should expect to receive invitations to attend the event in the spring.

PCS reps have been encouraged to attend training courses in their region throughout the year and the group also arranged group specific courses on JEGS in July and personal case handling in London in September and October. The feedback from these courses was good and reps also appreciated the opportunity to network with colleagues from other parts of the group.

Group personal case handling guidance was issued to branches during the course of the year and is available to reps as a resource on the group web site.

Negotiations on the learning agenda

The September GEC agreed that a bargaining agenda should be produced for the newly created learning and development departmental Whitley sub committee. Additionally the April 08 GEC agreed that the GEC needed to determine its organisation and negotiating priorities. The November agreed a far ranging set of actions.

BB.63/08 issued to branches stated that the NEC has prioritised learning and skills as a bargaining issue. It has responded to the overall skills strategy and particularly to the qualifications element on the dangers of linking capability and performance and assessment to qualifications. The GEC agreed to guard against developments of this type.

PCS welcomed the general direction and several aspects of the strategy including a focus on the majority of staff, the setting of professional skills standards and linking learning to careers.

However the following concerns have been expressed:

  • Focus should be employee-centered not employer-centric.
  • There should be an acknowledgement of the importance of line managers.
  • Diversity should be central to any strategy.
  • Apprenticeships must be fully resourced and supported.

The DTUS and BU TUS were consulted about their skills strategy action plan. This should be ongoing and the GEC agreed that it would receive reports from BU TUS on progress.

It agreed that PCS seek a departmental agreement and following response to this approach decide its position in each of the BUs. This agreement should both contain strategic objectives, minimum standards, cross departmental learning and corporate priorities such as EqIA.

The GEC noted that the GONTUS and GO network already had a learning agreement.

It was agreed to press for discussions on how each area intended to achieve the employers skills pledge to obtain a level 2 or 3 qualification. This will require time off and line manager support.

The PCS union learning fund project has put in place a network of bargaining unit learning officers. civil service general has its based in the Midlands office in Birmingham – Martin Ogilvie.

It was agreed that the PCS team on the departmental l&d sub committee and group organiser should arrange to meet with him. This meeting would consider how the group develops its union learning rep network.

Nationally PCS issued ‘Making sense of work – a personal and career development workbook’ to each branch. The GEC agreed that the group should consider how we can use the workbook in the group.

The CLG skills strategy sets out the aims and objectives of CLG HQ, Government Offices, CLG Agencies, the FSC, PINS and the QEII CC.

To engage with CLG on the strategy gives the Group a good opportunity to advance the argument for a CLG approach to terms and conditions. It was agreed that in order to deliver a departmental skills strategy there must be a common set of definitions.

A bargaining agenda has been developed by PCS and will be taken forward during 2009. The GEC also aims to bring together our union learning reps once a network has been developed.

Section 7. Health and safety

Department

There were 2 departmental health and safety meetings this year, in January and November.

There are some ongoing issues which will carry over to 2009:

1) The departmental health and safety policy still needs to be amended and signed off by the permanent secretary

2) There are still problems with the collation and presentation of sick absence data across the department. Not only does this mean the committee are not able to properly consider the issue, but the department’s own annual health and safety report for 08/09 has been delayed because HQ have not been able to provide their figures.

3) The department still needs to confirm what it is doing to meet its legal obligation to ensure it has competent health and safety staff, and what training and qualifications they should have.

4) The department’s lone working policy is due to be discussed with the TUS shortly. There may be scope for department-wide roll out.

5) On Wellbeing, the department is trialing an internet-based health programme called Fitness2Live, which they intend to share across the department, and which the GOs have agreed to implement.

CLG HQ

Following a complaint made by PCS to the Health and Safety Executive last year, the department has finally launched the HSE stress survey.

PCS is jointly running with HR workshops to identify remedial measures and formal consultation on an action plan will be undertaken with PCS once the results of the survey and workshops have been analysed.

