You are:

Union's response to Land forces and DE and S early release scheme consultation document

The letter below has been sent by Alan Dennis in response to the Land forces and DE and S early release scheme consultation document

From:

Alan Dennis

Chair

Defence council of civil service unions

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

To:

Marlene Morley

Head DE and S collocation team

and

Sue Scott-Curtis

Director civilian HR Land forces

_______________________________________________________________________________

Dear Marlene and Sue


On behalf of the MoD Non-Industrial Trade Unions the following represents our comments on your consultation document at reference A:

  1. The NITU welcomes the decision of the MOD to end a period of uncertainty for our members and we believe that the Early Release Scheme (ERS) will be welcomed by some who can now make informed career choice. We also welcome the decision to ring fence the current release terms for staff in scope of Project Hyperion. We are broadly supportive of the proposal set out in the Reference but, as could be expected, we have a number of questions and queries.
  2. Our position remains that we expect the department to offer the widest possible choice for all staff impacted by the Land Forces proposal. This means a guarantee of a job for those who want one, the best possible early release terms for those who wish to leave and a guarantee that none of our members is coerced by management when making choices about their future career.
  3. Whilst we welcome this ERS the NITU remain fundamentally opposed to DE&S Collocation and PACE/Future Options and also the Hyperion Collocation. We remain to be convinced that these moves are an effective and proper use of taxpayers’ money and believe that ultimately these projects are crude cuts driven exercises that will not improve support to the frontline, will increase workloads for our members and will have contributed to the destruction of staff morale across the department.
  4. In Para 16 - first bullet point, there is an assumption made about ihub posts and the required skill sets needed that many surplus staff would not fit the grade even with training. This is a counterproductive statement and nonsense, of course staff can be retrained, but given the way that LF have allowed varied types of recruitment into these posts, often changing criteria, job description and tasks there is little wonder that these posts are not seen as an attractive proposition by staff.
  5. The third bullet point states ‘Other local MOD and OGD opportunities are few and far between’ we would challenge that statement given that, from our knowledge and engagement on Project Hyperion, LF have never actively gone out to OGD in relation to job opportunities. If they did, could we be provided with the details? Further on in paragraph 17 there is a commitment to do this and we would ask that LF provide the NITU with a point of contact for future reference and explain how the intended process will work? We also request clearer details of assistance that will be offered to staff such as MODOPS, CV writing, interview practice, retraining etc.
  6. Para 16 – Project Hyperion Sub Para 2 – although figures are given for Admin Assistants (E2), only a percentage is given for Admin Officers (E1). What will be the total number of Admin Officer (E1) required in the new HQLF at Andover, can you also include the total number in the Lodger Units that will be collocated on the Andover site? How many are there now? How many are currently vacant? How many Admin Officer (E1) posts will end up in the Hyperion Surplus Pool (RDP)? Can we have this information broken down by locations, a simple spreadsheet would suffice.
  7. In addition to our query about the number of proposed E1 posts we would also ask how this figure has been calculated, given that the Hyperion reduction was supposed to be 242 posts although we assume that the balance of posts is covered by those further reductions on which we are still waiting to be consulted.
  8. There is an indication of the number of surplus staff but no final figures. We would ask for tables giving a breakdown of the numbers of surplus staff by pay band, grade, and site. These figures should cover all staff, not just LF and DE&S. We would also draw attention to the existence of a number of DE&S staff at Wilton and Andover and ask what the implication of this is for them.
  9. Para 18 – Can you confirm the numbers of Casuals, Contract and Fixed Term workers that will be used and the length of time they will be employed for?
  10. Para 19 - The problems with transport does apply to Wilton – and also Netheravon and Upavon. However we are still waiting for details of how the HQ has secured improved transport for those at such sites, whether it is by an Assisted Travel Scheme, the negotiation of improved fast bus services for which staff would have to pay (but could claim through EFA), and/or by the provision of an Andover station bus making rail travel a viable option for some. We would ask that the transport situation be clarified before applications have to be made.
  11. In Para 20, the final sentence talks about ‘consideration together with other measures in order to manage down the LF surplus number of non mobile staff’ we would ask you expand on this and remind you that the NITU oppose compulsory redundancies and of the LF obligation to comply fully with Cabinet Protocols. Given that there is a possibility you may not achieve the numbers needed by an ERS, dependant on the take up by staff, we would ask what the fall back position is.
  12. Para 21 – We would like to request the inclusion of staff working in the Defence Academy (Centre TLB) who are being declared surplus as a result of the Land Forces move into Andover and yet to date have been prevented from applying for an ERS. We understand that Land Forces are planning to take over the running of the Andover Training Centre but do not have a requirement for the staff working there. At the very least we expect all posts impacted should be tagged, with the incoming LF posts (and any remaining DE&S staff who may carry out the same function), as duplicated, with all eligible staff ‘ring fenced’ and able to compete for the posts in the new structure.
