Public and Commercial Services Union

Sections

1. Pay
2. Campaigns
3. Equality
4. HR policy
5. Constitutional amendments
6. Organising

---

Section 1 - Pay

 

Motion A1

This conference notes the following:

This year’s Treasury remit guidance states: Basic awards will fall within the range of 0-1%; the Increase for Staff in Post (ISP) range will be 0-2%;

In the pre-budget statement the current Chancellor said "for the two years from 2011, we will seek to ensure that all public sector pay settlements be capped at 1 per cent". Therefore this Government is proposing a pay squeeze for three years, starting in 2010;

If the Conservatives win the general election they say they will have a public sector wide pay freeze (i.e. zero percentage increases) for all those earning more than £18,000 in 2011. It is highly unlikely though that they will abandon New Labour’s pay squeeze in 2010 or 2012;

that for the first time the Secretary of State will have to decide on all remit bids within DfT i.e. only those bids that seek major structural changes in pay systems have to go to the Treasury;

The Secretary of State is legally bound to assess the equality impact his/her decisions will have, not only for each remit, but the affect of his/her cumulative decisions on remits across the whole of the department; the unions should be consulted on these assessments;

that in 2009 that there was not sufficient co-ordination of pay activity between SECs and the GEC.

In light of the above this conference instructs the GEC to take the following actions to:

run a 2010 DfT pay campaign; being clear though, that the Group campaign must be complementary and supplementary to any national pay campaign;

hold a DfT wide indicative ballot of all members asking them whether they still support the claim for DfT pay and the campaign to implement the principle of equal pay for work of equal value across the department;

ensure that there are regular meetings of the pay sub committee to ensure real co-ordination of pay activities between sections and the proper sharing of information between bargaining units;

produce suitable Group Pay literature;

arrange joint pay actions such as demos, across group leafleting, e-campaigns (such as sending e-mails to MPs concerning equal pay) and publicity stunts;

to seek permission and funding from the national union for legal challenges other than those arising from the DVLA equal pay cases.

Group Executive Committee

 

Motion A2

This conference notes that members across the Department continue to suffer from low pay, pay rises below the cost of living, and unjustifiable differences in pay between agencies and DfT(C).

We also note that despite this there was little or no coordination between Sections and the Group over pay in 2009.

Conference therefore instructs the GEC to run a coordinated campaign over pay in 2010, to include:

a) The production of relevant leaflets, posters and other literature
b) Ensuring that the GEC is fully aware of, and/or involved in, local pay “negotiations”
c) The GEC coordinating any local pay disputes
d) A re-launch of the campaign for Departmental pay

ETR Nottingham 019047

Motion A3

This conference notes the following facts:

That we do not know the exact salary paid to the Permanent Secretary or to the Agency Chief Executives;

That in reply to a recent Freedom of Information request asking whether Rosemary Thew’s bonus in 2009 was higher, lower or the same as in 2008, DfT stated “Rosemary Thew has confirmed that she does not wish for anything to be published on her remuneration additional to that which is published each year in her Agency’s annual report and accounts”. From the DSA Agency annual report it is not possible to determine whether her bonus increased, decreased or remained the same in 2009 as compared to 2008;

That in 2009 Rosemary Thew was one of the decision makers who decided not to pay staff in the DSA the Group Incentive bonus;

That in agency annual reports Chief Executives combined remuneration (basic pay plus bonuses) is generally only given within bands of £5,000;

That in 2010 senior managers such as the Permanent Secretary and the Agency Chief Executives will advise the Secretary of State and other Ministers to ensure that basic pay awards fall within the range of 0-1% and that the Increase for Staff in Post (ISP) range be between 0-2%;

That staff have the right to know all expenses paid to the Ministers and to know the exact salary that Ministers earn;

That the Pay bill for senior managers in DfT increased by 7% in 2009;

That an unnamed DfT senior manager earned a bonus of £22,000 last year;

That the median consolidated salary of full-time equivalent civil servants working in the Department for Transport outside of London is £19,953.

That the mean consolidated salary of full-time equivalent civil servants working in the Department for Transport agencies outside of London is £22,982;

That last year over 12,000 full-time equivalent civil servants in DfT earned less than £25,000.

Given the above this conference believes that excessive secrecy surrounds senior managers pay in this department and that further the facts on pay show that there is a real “them and us” difference as to how pay is awarded to senior managers as compared to our members. Bonuses are allegedly paid on achieving pre-set objectives, we therefore require these to be set out in detail.

Therefore this conference resolves on the following actions:

That the GEC run a membership campaign demanding that all Chief Executives and the Permanent Secretary publish their real salary and bonuses;

That members be informed in as many and as varied ways as possible the sort of pay facts set out above (e.g. mean, median, number earning under £25,000);

That the GEC seek historical data on the changes in senior managers pay as compared to our members pay since the department was formed and to publish this data on the Union’s DfT website.

Group Executive Committee

Motion A4

This Conference calls upon the incoming GEC to offer support and guidance to VOSA members in their fight to obtain a fair and just pay increase in line with the rest of the Departmental family and to oppose the VOSA management view that all surplus monies should be used to pay off VOSA debts.

VOSA members suffered a zero percentage increase in 2009 which has caused significant financial hardship and distress for our members.