TU safety representatives have also maintained a regular series of building inspections in the London HQ buildings.

Each floor is visited several times each year with any hazards being reported to the facilities management staff.

Government Offices

The centralisation of facilities management teams across the GO network into the property asset management teams (PAM) brought with it confusion and a lack of clarity over the lines of accountability for health, safety and welfare in each government office.

This was an important issue as the regional directors, who have delegated responsibility for the health and safety welfare of their staff, no longer had responsibility over the property asset management teams in their offices implementing health and safety.

Furthermore, property asset management teams no longer did welfare and this gap needed to be filled. This lack of clarity, proved a stumbling block to getting the network health and safety policy updated and agreed. The updated policy will be in place by March 2009 and the lines of responsibility made clear.

In response to a policy of reducing space in all GOs by implementing an ‘8 to 10 desk sharing regime’, the committee has got commitment from RCU that any arrangements proposed, will involve meaningful consultation with local trade union sides.

PCS has also produced advice and guidance to branches on ensuring that any arrangement proposed meet all the requirements of health and safety and equality standards.

PINS

PCS together with Prospect have been responsible for getting the HSE stress toolkit issued to staff as a web-based questionnaire.

We will be working closely with HR branch to analyse the results of the survey and to take forward any improvements in working practices.

Two new health and safety reps have played a key role in helping to develop a more proactive approach to health and safety in PINS through the developing of a functioning PINS health and safety committee.

We have long championed a zero tolerance to issues of bullying and discrimination in the workplace.

This year we ran an anti-bullying stall in the atrium for a week to raise awareness among staff. PCS representatives are also on hand to advise staff who feel that they may be the victims of bullying or discrimination.

Standards Board for England

Standards Board for England issued a rather draconian health and safety policy in October that was out of step with the rest of the civil service and infringed some fundamental rights.

It seemed to be a sledge hammer approach to a problem involving a few isolated incidents of not applying current policy.

The SBE absence rate is a low one and this sort of response has the potential to impact on morale and do exactly the opposite of what was intended.

We have since been in negotiations with management over the policy and improvements have been made although some significant concerns remain. Further work on the policy will be done in the new year.

Section 8. 2008 conference motions - update on implementation

A1. Group wide pay campaign

1) Whilst welcoming the efforts taken by PCS to persuade the department to move to a departmental approach to pay, conference notes that the department:

  • has failed to take meaningful steps to address the differential pay rates and pay terms between members of the same grade, but in different bargaining units, thereby delivering fairness, consistency and equal treatment;
  • the department has failed to carry out a departmental wide equal pay review;
  • the department treats the civil servants of the GOs as lesser citizens compared to civil service staff elsewhere in the department and accordingly applies lower rates of pay to GO staff than it applies to staff in CLG HQ and PINS;
  • the present pattern of delegated pay bargaining in the department is bound to lead to arbitrary differences in pay and believes that it is in part designed to undermine PCS’s bargaining ability. In this context conference further notes that the pay rates introduced as a result of the 2007 pay offers have resulted in pay differences between the various bargaining units moving further apart;

2) Conference congratulates members in Government Offices who in responding to the imposition of an inadequate pay offer voted to engage in continuous industrial action.

3) In reaffirming the policy directions carried at conference 07, Conference instructs the GEC to:

  • Continue to maximise pressure on all parts of the department including its agencies, NDPBs and GOs to introduce a departmental approach to pay;
  • Submit a cross departmental pay claim which incorporates the national pay claim, with suitable amendments where appropriate, urgently considers appropriate legal and political challenges to the department’s continued indifference to equality and consistency;
  • Campaign by all means possible including the use of cross departmental industrial action to achieve PCS objectives.

