Public and Commercial Services Union

PCS members may have seen the recent internal recruitment changes that MoD have imposed on staff - the changes were communicated in the June/July 2009 edition of Paper Clips.

PCS has registered a formal disagreement over the proposals, which are opposed by us and staff and which have been imposed without our agreement.

Under the MoD's own policy rules and guidance, MoD management in this case Susan Scholefield, are required to respond to a formal disagreement by "making every possible effort to ensure matters are resolved" We are demanding that the legitimate concerns of our members are addressed - PCS and staff are opposed to military only selection panels, promotion bans, maximum tour lengths and the latest MoD attack on surplus staff.

The other non industrial trade unions are also opposed to these proposals but felt unable to support our proposal to object formally to the imposed changes.

The text of our letter of formal disagreement is below.

PCS will keep members informed of development, including the response that we receive from the employer.

---

10 June 2009

Ms Susan Scholefield
Director General Human Resources & Corporate Services
Ministry of Defence
Main Building
Level 6 Zone D
London
SW1A 2HB

 

Dear Susan,

I am writing on behalf of PCS to lodge a formal disagreement in respect of the above policy and recent changes imposed by the department.

We have a number of concerns about the changes that the department has made to internal recruitment practises that have not been adequately addressed, or indeed addressed at all, by management in our recent discussions.

In particular there are a number of fundamental issues for PCS that must be addressed:

1.  We are 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' is simply not acceptable to us. The reality is that this is a fundamental change is policy and approach which is unacceptable to PCS and to staff in MoD.

We believe that there your imposed policy change imperils fair and open competition and will destroy what little confidence still exists about the transparency and objectivity of selection panels.

We are unaware of anywhere else in the civil service where appointments to civil service jobs would be made without a civil servant being involved in the appointment.

2.  We 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. It is already of concern to us that too many vacant posts are filled through other means when we are aware that the particular location/grade has surplus staff who could undertake the role. This imposed policy change will exacerbate the problem.

The fact that RDP staff 'fail' to make use of the exclusively period is less to do with the policy and approach and more to do with MoD failure to notify RDP staff on vacancies and to ensure that effort is made to facilitate applications from surplus staff.

3.  Your imposed policy on minimum tour length amount, in our opinion, 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.

Finally, and in view of our recent discussion in respect of the ER Review you should be aware that PCS considers this as a classic example of how consultation works in MoD, or rather does not work.

The department originally contacted us informally about your 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 also the proposed changes relating to surplus staff.

We 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. DCP staff responsible for the IRDD in fact seemed concerned only with rebutting our concerns, evidence and compromise proposals (although we accept cosmetic changes have been made) and then moving to impose the changes as quickly as possible.

As such this process is a good example of how MoD consultative arrangements are failing staff in the department.

I look forward to receiving your reply and learning how you intend to resolve our formal disagreement.

Yours sincerely

Paul Barnsley, national officer