This Conference agrees to provide all practical support to ensure a desirable outcome.

VOSA 201008

Motion A5

This Conference notes that the pay rise for DVLA members is due to take place in August each year. This Conference also notes that the pay remit is delayed meaning that the Pay negotiations are delayed, meaning that the pay offer is delayed.

The pay of is made to members with the threat that if it is not accepted, there may be difficulty in ensuring their pay rise is implemented before Christmas. This is an unacceptable situation, it puts pressure on our members to accept a pay offer not because it is a good pay offer but because they need to have their pay rise banked in order to be able to afford Christmas.

This Conference feels that this cannot continue. If a pay rise is due in August it should be paid in August. If the reason, year on year, for the delay is the Cabinet Office not releasing the pay remit, PCS must put pressure on the Cabinet Office to release the remit in good time.

The fact that the pay offer has been held up by the Cabinet Office should be publicised to PCS members. PCS must communicate the reason for the delay, and campaign for the pay offer to be ready for August.

DVLA Southern 201004

 

return to sections index

Section 2 - Campaigns

Motion A6

This Conference notes that the changes to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme will mean that jobs become cheaper for compulsory redundancy and for privatisation.
At the same time DfT look to be facing cuts in budgets of up to 30% meaning that we face the real prospect of job losses across the Department.

We further note that work streams are taking place regarding Shared Services as well as the initiative called HR-Next Generation which is looking to reduce HR posts by some 150 FTE’s overall.

The GEC is therefore instructed to;

1) Gather information and collate it on all potential job losses via requests to the Sections and Branches in the Group in order that we know the extent of job losses we are facing, this can be done immediately since business plans will have been agreed.

2) Launch a campaign to defend jobs using where possible the ‘alternative vision’ document.

3) Within any campaign ensure that we use parliamentary pressure and seek to work with interest groups and trade associations in order to defend jobs.

4) Ensure that member’s are made aware of the implications of any job losses i.e. HR, Finance etc and the impact this will have on them.

5) Ensure that we report any successes we have in saving jobs to the membership of the Group.

6) Consider industrial action ballots in order to defend jobs and in order to stop job cuts.

ETR Nottingham 019047

Motion A7

This conference notes the very real possibility that the Shared Service Centre and other areas of DfT will be threatened with privatisation under a new government.

Conference welcomes the work that the GEC has done so far on producing an “alternative vision” of the DfT and instructs the GEC to continue to oppose privatisation and outsourcing DfT work wherever it is proposed by:

a) Lobbying MPs and working with the PCS Parliamentary Group.

b) Illustrating and exposing the failures of previous privatisations.

c) Leading and supporting membership campaigns against privatisation.

d) Seeking permission from the national union for industrial action where this is considered appropriate.

ETR Nottingham 019047

Motion A8

This meeting notes that at the 2006 Group Conference that the Group voted in favour of the principle that all public transport should be free to passengers at the point of use. That said the Group has not campaigned to implement that policy.

Since the 2006 conference this meeting notes:

That the transport sector is contributing an increasing share of green house gasses;

In February last year, Jonathon Porritt, the then chair of the Sustainable Development Commission said "If you look at the real expectations around heat and transport, you have to be massively optimistic to think we'll meet those, particularly on transport," he said. "The Department of Transport (DfT) has shown no real innovation at all, no real interest in driving behaviour change or technology shift to achieve the percentage gain we need on transport";

That the Department of Transport has a deliberate policy of increasing the proportion of travel costs recouped through ticket prices over the coming years thereby pricing the poor off the railways;

That in real terms (despite the ups and downs of petrol and diesel prices) public transport has become increasingly expensive compared to car travel;

That increasing public transport costs is a factor in driving inflation higher and these costs are an ever greater proportion of house hold budgets;

That there is spare capacity on the rail that could be utilised for extra passengers (e.g. first class coaches);

That over the last thirty years many rural areas, and indeed urban areas (such as council estates) have seen public transport services in their areas cut back. This means that people have no option but to travel by car.

Consequently this conference agrees that the Group must now start a “Free and Green” campaign whose goal is to win free public transport.

This conference believes that if this policy were implemented then there would be a dramatic cut in green house gases as many people would move over to public transport, a large cut in living costs (this would have very positive impact on the economy as deposable incomes would increase) and lastly the mobility of the poor would be greatly increased.

Of course the key practical argument against free transport is that it will be over costly and that the country cannot afford it. Of course in comparison to the damage done by climate change the costs of free travel dwindle into insignificance. That said the costs will be great; particularly with moving to green technologies and increasing capacity. Of course such costs would partly off set by the increase in economic activity and the consequential increase in the tax take. With free public transport motorists may find it more palatable to accept higher fuel taxes and road taxes (monies which could be directed/ dedicated to free transport). Other green taxes are also more possible in exchange for free travel.

This conference believes that as part of the “Free and Green” campaign there needs to be robust costings of free travel (by mode), the savings based on reduction of congestion (The 2006 Eddington Study estimated that the increase in time lost in England due to road congestion between 2003 and 2025 for all travellers including business and freight would be worth £23 to £24 billion in 2025 (2002 prices), increases in economic activity and dedicating taxes to fund free travel. Also the structure of the public transport industries must be examined as well (for example to see the savings made by re-nationalisation of the train operating companies). Consequently this conference agrees that the GEC seek funding from the National Union to hire a suitable academic to produce such costings, examine structures and savings.

