You are:

Internal recruitment deep dive stage 3 consultation

Please find below the consultation document PCS has received on the Internal Recruitment Deep Dive (IRDD) stage 3 for your consultation.

We have issued these documents for coherence not because we agree with the proposed changes.

As you will be aware PCS was raising a registered disagreement over the IRDD, and it is worthwhile detailing why we did so.

The department originally contacted us informally about the proposals to change internal recruitment practises. PCS – and the other non-industrial trade unions – attended meetings and supplied detailed written comments on the proposals.

We made it clear that we were willing to compromise but that there were a few ‘red line’ areas for us, particularly in respect of military only panels and the proposed changes relating to surplus staff.

The issues raised by PCS were not addressed by the MOD and the proposed changes to internal recruitment are being imposed.

The fundamental issues for PCS that the department failed to address:

  1. We were not content with the imposed policy change that will bring into being military only selection panels for civil service jobs. The notion that we could agree to military only panels on the basis that the employer 'will seek to use a civilian where practicable' was not acceptable to our members. The reality is that this is a fundamental change is policy and approach which is unacceptable to PCS and to staff in MoD.
  2. We believe the imposed policy change imperils fair and open competition and will destroy what little confidence still exists about the transparency and objectivity of selection panels.
  3. After consulting our members is was clear that they are fundamentally opposed to management proposals to end the exclusivity period for staff in the redeployment pool (RDP). This proposal undermines the national agreement that PCS has with the Cabinet Office in respect of the job protocols. It is critical that staff who are surplus - and therefore most at risk of compulsory redundancy - have the first chance to apply for vacant posts.
  4. The imposed policy on minimum tour length amounts to a two year promotion ban for our members and the maximum tour length will do little to help the department develop and nurture key skills. We believe that thousands of our members would be disadvantaged by the imposed new policy.

PCS entered the process in good faith and with a view to reaching agreement. We are angry that yet again our considered views and those of our members on these important changes have been ignored. We are dedicated to consulting and engaging with our members on proposed changes unlike the MoD and look forward to your responses.
Please send any comments you have no later than 19 August 2009 to Rob Bowers at rob.bowers366@mod.uk or K C Jones at PCSUnion-VicePresident@mod.uk or Paul Barnsley at PAULBA@pcs.org.uk

 

 

INTERNAL RECRUITMENT DEEP DIVE – STAGE 3

Introduction

1. The aim of this document is to outline the Department’s proposals for delivering a comprehensive review into the internal recruitment service. We have already delivered Stages One (“quick wins” ) and Two which we consulted you on previously. The third and final stage of the “deep dive” will be completed in October and as part of this work we are considering a number of further policy changes. We have outlined our proposals in this paper which forms the basis for the MOD to consult Trade Unions.

Background

2. Through the People Programme II/PPPA Maturity Programme the Department launched a detailed review of the internal recruitment policies, processes and technology. The review is expected to last until October 2009 and will consist of the following three key milestones:-

· Stage One – We have already delivered a number of “quick wins” which were implemented on 6th October.

· Stage Two (July 09) – Focused on the following key areas:-

a. A Corporate Civil Service and MOD Requirement - We considered how the internal recruitment service could be better utilised to build a single workforce and consider how it might be used to help staff development.

b. Business Needs – we considered how we could improve the actual process for filling posts.

c. PRG/Portal. We also plan to reflect any changes to the Internal Recruitment policy and process in a simplified format which is proposed as part of the PRG/Portal project.

· Stage Three – (October 09) – Will focus on implementing all remaining deliverables identified by the IRDD project.

This consultation document focuses on Stage 3.

The Internal Recruitment Process

3. The fundamental aim of the Internal Recruitment process is to fill posts making best use of staff to meet business needs. In particular it should:-

· Trust managers and make them accountable for choices based on competence and the business needs of the Department;

· Allow for development to meet future business needs and individual aspirations;

· Recognise the need to make opportunities available to staff who are expected to take responsibility for management of their own careers;

· Meet obligations to, and make use of, the resource represented by staff without posts: and

· Promote diversity (with particular reference to alternative working patterns)


Issues Considered During Stage 3 of the IRDD

4. Post Rotation. The changes we are proposing for October 09 revolve around post rotation. In particular, we propose the following:-

· Allow Band B2 and Band D “passport holders” to be post rotated into vacancies without the requirement for a competition. Passport holders have already demonstrated their competence to operate at Band D or Band B2 level through the Assessment Centre process and for the purposes of post rotation should be considered on par with substantive staff of that grade. Recruiting line managers will, of course, be free to raise a requisition if they so wish.

· Remove the current restriction which precludes the post rotation of staff into newly created posts. It is considered that this places unnecessary restrictions on business areas and denies opportunities for staff who may be interested in acquiring an opportunity through the post rotation process.

· Allow the spouses/partners of MOD civil servants who are also MOD civil servants to be placed in the RDP when they move geographically to another location (outside the travel to work area) as a result of a bulk move.

Implications for Employees

5. The proposed changes will impact upon all staff involved in the internal recruiting process.

Timescale for Implementation

6. As discussed above, it is proposed to implement the proposed changes in October 2009.

Communication

7. It is recognised that a comprehensive communications package will need to be developed to ensure that all staff (recruiting line managers, independents and applicants) affected by the proposed changes are made fully aware of the new working arrangements.


ANNEX A

 

REVIEW OF THE REDEPLOYMENT POOL ARRANGEMENTS

Introduction

1. Apart from the proposal to remove the RDP exclusivity period which is discussed in the main paper above the following paragraphs details a number of additional proposals which emerged from the 2007/8 Review of the Redeployment Pool (RDP) arrangements.