In its fundamentals the motion was overtaken by the NEC’s decision, following the passage of emergency motion 1 at last year’s national conference, to move to national industrial action in support of its key demands. The NEC’s key demands clearly overlapped with, and absorbed, the terms of group resolution A1 and included:

  • a separation of funding for pay progression from other pay costs;
  • the reform of pay, especially pay progression systems, and flexibility in helping implement common conditions of employment;
  • definitive progress on reducing the number of pay bargaining units, and a requirement that departments will review their delegated structures on an annual basis;
  • abandoning the pressure to adopt local / regional pay systems, and ceasing to link pay with unfair and divisive performance appraisal systems.
  • basic pay awards to at least match inflation (retail price index).

Nevertheless, the GEC submitted its departmental pay claim on the 8 May and pressed the issue with the department, which nevertheless retreated from any notion of examining this issue properly with PCS.

The GEC also pressed the department on its duty to carry out a departmental wide equality audit, arguing our position on the basis of the gender duty as well as the Equal Pay Act. In doing so the GEC corresponded with the secretary of state Hazel Blears but without success.

The department refuses to take seriously its equality responsibility for ensuring the equal treatment of its staff, irrespective of where they work.

However PCS is pursuing the question of whether Crown departments are required to carry out departmental wide equality audits in a legal test case involving DfT, following pioneering work on this issue by PCS colleagues there.

How the matter is taken forward in CLG is dependent to some degree on the outcome of the DfT case. However, as part of the GEC’s work on this issue we secured a commitment from Hazel Blears that all delegated pay units in CLG must equality impact assess pay offers before implementing them. This commitment will need to be the subject of considerable PCS pressure if it is to properly honored.

A2. Staffing and job cuts

Conference recognises the continued and added pressures being placed on staff in Government Offices as a result of the staff cuts, the failure by the GO management board to reduce workloads and the decision as contained in the GO review to ‘enrich’ the grades. In particular the GO are experiencing:

  • A distinct shortage of administrative support.
  • Unrealistic timescales driven by requests from the centre.
  • Staff regularly exceeding 37 hours per week to achieve deadlines, (this has potentially put the GO and staff in breach of the EU Working Time Directive).
  • Staff often covering more than one post/work area.
  • High sick absence levels due to tiredness, stress and depression.
  • Staff being temporarily drafted in from other functions which results in:
    • no time for proper induction; which limits the development element, where the move is considered a development opportunity.
    • further pressure by creating gaps in resource in other teams.

Conference instructs the GEC to support the following action to ensure the duty of care for all staff in GOs:

  • Negotiate with management to ensure all posts are filled including administrative posts.
  • Ensure full induction training for staff placed in posts on a temporary basis.
  • Ensure that posts are filled on a permanent basis and not by agency staff.
  • Ensure that GOs conduct a stress survey in accordance with the HSE management standards.

The GO sub committee which comprises representatives from each of the GOs were asked to pursue the terms of this motion in any discussion with their GO official side. sub committee members have been asked to forward details of these discussions to the government offices assistant secretary.

The GO national TUS included these issues as part of its bargaining agenda for discussions about work reorganisation in GOs.

A revised stress policy was agreed in 2007 and the PCS team on the national health and safety committee has pursued this issue with the GO network.

It is hoped that the next staff survey for CLG and GOs will include a number of questions on stress. Local trade union sides have also been asked to raise the matter with their health and safety reps. The GO national TUS is also to raise the issue via the wellbeing at work group.

Emergency motion 1

This conference notes the permanent secretary’s message to staff promulgated on 7 April.

Conference deplores the suggestion that, due to cuts in the department’s administrative budget, arising from the CSR07 settlement, up to a further 175 posts will have to be lost. Conference believes that such a significant and arbitrary reduction in posts, following three VER/S Schemes and without proper business planning, is incompatible with the proper management of the department and effective service delivery.