Of course there are human costs as well; the loss of employment for revenue collection and protection staff. Therefore there has to be guarantee that all such staff's terms and conditions will be protected and that all such staff are redeployed in an alternative employment with the introduction of free travel.

Group Executive Committee

Motion A9

This conference notes that in a report called “Bold Steps for Radical Reform" Kent council listed Highways Agency as one of the “type of quangos we believe should be abolished with many of the functions transferred to local authority control”. In response to this misguided call the GEC quickly wrote to the council setting out the problems with its proposals. This conference welcomes this “rebuttal” action.

This meeting concludes unfortunately that many other organisations in the coming period will be on the look out to take over parts of DfT or will argue that parts of DfT be abolished or cut back.

In response to such proposals this conference agrees on the following actions:

That an immediate rebuttal letter, as in the Kent “incident”, be sent by the GEC to the relevant organisation. This letter to be published on the DfT PCS website;

If no reply to this letter is forth coming then chase up letters will be sent (again to be put on the website);

If a reply is made then the GEC to respond; the aim being that the Group will have the last word;

If the offending organisation is a public sector body, as in the case of Kent, then consideration be given to submitting suitable Freedom of Information requests to elicit the “rational” basis of that organisation’s proposal. These answers again to be published on the website, along with suitable commentary on there meaning.

If the offending organisation is a public sector body then there may be democratic and other means for us to take forward our rebuttal campaign. These means should be examined by the GEC and a decision made as to the best one to take;

The GEC to consider whether a suitable stunt or demonstration can be undertaken as regards the offending organisation; this again to make our rebuttal point.

Group Executive Committee

Motion A10

This Conference calls upon the VOSA Directing Board to acknowledge and accept responsibility for the dire state of VOSA’s financial position and allowing this to have happened.

This Conference therefore instructs the incoming GEC to call upon all the directors who were in post at this time and responsible for this to have happened, to resign.

VOSA 201008

Motion A11

This Conference instructs the incoming GEC to continue to work with the VOSA Section on opposing the closure of Goods Vehicle Test stations and any transfer of work to the private sector.

The GEC is instructed to assist with all campaigning media and political activity in this area.

VOSA 201008

Motion X12

This union is to be congratulated in the amount of work it has put in to fight racism and fascism. PCS has done more than most to help anti fascist organisations like Love Music Hate Racism and Unite Against Fascism.

The BNP’s politics of hate and division threatens the freedom and safety of those they would see annihilated -- Jews, black people, trade unionists, Muslims and all ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians, disabled people and anybody who stands for a free and democratic society.

BNP through its acolytes supports the Redwatch website which contains names, photos, addresses, and personal details of trade unionists and anti-fascists and those opposing the BNP, along with threats of violence against them. Some of those targeted by Redwatch have been attacked and intimidated.

There is no place for fascist and racist BNP members in public services. So it should come as a shock to all members that DSA do not have any written policy on staffing and membership of far right organisations.

This union believes:

That is it in the public interest to identify BNP members if we are to prevent abuses. These people may have access to sensitive information and are in position of influence. We, as union members have to do everything we can to stop the politics of race hate and division that targets our communities with its vicious race hatred.

It is not acceptable to have fascists who want to see a race war working in public services. Racism divides workers and has no place within the trade union movement. Trades union organisations that have expelled fascists from membership are to be congratulated.

This union resolves to call on DSA management to have written and explicit policies onstaffing and employment, and membership of this Neo-Nazi organisation. This union calls upon DSA to ensure that no one belonging to BNP or any other fascist party every gets employment in DSA.

Driving Examiners 201005

Motion X13

This ADM notes with anger the proposal put forward at a recent DSA management conference that examiners should now undertake 7 day working and taking tests at customers homes. We understand the Chief Executive is actively considering these ideas.

The ADM wishes to make clear that members fought long and hard to get an agreement on Monday to Friday working and they will resist any move away from that position. The proposal to test from customers homes is nothing more than a cynical means of cutting further the DSA test centre estate. Why would management want to potentially put their staff at risk in this way when the Agency has spent considerable resources on providing safe comfortable and DDA compliant Test centres?

Therefore, this ADM instructs the Group Executive to mount a campaign of opposition to these draconian measures up to and including industrial action if DSA decide to proceed without agreement.

Driving Examiners 201005

 

return to sections index

Section 3 - Equality

Motion A14

This conference notes that:

• the Whitehall studies show that there is a health gradient running through the civil service, and presumably DfT, which means that generally the lower the grade the higher the average sick rate and death rate;
   
• statistical analysis of report markings in DfT (C), show year on year, that staff from ethnic minorities, lower grades and generally part timers get proportionally fewer top appraisal markings than their relevant counter parts (e.g. white staff);
   
• other studies have shown that promotion rates vary between equality groups in some DfT bargaining units; the same is true of the awarding of disciplinary penalties and dismissals; this variation is also found in the awarding of special bonuses as well;
   
• the degree and quality of equality monitoring in DfT varies greatly between bargaining units and that compiling the data by bargaining unit, and refusing to properly aggregate it, hides the true extent of inequality across DfT.

