You are:

Review and update to Conference 2009 paper 1

22 April 2010

Conference paper 1 2009 that was passed by conference with a number of amendments set out for the MoD group to do a review of our current structures and bring appropriate motions to conference 2010. Due to various higher priorities in the past year this review has not been fully completed but it will definitely be finished by 2011. However a substantial amount of work has been done to progress this work and improve our structures.

1. Branch Structures

 

Over the last year we have continued to look to ensure that every member is part of a fully functioning and active branch. As a minimum we want to have the 4 key officer positions filled in every branch within the MoD group. We have managed to actively bring through/elect a number of new branch secretaries, branch chairs, branch organisers and branch treasurers over the last year which has enabled struggling branches to get back on their feet. In some cases we have looked to merge branches and balloted members where appropriate. But there are still 14 braches without a branch secretary, 20 branches without a branch chair, 30 branches without a branch organiser and 20 branches without a branch treasurer. This situation cannot continue.

Geographical branches based on Ministry of Defence locations

 

Since 2008 we have reduced our number of branches by 19 from 72 to 53. Further work is taking place which will see the reduction of branches by at least 6 more by mid-2010. This will leave us with 47 branches made up on a geographical basis predominately made up of staff working directly for the Ministry of Defence.

In the vast majority of cases where we have merged or re-structured branches we have seen an improvement in the functions of branches with an increase in activity and increase of members. But in a couple of cases this has not been the case. This is why it is important that any proposed major review of our groups branch structures we ensure that any changes are well thought out, tested and going to improve our current structures to the benefit of members.

In January 2010 members in MoD Andover, MoD Upavon, MoD Salisbury and MoD Stonehenge & Whitehorse branches voted to merge together. This will create a large widely spread out branch with 16 workplaces covering an area of approximately 60 miles across. We will need to give this new branch some time to fully establish itself but if it is proved that this new structure can work well then maybe this model will be an example of how our structures can be replicated in future. This may see a drastic reduction in the number of branches in the future. As now the role of branch secretaries, branch chairs, branch organisers and branch treasurers are of paramount importance but at the same time the role of local reps at each workplace and our communication structures are critical to ensuring this is successful.

Trading Funds

 

With trading fund branches these structures will largely continue to be influenced by the structure set by management.

Defence Company branches

 

The group are looking at our current 14 branches that are formed of members in defence companies. There are currently members working for 37 different defence companies that are part of the MoD Group.

The GEC recognises that for some time this group of members have not had a suitable structure and resource to allow them to develop and grow to their full potential within the MoD Group. It also recognises that in future the number of members working as civil servants directly for the MoD and those working for defence companies may change drastically in the coming years.

There are currently about 250 privatisation plans of varying sizes in the pipeline across the MoD with the real threat of more. Whilst the unions’ position is to oppose all privatisations the reality is that we will be unable to halt all such plans. So we will have to be prepared to deal with the needs of members in such situations and be in a position to effectively organise within these private companies and consortiums.

These branch structures will likely change as contracts change and members move. We will need to regularly review these to ensure that these structures reflect this. It is necessary we develop a workable and sustainable structure that can accommodate this to allow us to take the opportunity to recruit and build our activity in these areas where we identify real potential for growth and organisation.

The GEC set up a working party to produce papers relating to constitutional changes and our organising approach. These have been submitted but further work is necessary on these proposals.

Branch Mergers

 

In recent years the Group Executive Committee as a whole and ODSC in particular have focused our efforts on reviewing the status and structure of branches and, where organisational benefits can be identified or membership levels fall below a certain level (50 members and less, as per our unions National Organising Strategy), have encouraged branches to merge, usually subject to a ballot of the respective branch members.

As such, over the last 2 years, the total number of MoD branches has decreased from 91 (72 core MoD, 4 Trading Funds, 15 Defence Companies) to 72 (53 core MoD, 5 Trading Funds, 14 Defence Companies). High profile mergers have taken place in North and West London, Hampshire, Wiltshire and Yorkshire amongst others.

Way forward

 

Whilst it is understandable, and to be expected, that no branch mergers will happen seamlessly and without some difficulties or organisational challenges, it is clear that the GEC and ODSC in particular has a role to play in trying to mitigate those difficulties and support local activists and members at a time of change and upheaval. At the moment, the responsibility for providing that support rests almost solely with the respective GEC RLO. In acknowledgement of that fact, the following is recommended as a way forward on branch mergers:

Pre-merger

  • The ODSC to work with the respective GEC RLO and any local activists to develop a merger plan and risk register to capture early any potential problems and proposed mitigation
  • In the event that the merger will be subject to a ballot of members, the ODSC and RLO to arrange site visits and members meetings before or during the ballot period, to address directly, at an early stage, any concerns from members and local activists as well as explain the benefit and rationale behind the proposal.

Post-merger

 

  • The ODSC, GEC RLO and any local activists to develop a 12 month organisational action plan for the first 12 months of the new branch, to be reviewed at regular (bi-monthly or quarterly) intervals and, where deemed necessary, followed-up with further site visits and members meetings
  • Any merged branches to remain on the ODSC ‘Special Projects’ list for that 12 month period.


Summary

As you will see from the above the GEC have been working on a case by case basis to make improvements to our branch structures taking a carful, consulter and methodical approach. The GEC recognise that there is the need for a full and thorough review that will set clear recommendations and priorities. This is still in development but the GEC resolve to complete this before Group Conference 2011.