Conference notes that contrary to the stated desire to improve efficiency and the treatment of staff in the department:

1) the shift in grade profile is in fact reducing efficiency as work is not being done at the lowest appropriate level;
2) large numbers of consultants, contractors and agency staff carry out the work of mainstream civil servants at inflated costs;
3) there has been little improvement in the delivery of corporate services due to their chronic mismanagement at Board level and a failure to invest in staff and equip them with the processes, information and resources to do their job as well as they would like.

Accordingly conference calls upon the incoming GEC to oppose job cuts and in doing so to seek management agreement to:

1) undertake a job evaluation exercise to determine whether work is being done at the appropriate level. This will also be used to provide a greater evidential basis for an agreement on future job design, based on existing grading guidance;
2) reduce reliance on consultancies, contractors and agency staff to the lowest practicable level by:

  • mapping the specialist skills of existing staff;
  • using in-house skills in preference to buying these in from a consultancy;
  • ensuring that mainstream posts that are not genuinely short term (i.e. a matter of months) are filled by permanent civil servants;
  • developing a training strategy which proactively develops skills so that future needs can be met in-house;
  • making the timely transfer of skills and knowledge an essential element of future contracts for consultancies and contractors; and
  • putting in place proper monitoring and auditing procedures to see whether the above are having the desired effect;
  • making use of consultancies, contractors and agency staff dependant on a documented business case that will be copied to the trade union side.

3) a review of the effectiveness of the VER/S schemes that have been conducted in the department;

4) implement a health, safety and well-being programme, including proposals for stress management and training of managers in stress risk assessment; the dropping of clearly identified lower priority work; reduction in service standards; and guidance concerning the revision of PMR objectives;

5) ensuring that adequate resources are devoted to training and developing staff and that these are allocated in a fair and equitable way;

6) structured and evidence based consultation with PCS on what process redesign and training needs are necessary to assist CLG corporate service staff in providing a quality, value for money, service.

A15. (composite motion covers E1)

This conference notes the apparent unwillingness of CLG to carry out a cross departmental equality audit including a cross departmental equal pay audit.

This conference instructs the GEC to take all necessary steps to ensure audits are carried out and to treat this instruction as a priority for 2007/09

Progress is being made slowly but surely on this multi-faceted resolution. JEGS training for TU reps is now being arranged and it looks like job evaluation will be returning to CLG thanks to continuous pressing by PCS.

The department is also committed to reducing the number of consultants although PCS was unable to interest the CLG select committee in hearing more from us on this score. The department also seems to have finally accepted that VES/R isn’t the way to reduce headcount and are finally looking at having a “workforce strategy”.

A rational strategy should mean that any future reductions can be managed to ensure that no CLG members face the threat of compulsory redundancy. On shared services the department is yet to do any detailed work and so the actions here are yet to be progressed.

A4. Protecting public services

This conference notes the increasing pace and scope of attacks of public services as part of a general attempt to undermine them and boost the profits of public companies.

Accordingly conference instructs the GEC to work with co-ordinating and campaigning bodies, such as organising for fighting unions, National Shop Stewards Network, Public Services Not Private Profit and keep our NHS public in order to effectively defend public services.

PCS at a national and regional level works closely with the above mentioned bodies. The GEC has encouraged Branches to get involved in public meetings.

It is also encouraged Branches to affiliate to local trade union councils through which much of local campaigning is organised. The GEC has increases its liaison with the PCS parliamentary group tabling a number of parliamentary questions and working with the CLG select committee.

Plans are advanced to hold a parliamentary drop in on the impact of the staffing cuts in Government Offices in late February. The GEC will continue to publicise broader campaigns as part of the group’s input into the 2009 MYVC.

A5 – TUPE/ machinery of government

This conference instructs the GEC to ensure that Government Offices are treated as an integral part of DCLG by the DCLG management board.

Unfortunately, PCS has not achieved this objective in 2008, due to RCU’s arguing that the GOs are somehow distinct from a department which has conceded, in published documents, its responsibility for the GOs, including its legal responsibilities for GO staff.