  13. Para 21 - There are part time staff at Band D who are non-mobile. We would expect the Department to confirm that they are also eligible for the ERS.
  14. In respect of Para 29, we are concerned that staff currently surplus in this ring fenced area i.e. already in the RDP are not being given priority for the ERS. We would suggest this is both desirable and a requirement of the relevant PRG. We would ask that the criteria be amended to reflect firstly, that staff in the RDP will be invited to apply for the ERS and secondly the priority status of staff currently in the RDP to be considered for vacant posts arising from the ERS.
  15. On eligibility of locations at the meeting on the 24 Jul 09, we raised the issue of non-mobile staff in Camberley, Worthy Down and Blandford, it was stated that any non-mobile staff affected by Hyperion in these three areas who do not move, will go in the RDP and from there they can apply for the ERS, how will LF communicate that message to these staff? We wish to know whether there are any such surplus LF staffs at Blandford, Worthy Down and Camberley as a result of reductions or from the relocation because of the travel to work area. If there are no staffs at these locations that are forthcoming, can LF offer the ERS to other staff on those sites who might thereby provide vacancies? However in these circumstances we do recognise that the number of such opportunities would be few in number.
  16. We are surprised that Middle Wallop has not been included given it’s proximity to Andover, can LF reconsider adding this location? Netheravon is closing so non-mobiles staff there would not fit the criteria of leaving a job vacancy, but there are non-mobiles in the organisation impacted by Hyperion (CESO(A)) and we would ask that it is included.
  17. Terms & Conditions of Release, what guarantee is there that those staff not moving to Andover until much later 2011/12 will have their Compulsory CER/CES terms ring fenced can we have some clarification and assurance of how this will be managed? This is seen by the NITU as critical for those staff leaving late on in the process when the CSCS terms may very well have changed.
  18. Para 25 mentions presentations to affected staff, by this we believe you mean the surplus, but what about the wider audiences in the SPTA area, will there be road shows?
  19. Para 27 – Those staff who are successful for the ERS and are released before September 2010, and who are in receipt of the Upavon RRA, will they lose the benefit of the RRA being consolidated into their pay (mark time rates of pay), thus loosing an enhanced pension? If the employee is successful on the ERS could they go on mark time pay ASAP so that the RRA is then consolidated into their pay for pension purposes? PPPA could then calculate pension based on consolidated pay, which would then enhance the pension benefit available to these staff on leaving?
  20. Who will form the selection panels and for those unsuccessful will there be an appeals panel?
  21. In paragraph 32 it confirms that once release dates are issued they are non-negotiable and yet this is caveated with ‘unless business area collocation moves are delayed for any reason’, why does flexibility only exist for the business needs and not the individual needs? It is our understanding of the PRG that the release dates are negotiated between the Line Manager and employee and once set can only be changed by mutual agreement, therefore we do not agree that staff can be required to remain if the move dates are slipped once a date is agreed by both parties it can only be varied by mutual consent. Can you further clarify how will the dates be determined for staff on non-key sites?
  22. If the take up of the DE&S ERS is low, what arrangements are in place for those remaining DE&S staff in the RDP once HQLF start to occupy the Andover site, where will they be accommodated?
  23. Enclose 4 – EDIAT – Para 39, the NITU are aware that both Upavon and Wilton have an above average number of staff with disabilities. Was this taken into account when compiling the EDIAT, and we would seek clarification of the statement ‘no diversity impacts have been identified’ The NITU are aware of staff being placed in the RDP and moving to Andover, we are also aware of a number of staff with mobility issues could find it difficult to commute to Andover, has this been taken into account?
  24. The EDIAT also states that there is no impact on Sex, surely this is incorrect, most of the E Band staff that this affects are female, so what evidence is there that female workers are not adversely impacted?
  25. The NITU are also aware that the EDIAT used by Project Hyperion needs reviewing and this is scheduled for September, can this be reviewed now and the findings presented to the NITU?
  26. We have the following additional comments on the CD:
  • Scope – TLBs Covered. The scheme as outlined only covers LF and DE&S staff yet there are other staff at sites who may be required to relocate or whose early release would provide job opportunities for other staff who are currently surplus. As DE&S and LF are the instigators of this relocation, they should also pay for all the releases. It is part of the new ways of working that HQLF wishes to adopt that staff must stop thinking in stovepipes, but by only considering LF staff, this is what LF are doing. All the staff on these sites, and neighbouring sites are by definition employees of the MOD, and would be viewed as such by an Employment Tribunal, and should be treated equally. Therefore the scheme must be open to staff in all TLBs and Trading Funds. So to be clear we want other staff to be eligible if it will open up vacancies for those staff that are losing their jobs under Hyperion who want to continue their career, but we do not want releases at the expense of Hyperion impacted staff who want to leave.
  • Scope – Key Sites. The major locations that need to be covered are those for the current key sites which are likely to have the biggest problems – Andover, Netheravon, Wilton and Upavon. At the very least all these sites must be included in the scheme. We do not understand why Netheravon was not included?

We therefore look forward to full responses to these issues.

 

Yours sincerely


Alan Dennis


 

 


 

View all News

Social Bookmarking

How to use social bookmarking