 

2. Regional Committees

 

Conference 2009 Paper 1 amendment stated:

‘That the remaining regional committees are given a year to prove their worth. If they can provide tangible evidence of how they are improving the communication and representation of the membership, they should be allowed to continue. If they do not, consideration should be given to disbanding and the money reallocated to the group treasurer to use on other campaigning issues.

That consideration should also be given to the possibility of further reducing the number of regional committees following this trail period, with the caveat that they can be reinstated should it be necessary or worthwhile doing so.

That the regional committees should be monitored by the GEC starting after Conference 2009 and running until Conference 2010 with each regional chair submitting a written report with evidence to the group president prior to Conference 2010.’

H Crosse on behalf of the GEC has attended most regional committees held throughout the year including London & SE, South West and Midlands. He made several approaches to the other regional committees, most recently at the end of January; to date he reported that he has not heard from them.

The future composition of the regional committees will be reviewed after group conference 2010 once each regional chair has submitted a written report to the group president as set out in 2009 Conference Paper 1. In line with conference 2009 decision. No reports from any of the regional committee chairs have been submitted to the group president to date.


3. Distribution and Communication

 

There were seven recommendations in Conference paper 1 to 2009 MoD group conference. Whilst we have achieved good progress in some of the areas, there is still work to be done in others. The following gives detail of where we are regarding these seven recommendations –

Defender has been issued on a quarterly basis and is the one publication issued by the group guaranteed to get to every member in the MoD group. Therefore, Defender is used as the corner stone of MoD group communication

It has been a constant battle to get articles submitted by either GEC members or others during the year, therefore as editor; it has been a case of ‘beggars can’t be choosers’ for me this year. However, the vast majority of articles published were regarding generic MOD issues such as pay or particular areas in the MOD. There is little doubt the challenges we face in the coming year(s) will be even tougher and we must ensure that articles submitted for Defender reflect these challenges

A TLB newsletter has been issued, but unfortunately there have only been two issues since MoD group conference 2009. GEC workloads, and changing priorities have meant that we have not been able to fulfil this recommendation completely.

The MoD part of the website is now populated on a daily or at worst, weekly basis and it is stressed to members that this should be the first port of call for MoD group information. We have also put out a record number of MB’s in the last year, all of which went out in electronic format in the first instance, thus getting immediate communication to members and branches. One of the supplementary tasks around the CSCS campaign is to build non-work email and telephone distribution lists to be able to contact. Once this is complete, it will give is another form of electronic communication.

Pressures of work and other priorities have meant that we have not been able to track the onward distribution of PCS literature branch officials to members. Whilst this should remain an objective, it is a labour intensive task, and not a top priority so will undoubtedly take some time to undertake.

As yet, the GEC or the ODSC have not seen regional committee or branch plans on how they will improve distribution of GEC circulars by floor walking and maintaining notice boards on a regular basis.

We have made great strides with our distributor network across the MoD group. We have increased the number of distributors recorded on the central union membership system by over 250 in the last year. We currently have over 80% of our workplaces with a distributor recorded where this figure was only 37% at the beginning of 2009.

This has meant that we have many more members contributing and supporting the union work. We are also more confident that our literature and message is getting out to members and is being discussed. As members become more aware they have been getting more active in supporting campaigns and raising issues.
Until we get to a position of having at least one distributor in every workplace, then this work will continue.


4. Networks

 

Communications – Equality & Diversity Steering Committee

 

The GEC has made progress on developing distribution lists for its sub-committees. Our new LGBT Lead was co-opted to the GEC after a trawl of members and he has made solid progress in developing an e-mail distribution list – initially comprising the other nominations for the role. Plans are in place to expand this to all LGBT members within the Group who identify a willingness to get involved in response to further communications. This network will then play a crucial role in informing the GEC’s bargaining agenda regarding LGBT issues.

Unfortunately the departure of our young members’ convenor and lack of Leads for other diversity strands has restricted progress on developing communications structures in these areas. A bulletin has recently been issued calling for new volunteers; once new Leads are identified, we can begin to develop new structures and communications networks for these diversity strands via the EDSC. The GEC have recently appointed a Black & Minority Ethnic convenor.


5. Constituency Groups

MGS: Organisation of MoD Guards has been enhanced over the last year. Key improvements are:

  • 95% now flagged as ‘MGS’ on Commix
  • Quarterly meetings of MGS Reps and activists now held
  • Regular Newsletters on guarding matters are issued
  • Numbers of MGS members and activists has increased significantly
  • Support and Related Grades (SRG)are also now flagged on Commix
  • MoD sent its full quota of four delegates to the SRG conference in 2009
  • MGS and SRG Representatives are indirectly elected through their branches
  • Existing structures for Instructional Officers (IO) are working well

Recommendation 1: Existing structures for MGS and SRG should remain as they are working well. Further constitutional amendment (for MGS and SRG) is not necessary or desirable at this time.

Recommendation 2: Instructional Officer (IO) structures should not be amended at this time. Further constitutional amendment (for IO) is not necessary or desirable at this time.


6. Whitleys

GEC members who are members of branch executive committees should not be on any Whitley below 2* Level. There is evidence that in some cases there are 3 or 4 GEC members attending the same 2* and below Whitley in the guise of being the local reps. This is an inappropriate use of our limited resources. In order for BEC members to gain more experience GEC members are to encourage BEC members to attend these meetings.

It is recognised that in some circumstances that a more experienced rep that is a GEC member may need to attend the lower level meeting, this should be done by exception and only with the approval from the President or Vice President.


 


 

View all News