Nevertheless numerous discussions have taken place with management on this issue, including at the Whitley general purposes committee, the equality and diversity sub-committee, the learning and development sub-committee, and it has been raised in connection with a wide variety of issues, including the department’s legal duties, the departmental skills strategy, the industrial relations agreement, the department’s desire to move towards shared services, the need for a departmental equal pay review, the departmental grievance procedure and political activity rules.

The GEC will continue to press for the board to recognise its responsibility for GO staff.

PCS will continue to press on this issue in 2009.

A6. Government Office vacancy filling

This branch understands that once again RCU/PLC intend to change the GO vacancy filling arrangements. We see this as yet another crude attempt to allow external recruitment at the expense of career development and promotion opportunities for our existing members.

We believe the current arrangements whereby external recruitment into GO posts is generally only possible once the civil service internal “pool” has been exhausted, and we call upon the GEC to robustly defend this principle in any forthcoming discussions with management.

A7. Vacancy filling

Conference notes that the government office people plan, states that the GO management board is to review and introduce new arrangements for filling vacancies in Government Offices. Conference also notes that the current arrangements for filling vacancies do not have PCS’s agreement.

Conference expresses grave concern that the existing arrangements are not free, fair nor transparent. In particular members have raised the following concerns:

  • The personal interpretation/misinterpretation of the guidance by senior management.
  • Seeking additional info outside of the interviewing the process.
  • Lack of competition in some of the interviews conducted.
  • Lack of/delays in equality proofing information.
  • Effective representation by personnel at % of interview.
  • Lack of career development opportunities.
  • Lack of effective training and development opportunities to support, progression for minority groups.
  • Delays in filling posts.
  • The use of external experiences is not considered/discouraged.

Conference also notes the outcome of the GOEM pilot, where assessment centres were used to fill grades 7 and 6 posts, and the subsequent external recruitment into remaining vacancies.

Conference instructs the GEC to ensure that the above concerns are addressed in any forthcoming discussions with RCU.

The expected review of vacancy filling in Government Offices or the review of recruitment as it is now being called failed to materialise in 2008. However the GONTUS has been told to expect consultation to begin in January 2009 and so the instructions contained in both motions will form part of the bargaining agenda.

A8 GO transformation

This branch congratulates the GEC in ensuring that to date all transfers out of work have been done on a voluntary basis.

This has ensured that members, mainly in administrative and support grades, have not been forced into the private sector against their will.

We are concerned however that in the frantic rush to shed even more jobs in these grades it may become more difficult to redeploy staff in the future who do not wish to transfer with the work. We call upon the GEC therefore to open discussions with RCU/PLC to put in place comprehensive arrangements that protect staff in the future, covering opportunities for redeployment, training and regrading with full salary protection.

This motion instructed the group to open discussions with GO management with a view to securing improved redeployment, training and regrading opportunities for ‘displaced’ staff.

Intensive discussions via the NTUS and led by PCS took place over the summer and despite initial reluctance from PLC representatives a comprehensive policy was agreed and introduced in November.

The new policy builds on existing arrangements for dealing with pre-surplus staff in order to avoid them becoming surplus and introduces binding links to the CCSU / Cabinet Office protocols to better protect those staff who do become formally surplus.

A9 Interchange

This branch has noted the increasing numbers of inward secondees into mainstream GO posts but is concerned that there is no sign of activity that would allow for reciprocal numbers of GO staff being offered secondment opportunities with partner organisations. This is despite the GO guide claiming that this is indeed the intention of the interchange programme.

We therefore call upon the GEC to open discussions with the RCU/PLC to remind them to follow their own published procedures and ensure a level playing field for our members in this area.

GO sub committee were asked for any specific problems where and when members may have been turned down for any specific outward secondment opportunities.

Action at a GO network level has been slow. The intended RCU/PLC review of the interchange policy which would have give PCS an opportunity ensure that the current uptake was fair and equal has not commenced and will need to be pressed again.