This conference strongly suspects that many, if not all, bargaining units in DfT show significant variation between equality groups in terms of report markings, promotion rates, special bonuses, disciplinary penalties, dismissals and other HR processes; this variation generally to the detriment of ethnic minorities, part timers, lower grades and those with a disability.

Therefore this conference instructs the GEC to:

• produce an annual report on inequalities within DfT. This report will aggregate equality and sickness data from as many bargaining units as possible to give a departmental wide picture; to analysis this data and to make recommendations based on this analysis.
   
• ensure as much media publicity around this “State of DfT ” report as possible;
   
• to send all MPs on the Transport Select Committee the report; to publish the report on the DfT PCS website and issue it to our members electronically; to seek to discuss the findings of the report with the EHRC and to seek meetings with relevant Ministers and senior managers to discuss the data, and associated recommendations.

Group Executive Committee

Motion A15

This Conference notes that our employer claims to be an equal opportunities employer but that in reality disabled, BME, women, and part time workers still suffer from discrimination when applying for jobs, for level transfers and promotion.

We further note that in many workplaces (backed up by evidence from the West Midlands Civil Service pilot scheme) that recruitment is shaped by bias and discrimination and that often the person who best ‘gets on’ with the boss will get the post on promotion. This has meant in some areas members of sift and interview panels being removed in favour of people who can deliver the right result. This therefore introduces further bias and discrimination into a process which is already unfair.

Whilst in many cases the process introduces this bias and discrimination it is also clear that sift and interview panel members are not checked or monitored on their decisions. The employer in reality has no idea whether the panel member holds any bias and therefore there is a major flaw when monitoring recruitment.

This conference notes that centralised HR policies are being discussed with the Departmental Trade Union Side and instructs the GEC to ensure;

1) That where talks take place on recruitment issues that the PCS policy for recruitment should be that a monitoring and checking system is introduced for sift and panel members.

2) That if centralised talks do not take place that the GEC draws up guidelines to ensure that every Section opens up negotiations on this issue.

3) That the GEC seek to include in any recruitment policy that at least one sift or panel member is from outside of the immediate bargaining area in order that any bias is diminished and that this encourages ‘joined up’ Departmental working.

ETR Nottingham 019047

Motion A16

This conference notes the facts of the House of Lords case Archibald v Fife Council:

Mrs Archibald was employed by the council as a manual worker. She underwent minor surgery in April 1999 and as a result of which she became disabled. She was no longer physically fit to do her manual job. There was nothing that the council could have done by way of adjustment to the manual labour job to cure that fact that she was unable to do that job due to her disability. That said she was not so disadvantaged that she could not conceivably have been employed by them at all. Notwithstanding that she was dismissed as she could not carry out the specific job that she had been hired to do.

Furthermore this conference notes that the House of Lords judged this dismissal to be unfair as they ruled that under the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act that reasonable adjustments are “capable of including the step of transferring a disabled person from a post she can no longer do to a post which she can do, provided that this is a reasonable step for the employer to have to take”.

We also note the new precedent set by the Fareham College Coproration v Walters case.

This conference believes that the ruling in this case is applicable to operational grade members in DfT who are no longer physically fit to do their role and for whom there is nothing that the department can do in the way of reasonable adjustments to allow them to continue in the operational post but that they are not so disadvantaged that they could not conceivably be employed in some role in DfT.

Given all the above this conference resolves on the following actions:

The GEC to seek a general agreement with DfT to ensure that the Archibald principles are incorporated into sick absence and disability procedures;

That in the event that DfT refuse, prevaricate or only inadequately implement the principles that the GEC:

a. agitate amongst operational grade members on this issue to get DfT to fully implement the Archibald principles; the GEC, in conjunction with Driving Examiners, Traffic Examiners, coastguard and control centre activists, to determine the most effective way (e.g. demonstrations, post card write ins) to do this;

b. to ask the national union to run a test case within DfT around the Archibald principles;

c. to train union reps who under take operational grade personal cases in the Archibald principles; the GEC to provide standard letters for these reps to use and to designate one or more members of the GEC to act as the help point for these reps as regards Archibald type cases.

Group Executive Committee

 

return to sections index

Section 4 - HR policy 
 

Motion A17

This conference notes that DfT is seeking to have common practises and polices across many HR functions. Yet whilst at the same time as seeking commonality the department apparently will allow business units to introduce business specific policies and practises for these very same HR functions. If this happened not only would commonality be more difficult to achieve, the drive to standardisation would be undermined.

This conference also notes that in the past that PCS in DfT, as a union and as part of Agency/Central Trade Union Sides, has tended to act within the silos of bargaining units and not always sought a Group position on possible HR policy changes within the bargaining units.

This meeting agrees that this silo working has to stop and that we must act as a Group on these matters.

Therefore this conference instructs:

the SECs not to agree to any change to HR polices as regards to those HR functions that DfT is seeking commonality on, without specific agreement from the GEC;

the GEC to put into place specific arrangements for considering/agreeing/disagreeing possible bargaining unit changes to those HR functions that DfT is seeking commonality on.