2. The major issues emerging from the review are discussed below.

The Treatment of Long-Term RDP Cases

3. This is an issue of increasing frustration to the TLBs, particularly for staff in non-mobile grades. Representations have been made in recent months by Defence Estates and the DE&S over their inability to bring to a satisfactory conclusion the cases of staff who have been on the RDP for a period of time and for whom suitable opportunities have not arisen or they have failed to secure a new post (either because they are genuinely not suitable or because they do not make an effort at interview). The regulations on when and how to offer staff voluntary early release (on Compulsory terms) are clear and well-referenced, but if the individual refuses the offer of voluntary release, the line manager cannot force acceptance and, short of stepping-up redeployment options and considering enforcing mobility (which for staff in non-mobile grades in remote locations is often not possible), there is little alternative for line managers than to allow the individual to remain, often unproductive, in the RDP. This is unsatisfactory to the business, to the individual, to the line manager and to the TU Side. As at end-March 2008, around 25% (240) of the inhabitants of the RDP (1040) had been in there for at least 6 months beyond their post-end date. Of these, around half were staff in non-mobile grades and therefore with, potentially, limited redeployment options.

4. Where opportunities for staff exist, TLBs would like to effectively manage individuals into suitable posts. For difficult, long-term cases, where all justifiable options have been explored, the option of compulsory redundancy on a case by case basis should be considered.

5. The current Redundancy Agreement (although in the process of being revised) does not support individual compulsory redundancy. In order to effect compulsory redundancies, a field of redundancy around grade or specialism needs to be drawn up and selection made from all those who fall within the unit of redundancy: but this does not guarantee that it will be the surplus staff who will actually be made redundant. The draft revision of the Redundancy Agreement, which was initially put to the TU Side in March 2008 and over which discussions are due to recommence early in 2009, includes a clause to allow for individual compulsory redundancy after the individual has been on the RDP for 12 months – but this will only be permitted within certain very strict criteria (still to be drawn up). This remains one of the unresolved issues.

6. Experience of other Departments who have encountered a similar problem is that management by a more centralised team with authority to “force post” into a reasonable post, rather than relying on line management, does have some benefits; and that, often, the threat of disciplinary action if it can be demonstrated that they have not done everything they might have done to find an alternative post, is sufficient to focus individuals’ minds. This is, however, a problem that will not be easily resolved without a change to the Redundancy Agreement.

Proposal

7. We propose that we continue to seek to resolve this issue by agreement through the continuing work on revision of the Department’s Redundancy Agreement. We aim to establish an agreed route / policy which enables the Department to, exceptionally, make an individual compulsorily redundant through the Redeployment Pool, within very taut criteria, providing all other reasonable options have been exhausted as outlined in the Cabinet Office Strengthened Protocols for Handing Surplus Staff Situations.


Support to Employment of Service Families

8. Service personnel and their families make a vital contribution to the whole of the United Kingdom. When a Service person moves location, their family often moves too. This can cause unemployment for partners and children beyond full-time education but still at home. As part of the work commissioned by the Prime Minister, which reported in July 2008 , we are committed to providing greater assistance to spouses and families of Service personnel to finding alternative employment in the public sector when they relocate. As part of our commitment to this work, we propose to offer priority consideration through the RDP to Service spouses and family members who already work for the Department in a permanent post, in order to help them identify a suitable post at the new location and continue their career with the Department. Detailed rules still need to be worked up but it is intended that this concession would not be extended to staff employed on terms other than permanent ie, those employed as casuals or on a Fixed Term Appointment in the UK, or as a UK Dependent at an overseas location. (NB: Those who have been granted ExSUL in order to accompany spouse, military or civilian, on an overseas tour are already given access to the RDP on expiry of their leave in order to facilitate their return to the Department. There is no need to change the regulations for these staff.) Additionally, it is not intended that there will be an entitlement to civilian relocation allowances or pay until the individual has actually taken up a new appointment: inclusion in the RDP would not entitle them to receive pay.

Proposal

9. We propose to include the spouses and family members of Service personnel who have been working for the Department in a permanent appointment in the RDP, in order to help them identify a suitable post at the new location. Further work needs to be undertaken on a clear set of rules to be applied in these circumstances.
 

Addition to the RDP in a TUPE ETO Redundancy Situation

10. Guidance is already in place in the PRG document for situations where staff face compulsory redundancy immediately following transfer to a contractor in a TUPE situation. The current position is that staff who have been identified as facing potential compulsory redundancy by the preferred bidder for Economic, Technical or Organisational (ETO) reasons will be given access to the RDP up to but not beyond the date of transfer: if they have not identified and taken up duty in a new post by the date of transfer (Vesting Day), they will transfer to the contractor as planned. To date, this issue has been addressed on a fairly ad hoc basis, but it is likely to receive a greater degree of focus following the recent publication of the “Good Practice for Managing the People Consequences of Outsourcing or Privatisation” document by the Cabinet Office. Publication of this document, which is the result of an agreement between the Cabinet Office and the National CCSU, requires Departments to consider options which would result in the prevention of compulsory redundancy immediately following transfer.

11. The number of instances where redundancies are identified by the preferred bidder ahead of transfer is relatively small, but nonetheless important. The publication of the Cabinet Office document does not require us to alter our approach to these situations but warrants the production of a standard letter for line management to issue to assigned individuals. A template letter is attached at Annex B.

Proposal

12. We propose the template letter is introduced to the suite of template letters as quickly as Portal publishing allows.

Overseas Posts

13. To bring consistency to the internal recruitment process it is proposed that, for requisitions for overseas posts, RDP applicants should be afforded priority status except where the reason for them being in the RDP was because an overseas posting was coming to an end.

Proposal

14. We propose that RDP applicants should be afforded priority status when applying for an overseas post but the restrictions on priority consideration for staff due to return from an overseas tour remain in place.


 

View all News