The November SiP return showed that 112 staff were either seconded or loaned out of the GO, whilst 121 were seconded into GO business functions.

A10 – staff handbook

1) Conference reaffirms the PCS objective to achieve a common set of terms and conditions for staff working in DCLG including GOs and its agencies. Conference agrees that any moves in this direction should be on the basis of no detriment.

2) Conference notes that the regional coordination unit acting on behalf of the GO network refuses to accept that there should be common terms across DCLG and further notes that DCLG have so far been unwilling to instruct the RCU that it should adopt a DCLG common staff handbook.

3) Conference notes that RCU has proposed a number of changes to the GO Guide and agrees in the light of the above and the representation made on behalf of members that PCS were required to negotiate and, where appropriate, agree any changes with RCU.

4) Conference welcomes the assurances reached that:

a) The provisions in the GO Guide that were formerly in the DfT/ODPM staff handbook(s) and were highlighted as being incorporated into the contract of employment are deemed to be incorporated into the contract of employment of all GO staff covered by the guide and
b) Any changes will not be detrimental to existing GO based staff

5) Conference instructs the GEC to:

a) take all steps required including the possibility of seeking additional legal advice as to the extent that assurances highlighted at 4a may be relied upon and the extent to which any differences in terms and conditions which may arise between existing GO staff and new recruits to the GOs may be challenged;
b) Use all opportunities to press for a common set of terms across the department and to report back to conference 2009 on these efforts.

Some success has been achieved in this area, particularly in respect of the new grievance procedure and industrial relations agreement, reported on elsewhere in this Report. Unfortunately, neither of these initiatives has been signed up to by the GOs, due to RCU’s arguing that the GOs are somehow distinct from a department which has conceded, in published documents, its responsibility for the GOs, including its legal responsibilities for GO staff. PCS will continue to press on this issue in 2009.

A 11 disciplinary procedures

This conference notes DCLG’s view that in head quarters at least it may pick and choose when to comply and when not to comply with contractually incorporated disciplinary procedures.

This conference believes that such a practice irrespective of the merits or otherwise of particular cases will result in inconsistency, inequality of treatment, lack of transparency, bullying, breach of contract and a cover up for bad management.

Conference instructs the GEC to ensure that disciplinary procedures are complied with in all cases or, in the event of managements refusal that the cavalier disregard for due process is raised with the CLG select committee and other relevant bodies.

PCS continues to monitor the CLG internal procedures. However, to date another breach of the internal procedures has not been reported to the PCS CLG branch or group.

PCS has also forwarded details of the breach of internal procedures to the CLG select committee to investigate. PCS has not yet received a response from the CLG select committee.

A12 exceeded markings

This branch is concerned that RCU has placed a 25% cap on the number of staff who may be awarded an exceeded mark on their 2007-2008 annual report.

We believe that if staff and their reporting officers correctly apply the standards setting arrangements then staff who have evidence to show that they have exceeded their objectives should receive that mark on their annual report.

While PCS remains opposed to performance pay, we believe that any reward system should be outside the annual pay negotiation.

However, as we have to use the current system, we do not believe that staff who fully deserve a performance bonus should be denied one by an artificially imposed quota.

This branch believes that there should be no cap on box markings, and asks the GEC to negotiate with RCU to remove performance pay, but if it has to remain, to remove this quota in future years.

The GEC has consistently argued with the GO network that performance pay is both unfair and divisive. We did so again as part of the 2008 pay negotiations but management again refused to accept this argument and justified performance pay as a Treasury requirement of all pay systems.

The GO national TUS has recently received the equality data from the analysis of GO performance box markings for 2007/08. The TUS believe that this data shows that white, full time and able bodied are statistically more likely to receive an 'exceeded' marking. Higher grades are also more likely to benefit too.