In giving these instructions this conference recognises that in bargaining units where unions, other than PCS are recognised, that these other unions may wish to agree proposals that this Union wishes to reject. Consequently this conference instructs the GEC, either through direct talks with the other Unions (Prospect in particular) or through DfT Trade Union Side mechanisms, to seek a common understanding as how local changes in those HR functions that DfT is seeking commonality on, should be handled.

Lastly this conference believes that even in regards to those HR functions where DfT is not currently seeking commonality that SECs must consult with the GEC as to any possible change.

Group Executive Committee

Motion A18

This Conference notes that centralised talks are taking place with The Departmental Trade Union Side (DTUS) on HR policies.

As part of these talks ‘personal casework’ including grievances and disciplinaries are being discussed i.e. on how they might be handled and where from in the future.

This conference believes that in many areas personal cases are handled badly by management, take too long and are often inconsistent in the processes and with decisions.

Given that it is our members who are on the receiving end of the poor handling of cases, and often their livelihoods are affected, the GEC is instructed;

1) to gather and collate information from each PCS section in DfT and the employer on how many personal cases are in process at present within their Section/Agency or Department, gain a general outline on what these are i.e. bullying etc, how many have been registered in the last two years in each Section/Agency or Department, and how long on average each Agency/Dept takes to process a case.

2) To seek an agreement to have one discipline and grievance policy for DfT and its Agencies in the Staff Handbook.

3) To seek agreement that ‘disciplinary’ investigations should wherever possible include investigating or decision officers from outside the immediate bargaining area in order to avoid bias in the decision making process.

4) To include in any agreement the monitoring and checking of investigating and decision officers in order to ensure that equality is at the heart of any process.

5) In the absence of ‘one’ agreement ensure that all Sections open up discussions on the monitoring and checking of investigating and decision officers.

6) To ensure that all Branches have all Branch reps trained on ‘handling personal cases’.

ETR Nottingham 019047

Motion A19

This conference notes that

DfT want to reduce the HR staff to all staff ratio from the current 1:28 to 1:59 by July 2012;

In Front Line First announcement the Government set a target HR to staff ratio of 1:77;

DfT have not sought to justify the rationale behind the 1 to 59 ratio or the 1 to 77 ratio;

DfT is to centralise most recruitment activities in the department into a unit in Swansea;

DfT is looking at possible other centralisations of HR functions;

The Unions opposition to compulsory redundancies;

The DfT redundancy agreement and the Cabinet Office job protocols exist to prevent redundancies and can be used to move surplus staff into alternative posts.

Faced with the above this conference sets out the following principles for the GEC and SECs to adopt in any talks concerning further changes in HR structures:

That HR functions should not be physically centralised but work should remain in the different parts of the department and joined up virtually if need be;

That the rationale behind the ratios must be sought and challenged;

That the prime concern is not only that staff in HR remain in Crown employment but that staff in the department should receive a proper HR service;

That actions such as dismissal, promotion and redundancies must not be devolved wholly to line management;

That in HR areas there should be no consultants; all Human Resource work must be carried out by permanent civil servants.

Group Executive Committee

 

return to sections index

Section 5 - Constitutional amendments

(All constitutional amendments require two-thirds majority)

Motion A20

This conference agrees to amend the DfT Group Constitution as set out below.

Delete Annex H as currently written and replace by:

“Annex H

List Of Responsibilities

Here you can find membership responsibilities that fall to the GEC and those that fall to the Section Committees; to the Driving Examiners Branch and to the Coastguard branches.

GEC membership responsibilities

• Departmental pay campaigning;
• Making the PCS recommendation to members within an agency or DfT(C) as to whether to accept or reject a pay proposal;
• All matters relating to Equal pay and equality whether in a bargaining unit or across two or more bargaining units within the Department for Transport (DfT);
• Training;
• Recruitment;
• Operation of the Cabinet protocols within the department;
• All matters relating to redundancies (voluntary or compulsory) anywhere in DfT;
• Departmental Whitley matters including departmental Health and Safety matters;
• The departmental staff handbook;
• All matters that effect two or more bargaining units within DfT, including personal cases with wider implications;
• Shared services matters;
• All matters relating to facility time whether in a bargaining unit or across two or more bargaining units within DfT;
• To keep an overview of personal cases within the DfT Group, and provide assistance and support when required by the Section or Branch;
• Any matter under the responsibility of a Section Committee that the GEC deem shall become the responsibility of the Group Executive Committee.

Section Committees membership responsibilities

• Negotiate pay and terms and conditions:
• To keep an overview of personal cases within the Section, and provide assistance and support when required by a Branch;
• Agency Whitley;
• Local Whitley Committees;
• Local Health and Safety Matters.
• Local staffing numbers and grades.

In the event of any conflict between GEC membership responsibilities listed above and those listed under Section Committees membership responsibilities, the GEC authority will prevail.

All Sections are responsible for technical matters solely relating to their respective operational grades.

Group Executive Committee

Motion A21

This conference agrees to delete Section 11 of the current Group Constitution and to replace it with the following;

11. Funds

11.1 Group funds shall consist of the monies remitted by the NEC, together with such other monies as may be raised by the Group through social activities. The Group may not raise funds except on a voluntary basis, or expend funds except in accordance with the Unions policies.

