Public and Commercial Services Union

As colleagues may be aware Prospect has lodged a judicial review in respect of the current early release scheme (ERS) targeted at MOD staff in London buildings, non-mobile grades in DE&S and staff at RAF St Mawgan. PCS was originally part of the judicial review but has now withdrawn.

As colleagues may also be aware the MOD personnel director, Richard Hatfield has communicated to staff that the ERS could possibly be placed on hold depending on the outcome of the judicial review.

This briefing sets out our union's position and explains why we have withdrawn from the judicial review as well as providing further information to members.

Why has the Judicial Review been lodged?

PCS and Prospect lodged the judicial review because we were concerned that the terms offered by MOD under the current departmental ERS could be inferior to those that they are required to offer in this type of situation under the rules of the civil service compensation scheme (CSCS).

Under the CSCS a department can only offer flexible or other terms to compulsory terms if it is undertaking a reorganisation and is not planning to create a redundancy situation. In a redundancy situation the CSCS is clear that only compulsory terms can be paid.

In terms of the timescale we notified MOD formally in December 2007 of our intention to seek a judicial review if they proceeded to offer flexible terms under the ERS 2008. We continued to make this clear to the PUS and the personnel director throughout the consultation process at the beginning of the year. In March 2008 we issued a circular advising members to apply for compulsory terms only under the ERS.

We made it clear to MOD that there could be a settlement to the judicial review in 2 ways:

1. MOD could reach an agreement with PCS and the other unions on how they will deal with job cuts between now and 2010. This should include a statement by MOD that there would be no compulsory redundancies. The trade unions position was that such a statement would mean that they could go ahead and offer flexible terms under the ERS.

2. MOD could pay everyone leaving under the ERS compulsory terms.

Why has PCS withdrawn from the judicial review?

Our union has withdrawn from the judicial review for three reasons.

1. We have always accepted that the ERS is a purely voluntary scheme and those who choose to apply are not compelled in any way to do so. A similar approach has been used in other Government Departments (and in fact often on inferior terms to those MOD are offering) who are compelled by government to make so called efficiency savings.

We have made it clear to members throughout that if people wish to leave the department and choose to apply for the ERS that this is their own decision and one that their union has no interest or right in preventing.

2. The MOD has issued a DIN stating that it is not in a pre-redundancy situation. This is significant under law in terms of the CSCS. It also gives staff an important protection against compulsory redundancy and indicates that all cuts in London and DE&S will be achieved through purely voluntary means.

3. Two weeks ago the department met with the trade unions and reached an agreement on the avoidance of compulsory redundancy across MOD between now and 2010.

Such an agreement would obviously provide important new protections to all staff in MOD and would effectively guarantee a job for all staff who wanted one.

We had also agreed talks around the avoidance of compulsory redundancy for staff that are outsourced by MOD. Again we believe we could have negotiated important new protection for staff that are placed by MOD in this position.

Why hasn’t Prospect withdrawn from the Judicial Review?

Prospect subsequently refused to sign the agreement, stating that it effectively wanted guarantees that some of their 'specialist' grade members would never be made redundant because their skills were so important to the Department.

This was not accepted by the department (or by PCS) and therefore Prospect have gone ahead with the judicial review

What happens next?

PCS believes that it is extremely regrettable that we have reached this position. We cannot accept an agreement which suggests that certain staff are more valuable than others when it comes to protection from compulsory redundancy. We want an agreement that protects all staff regardless of grade, location or job as anything else would be fundamentally unfair and divisive, setting member against member.

It is also extremely regrettable that a unilateral decision taken by Prospect scuppers an agreement we have jointly worked hard for in MOD and denies our members the protection that the agreement would afford.

PCS is continuing to work hard to secure agreements to protect all staff from compulsory redundancy, and to allow those who wish to leave to do so, and will keep members informed of progress made.
 

 

If you have any queries regarding the ERS or the judicial review, please email Paul Barnsley at paulba@pcs.org.uk