The GO Network has so far argued that the data is not statistically significant. The GO NTUS intend to challenge this assumption in further talks.

The use of and arrangements for performance pay is not an issue confined to GOs, it is a problem throughout the civil service. PCS has sought to challenge its use in all areas but so far significant movement has been achieved.

A13. Travel and subsistence allowances

This group recognises the travel and subsistence allowances have fallen well behind present costs, since they were last reviewed in 2002. The group executive is therefore charged with seeking a review of current travel and subsistence allowances.

PCS has continued to press for a review of travel and subsistence rates. We have persuaded HR of the need to do it but they believe it is for finance to carry out. When staff were moved from Garston to Hemel it was recognised that travel and subsistence rates were inadequate and a higher rate was agreed to cover excess costs associated with travel.

A14 Cycle to work

This conference instructs the incoming GEC to negotiate (in concert with other civil service trade unions if necessary) for DCLG to operate the government sponsored cycle to work scheme for the benefit of staff who wish to cycle to work.

This has been achieved in the GO network. CLG HQ are discussing the introduction of a cycle to work scheme, but have yet to come to the TUS with details.

A16 Desk sharing

This branch is concerned that management are pushing ahead with shared desk arrangements in Government Offices without local consultation, and with disregard for the joint understanding between the national trade union side and RCU.

GO’s are under pressure to reduce their office space, and have been asked to look at reductions to levels of 8 or 6 desks for every 10 staff.

This branch agrees that staff should work in conditions that are safe, secure and of a high quality, and urges the GEC to seek an assurance that any plans RCU have to force staff to work from home, or a location outside the Government Office, will not be imposed until full health and safety checks have been undertaken, and the site meets the criteria of being safe and secure.

We also seek an assurance that any proposals to introduce shared desk arrangements will take full account of the requirement for shared areas where staff need common access to shared files, etc, confidentiality and personal space, staff who have individual requirements, such as workstation adjustments, the need to work as a team, require specialist equipment or software, and spend a significant amount of their working time in the office. Also part-time staff should not be disadvantaged for these proposals.

The national health and safety forum have agreed to seek to put out comprehensive guidance on the needs and standards to mitigate against the worst impacts of hot desking and other similar schemes. The hope is that this will be finalised and published before conference 2009.

A17 GO facility time

This conference notes that most PCS representatives in Government Offices have not been afforded either sufficient or any facility time to date and that RCU and parent departments continue to avoid assuming any responsibility to resolve this impasse. Increased pressures on staff make lack of recognition a major obstacle to recruitment and retention of branch representatives, at a time when ceaseless reorganisation and staff demoralisation make it an imperative that branch executives respond quickly and effectively to the demands made of them.

The incoming GEC is therefore instructed that they and PCS officers work actively to resolve this issue within the calendar year, before this apathy leads to breakdown of local branch structures.

Discussions continued with RCU / PLC with a view to agreeing a GO-specific ‘facility time’ policy. Significant progress was made in securing the authority to delegate (and commitment to pro-rata funding) from most of the key sponsor departments. Unfortunately a minority of departments have failed to agree so frustratingly, negotiations over GO arrangements are still to commence. The GEC agreed that the impasse was not acceptable and letters to departments seeking intervention were prepared for issue should no progress be made by 31 January 09.

A18 Use of secondees

This branch has been made aware that secondees are being appointed to GOWM posts without any consultation with the GO TUS, apparently without the knowledge of the HR business partner, without GO staff being given the opportunity to declare an interest in the posts, and without any form of competition in the importing organisation.

The GEC is therefore instructed to make urgent representation through the NTUS and to explore all possible measures for stopping this practice.

GO national TUS has made representations to RCU about the need to consult local trade union sides on vacancy filling and to ensure that local management actually follow the guidance on vacancy filling as set out in the guide.