11.2 The Group funds shall be administered by the GEC for the purposes of the Group, subject to the over-riding authority of the NEC.

11.3 The financial year of the Group shall run from 1 January to 31 December

11.4 An account in the name of the Group shall be opened by a bank approved by the NEC. Each cheque or payment shall be signed, or authorised, by both (a) the Group Treasurer and (b) either the Group President or other designated officer of the Group.

11.5 The Group Treasurer shall maintain appropriate records of the Group’s financial activities, which shall be made available for inspection at each GEC meeting. An accounting statement shall be prepared in respect of each quarter and presented for approval to the next convenient GEC meeting; on approval it shall be signed by the President, and a copy sent forthwith to the National Treasurer.

11.6 The Group Treasurer shall prepare an annual budget for estimated expenditure for approval by the GEC. On approval, the statement shall be forwarded (together with any explanatory notes and supporting schedules) to the National Treasurer by the date laid down by the NEC.

11.7 The Group Treasurer shall prepare annual accounts for the preceding year, in the form prescribed by the NEC, and present them to the GEC for approval. Following approval by the GEC, the Treasurer shall submit them to the National Treasurer as soon as practicable (not later than 28 February).

11.8 The cost of expenses necessarily incurred in attending meetings of the GEC, or of its sub-committees, or for other authorised purposes, shall be reimbursed from Group funds within limits determined by the NEC.

11.9 Section funds shall consist of the monies remitted by the NEC through the Group, together with such other monies as may be raised by the Section through social activities. The Section may not raise funds except on a voluntary basis, or expend funds except in accordance with the Unions policies.

11.10 The Section funds shall be administered by the Section Executive Committee for the purposes of the Section, subject to the over-riding authorities of the NEC and GEC.

11.11 The financial year of the Sections shall run from 1 January to 31 December.

11.12 An account in the name of the Section shall be opened by a bank approved by the NEC. Each cheque or payment shall be signed, or authorised, by both (a) the Section Treasurer and (b) either the Section President or other designated officer of the Section.

11.13 The Section Treasurer shall maintain appropriate records of the Section’s financial activities, which shall be made available for inspection at each SEC meeting. An accounting statement shall be prepared in respect of each quarter and presented for approval to the next convenient SEC meeting; on approval it shall be signed by the President, and a copy sent forthwith to the Group Treasurer.

11.14 The Section Treasurer shall prepare an annual budget for estimated expenditure for approval by the SEC. On approval, the statement shall be forwarded (together with any explanatory notes and supporting schedules) to the Group Treasurer by 31st January each year, to enable a timely submission of the Group funding bid to the NEC.

11.15 The Section Treasurer shall prepare annual accounts for the preceding year, in the form prescribed by the NEC, and present them to the SEC for approval. Following approval by the SEC, the Treasurer shall submit them, together with a funding application for the following year, to the Group Treasurer as soon as practicable, and not later than 31st January.

11.16 The cost of expenses necessarily incurred in attending meetings of the SEC, or of its sub-committees, or for other authorised purposes, shall be reimbursed from Section funds within limits determined by the NEC.

The above changes clarify and expand upon the original provisions.

Group Executive Committee

Motion A22

This conference agrees to amend Section 5 of the current Group Constitution as follows;

Delete paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 and replace with;

5.2 The GEC shall consist of an elected Group President, Group Vice-President, GEC Equality Officer, GEC Organiser and GEC Treasurer supported by a non-voting Group Secretary. These posts will together be known as “Group Officers”. Of the five elected Group Officers no more than two should be elected from the same Section of the Group.

5.3 The Group Officers will be supported by seven GEC Section Liaison Officers. The principle role of the GEC Section Liaison Officers will be as a representative for the GEC to the Section and branches within. GEC Section Liaison Officers will therefore be non-voting members of the Section Committee following their election. They will also report back to the GEC from the Section Committee alongside and supported by the Section Secretaries.

5.4 The GEC Section Liaison Officers will be elected by the membership across the whole of the Group.

5.5 The Group Secretary shall be employed by PCS, as will each Section Secretary. All other Officers, GEC Section Liaison Officers and Ordinary GEC members will be elected by the whole membership across the Group. (other parts deleted)

With subsequent paragraphs being re-numbered accordingly.

Additionally, the Constitution shall be amended by adding the words “with no more than half, minus one having the same home section.” After the words “simple majority of those entitled to vote” in the second line of the paragraph formally para 5.9.

These changes make sure that all officers of the GEC are democratically elected by the membership of the Group, and that the Group structures are now fit for purpose.

Group Executive Committee

Motion A23 - (A23 falls if A22 is carried)

This conference agrees to amend Annexes A, D, E, F and G of the Group Constitution as follows;

Delete paragraphs 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of Section 2 and replace with;

2.1 Elections to the Section Committee shall be held each year by postal ballot of all members in that Section. The HQ Secretary shall issue regulations for the conduct of the elections.

2.2 The Section Committee shall consist of an elected Section President, Section Vice-President, Section Treasurer, Section Organiser, Section Assistant Secretary, Section Equalities Officer and up to 12 ordinary members and a non-voting Section Secretary appointed by PCS HQ. All posts other than the non-voting Section Secretary will be elected by the membership across the Section.