A19 Departmental approach to pay

To ensure a departmental approach to pay and to get this idea across to management, this conference agrees that the GEC pay teams for Government Offices, PINS and CLG HQ will be required to allocate 1 team member (with one substitute) to attend the pay meetings of one of the other bargaining units. The team member and substitute would be decided by the GEC.

The terms of this motion were carried out in full.

A20 Group level training

This conference notes that few if any elections have been held in recent years for the group executive committee. It also notes the impact of job cuts across the groups bargaining areas on the numbers of local branch representatives.

Conference therefore agrees that it needs to encourage more activists from within it is membership but recognises that it needs to be more creative in how training is delivered. Whilst acknowledging the quality of the PCS regional courses that are available, conference believes that more activists may be encouraged if training was available at a group level.

This type of training would offer more immediate relevance and practicality to participants.

Conference therefore instructs the GEC to investigate the possibility of holding group level training and if feasible to arrange such this year.

The organising sub committee has implemented this motion by offering two different types of group based training. The first is workplace level training with courses offered to branches on basic organising, personal cases etc. The second is the group residential course which is being planned for the middle of the year.

Discussions are underway around the venue and course material. Further details will be sent to branches in the spring. 

Section 9. Branch and member circulars issued in 2008

 

Table showing DCLG and GO group branch briefing circulars - 2008
No
Date
Title
 
1.
01/08
  Group regulations
2.
01/08
Group conf and election timetable
3.
18/2/08
Fair pay in the civil service & NDPBS
4.
7/3/08
Disability discrimination, Coleman v Attridge Law Case   R&C/BB/077/08
5.
13/5/08
Conference information
6.
15/5/08
Draft financial accounts
7.
14/07/08
Meetings and forums – officers attending
8.
17/07/08
Workplace meetings on job security agreement and pay
9.
 
Action on pay
10
7/11/08
Hardship fund

 

DCLG and GO Group members briefing circulars - 2008
No
Date
Title
 
1.
8/2/08
DCLG pay – voting instructions
2.
22/2/08
Poor pay, devaluing our work
3.
08/08
QEIICC
4.
28/2/08
GO pay talks
5.
2/08
Building the pressure
6
17/3/08
GEC for 2008/09
7
28/2/08
Are you worth it
8
18/07/08
QEIICC (QE11/MB/08/08)
9
 
Not issued – see 10/08
10
8/8/08
GO – pay update
11
4/9/08
GO – pay update
12
3/4/11/08
GO- final pay offer
13
6/11/08
Strike day info

Government offices for the regions branch briefing circulars - 2008
 
No
Date
Title
 
1.
18/4/08
Recruitment leaflet

 

Government Offices central steering committee members circulars - 2008
No
Date
Title
 
1.
11/1/08
Action continues – strong support, RCU offer nothing, next day of action 21 Jan
2.
25/1/08
Time to up the pressure
3.
8/2/08
You know your worth it
4.
 
GO pay talks 2
5.
11/03/01
Building the pressure – pay claim

 

Ordnance Survey circulars - 2008
No
Date
Title
 
1.
25/3/08
Pay and pathways
2.
 
 
3.
30/5/08
Pay update
4.
 
Still hoping for improvements
5.
 
Final offer – expected this week
6.
 
Further delays
7
29/7/08
PCS response to final pay offer
8
29/8/08
Members vote no
9
2/9/08
Pay negotiations re-opened
10
29/10/08
Pay update
11
21/11/08
Ballot
12
19/12/08
Pay and pathways rejected by members

 

 

Standards Board circulars - 2008
No
Date
Title
 
1.
8/5/08
Pay and jobs
2.
8/9/08
Pay talks commence

 

QE11 circulars - 2008
No
Date
Title
 
3.
08/08
Preliminary pay talks
4.
18/7/08
Pay discussions
5.
12/9/08
Negotiations commence in earnest
6.
27/10/08
Pay offer

 

In addition, bargaining area specific publications are issued regularly in PINS, GOs and CLG