2.3 The elected GEC Section Liaison Officer to the Section will also attend in this capacity as a non-voting member (unless they are otherwise elected to the Committee in an additional capacity). Other GEC members can also be invited to attend at the discretion of the Section President. Observers can also be invited to attend any section meeting at the cost of their branch.

This conference also agrees to amend Annex B of the Group Constitution as follows;

Delete paragraphs 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of Section 2 and replace with;

2.1 Elections to the Section Committee shall be held each year by postal ballot of all members in that Section. The HQ Secretary shall issue regulations for the conduct of the elections.

2.2 The Section Committee shall consist of an elected Section President, Section Vice-President, Section Treasurer, Section Assistant Secretary Examiner grades, Section Assistant Secretary non-examiners, Section Equalities Officer and up to 9 ordinary members (at least four of whom will be reserved for examiner grades and at least four for non-examiner grades, with one reservation for a BME member) and a non-voting Section Secretary appointed by PCS HQ.

2.3 The elected GEC Section Liaison Officer to the Section will also attend in this capacity as a non-voting member (unless they are otherwise elected to the Committee in an additional capacity). Other GEC members can also be invited to attend at the discretion of the Section President. Observers can also be invited to attend any section meeting at the cost of their branch.
This conference agrees to amend Annexes C of the Group Constitution as follows;

Delete paragraphs 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of Section 2 and replace with;

2.1 Elections to the Section Committee shall be held each year by postal ballot of all members in that Section. The HQ Secretary shall issue regulations for the conduct of the elections.

2.2 The Section Committee shall consist of an elected Section President, Section Vice-President, Section Treasurer, Section Organiser, Section Assistant Secretary, Section Equalities Officer and 12 ordinary members of which at least 2 members shall be from each DVLA Branch, and a non-voting Section Secretary appointed by PCS HQ.

2.3 The elected GEC Section Liaison Officer to the Section will also attend in this capacity as a non-voting member (unless they are otherwise elected to the Committee in an additional capacity). Other GEC members can also be invited to attend at the discretion of the Section President. Observers can also be invited to attend any section meeting at the cost of their branch.

These changes are to ensure a consistency of approach across the Group whilst recognising the individual requirements of certain Sections.

Group Executive Committee

Motion A24 - (Motion A24 falls if A23 is carried)

This Conference agrees to amend the DfT Constitution at Annex G Section 2.2 so that it reads as follows.

The Section Committee shall consist of a President, Vice President, 2 Assistant Secretaries, Treasurer and Organiser (together know as ‘Section Officers) together with 14 other members one of whom will be from the Traffic Examiner discipline, one from Admin & Exec Grades outside of the Traffic Area Office, one from the Traffic Area Office.

VOSA 201008

Motion A25

This Conference agrees to amend the DfT Group Constitution at Annex G to delete all references to Vehicle & Services Operations Agency and replace with Vehicle & Operator Services Agency.

VOSA 201008

 

return to sections index

Section 6 - Organising

Motion A26 - (covering A27)

This Conference recognises that within the National Organising strategy the GEC has now begun to set out the Group Organising strategy. This is welcome and very much needed and Conference thanks the Group Organising sub-committee members for their work. As a result of this work membership density in each workplace can now be identified.

Whilst there are many Branches with high membership density there are many where membership density can and must be improved. However, membership density should not be the only measure of a Branch.

Conference agrees that for a Branch to be seen as functioning effectively and able to deliver national and group union policies it must have good membership density but in addition it is crucial that it also has good membership participation. At a time in which we all face the most severe attacks from the employer that the civil service has ever experienced Branches will need to meet both criteria if we are to be successful in our campaigns against these.

Conference notes that it may be the case that some Branches have decent membership density but have little real membership participation; alternatively there may also be Branches that have very good membership participation but have low membership density. Neither of these scenarios puts PCS in a strong position.

Conference believes that the GEC now needs to urgently undertake a review of all existing Branches within the DfT Group in order to ensure that the above criteria is met, or is being met. Any review should include Branch reps, the members within the Branch, and the appropriate SEC’s being consulted.

Conference instructs the GEC to consider the following Branch structures when reviewing all Branches;

• Branch remains in the same structure but with improvements recommended and additional resources provided where necessary.
• Specific DfT(C) or Agency Branch
• Geographical/regional DfT Branch
• National Branch
• DfT Operational grades Branch, based either on a national or Regional structure.

Conference notes that this list is not exhaustive and that there may be other structures which are identified by the review.

Conference further recognises that this task is a major one in which it will be the case that one Branch may well be reviewed before another, but nevertheless each Branch should be reviewed and recommendations should be made and agreed throughout the next year. The GEC should set a timetable i.e. quarterly, in order to ensure progress is made on Branch reviews and prioritise Branches based upon the criteria detailed in Para 4 of this motion.

Conference also agrees that when recommendations are agreed by the GEC that any Branch restructuring must be put forward to the appropriate NEC sub-committee or to the full NEC for their agreement/implementation. Within this process the GEC are also instructed to ballot affected members on any changes where it is necessary to do so.

Group Executive Committee

Motion E27

The PCS MCA HQ & Outstations Branch recognises that the MCA section would benefit from a branch structure assessment and reorganisation. We do believe that this must be done with careful forethought and due regard to the democratic, practical and financial implications of the options available. Some of the options currently being considered are:

• Regional branch structure, with three main regions and a separate HQ branch;
   
• Regional branch structure, with three regions including HQ branch as part of the Eastern regional branch;
   
• A north/south divide branch structure with a separate HQ branch.

Also under consideration is how Coastguard Rescue Officers (CROs) will fit in to this structure, possibly as part of the new branches (optionally with a reserved seat on the branch committees) or possibly as a separate CRO branch covering the whole MCA section.

The PCS MCA HQ & Outstations Branch proposes that conference instructs the PCS MCA Section Committee to return to DfT Group Conference in one year’s time with concrete analysis of those options the Section considers most reasonable so that an appropriate option can be chosen in a considered and measured manner.

The PCS MCA HQ & Outstations Branch welcomes input from the DfT Group Committee regarding possible options for consideration during this analysis period.

MCA HQ & Outstations 201013

Motion A28

This Annual Delegate Meeting endorses the DfT Group Organising strategy and congratulates those officers involved in mapping the membership density across the Branches and Sections within the DfT Group.

This work will provide the DfT Group with a platform upon which to build for the future by identifying bargaining units whose density level or membership participation are not optimal. This will allow the group to focus organising resources on Sections or Branches whose membership levels are below benchmarks. It will also allow organising to be embedded into the Group’s activities. This will ensure that PCS structures within the constituent bodies of the Group provide pathways that produce effective consultation with members and ensures that policy derived is rooted in and has the support of the widest possible membership.

The ADM therefore calls for the Group Organiser, using the mapping information, to:

(A) determine which sections and workplaces within sections have less than 55% membership;

(B) make recommendations to the GEC, in conjunction with relevant section organisers, as to how membership in sections below 55% be increased to the target level;

(C) make recommendations to the GEC, in conjunction with relevant section organisers, as to how membership in workplaces below 55% be increased to the target level.

The ADM further calls on the Group Organiser, in conjunction with relevant Section organisers, to work towards ensuring that the relevant recruitment plans are actually implemented; that at each GEC meeting the Group Organiser reports on progress made against the plans and that at the 2011 DfT ADM the Group Organiser be given a suitable time slot during the conference to report back to delegates on actions taken in regards to this motion and the progress made.

Driving Examiners 201005

Motion A29

This Conference censures the GEC for not taking forward a Group wide recruitment campaign, or taking forward motions which were passed at Group Conference/s on this and on ‘recruit a friend’. Furthermore this conference notes that no real work has been carried out in ensuring the Group hardship fund (specifically taking forward the one hundred club work) is prioritised, in fact it appears to have been sidelined.

At a time where we face the most severe threats from the employer this area of work should have been seen as a priority.

Whilst conference recognises that work has been undertaken by Branches who have organised recruitment this has been because some Branches have been well organised in the first place, in short it is in the absence of a Group campaign.
This conference believes that recruitment must be an absolute priority and instructs the GEC;

1) To put in place a Group recruitment plan with immediate effect ensuring that it identifies priority Sections/Branches.

2) That it puts in place ‘recruit a friend’ which in essence provides a reward/prizes for individual members who recruit the most people set over a short period of time to encourage ordinary members to recruit to the PCS and thereby recognising their effort.

3) To put in place a fund raising scheme such as a ‘one hundred club’ which can be used for hardship cases.

4) To take forward a serious campaign to publicise the Professional Manager’s Association (PMA) as part of PCS which will encourage more involvement of SEO grades and above (including equivalent grades) and is aimed at the awareness of what we do, what we need to take forward on behalf of those members, and ultimately to encourage members in those grades to become active within PCS.

5) As part of the recruitment campaign to ensure that every Branch in the Group are consulted and encouraged to identify specific reps who will take the responsibility of taking forward PMA publicity and work.

6) That once each Branch is consulted the GEC develops a strategy on how they will encourage more activity from PMA members which should be presented in the form of a paper to next year’s Group Conference.

ETR Nottingham 019047

Motion A30

This Conference notes that whilst the PCS has agreements in some areas of the Department for Union Learning reps (ULR’s) and has signed learning agreements that these are not consistent in their approach. We also recognise that where agreements and ULR’s are in place full advantage has not been taken of what is an important area of work for PCS.

 

The GEC is therefore instructed to;

1) Seek to gain a Departmental wide learning agreement, if this is rejected by DfT to ensure that all Sections have an agreement in place and that guidance and advice is issued to fulfil these aims.

2) To campaign and expose any area of the Department that refuses or blocks any such agreements.

3) Encourage in every Section Union Learning representatives, and that it clarifies the exact role of a ULR.

4) Provide guidelines on where funding will come from in order that ULR’s can get on with their role.

5) Ensures that we target and encourage ULR’s in specific groups of our membership i.e. low paid members, Professional Managers Association (PMA) of PCS.

6) Appoint a ULR co-ordinator/s from the GEC to take forward this important area of work.

ETR Nottingham 019047