Hewison Hall
Brighton Conference Centre
19 - 20 May 2008
Revenue & Customs Group
The Public & Commercial Services Union
160 Falcon Road
London
SW11 2LN
Introduction to Standing Orders Committee (SOC) Report No. 1 3
Report of Standing Orders Committee 4
Conference timetable 5
Motions for debate (category A)
Pay (motions 1 - 7) 6
Facilities agreement (motions 8 – 14) 8
Industrial relations (motions 15 – 18) 10
Job evaluation (motions 19 – 25) 12
Workforce change (motions 26 – 37) 14
Law enforcement (motion 38) 20
Local compliance (motions 39 – 42) 20
Debt management and banking (motion 43) 23
Contact centres (motions 44 – 54) 23
Processing (motions 55 – 58) 28
Estates and support services (motions 59 – 61) 29
HR and learning (motions 62 – 64) 31
Valuation office agency (motions 65 – 67) 32
Rule amendments (motions 68 – 69) 33
Branch organisation (motions 80 – 82) 40
Group organisation (motions 83 – 95) 40
Union learning (motions 96 – 103) 44
Campaigns and communications (motions 104 – 129) 47
Flexible working hours (motions 130 – 138) 56
Bullying (motions 139 – 144) 60
Consultation on HR changes (motion 145) 63
Leave (146 – 149) 63
Discipline (motions 150 – 154) 64
Pre-surplus (motions 155 -156) 66
Sick absence (motions 157 -161) 67
Targets (motions 162 -163) 69
Temporary promotion (motions 164 -165) 69
Accommodation (motions 166 -167) 70
HR other issues (motions 168 -190) 71
Disabilities (motions 191 -196) 78
Equalities (motions 197 -203) 81
Health & safety (motions (204 - 225) 84
Motions confirming existing policy (category B)
(motions 226 -231) 93
Motions to be dealt with by correspondence (category D)
(motions 232 -247) 96
Motions covered by or composited with motions under category A (category E) (motions 248 -410) 102
Motions not properly submitted/ not proper to Group (category X) (motions 411 – 465) 166
This document contains the first report of the Standing Orders Committee with our recommendations for debate.
The opportunity to have your say will be at your branch mandating meeting. At that meeting, members instruct their branch delegates how to vote on motions to ensure that their delegates represent the views of members. Your office/branch secretary will have details of when this meeting will be held.
Over 460 motions were received from branches and the Group Executive Committee.
We have considered these and allocated them to the appropriate categories.
We realise that some branches will be disappointed that their motions have not been included in the primary agenda. However, we believe that this agenda gives the opportunity for a full and balanced debate on a wide range of issues.
We believe that if conference is disciplined with its time, then it will have the opportunity to debate all the major issues of importance to members.
As far as references back are concerned, it is our view that branches can greatly assist the SOC by making reference back only on motions submitted by themselves. If branches identify a problem in another branch’s motion, which in their opinion requires reference back, it would be appreciated if they could approach the moving branch and advise them of the problems identified and suggest that the moving branch makes the appropriate reference back.
When conference is in session, moving branches and seconders, wishing to speak, should move adjacent to the rostrum in anticipation of being called by the conference chair to speak to the motion. This will save conference time and enable more motions to be debated.
The SOC would like to thank all staff for their assistance and support, and wish all delegates the best for conference.
Martin Dutton - Chair
Es Chorlton
June Davison
Phil Kitchen
Sandy MacKay
Colin Edwards – SOC Secretary
1. The agenda and timetable have been prepared in accordance with the Standing Orders of Conference, as set out in the Revenue & Customs Group Constitution.
2. Conference sessions, unless otherwise decided by the Conference Chairperson, will be as detailed below. The full timetable of Conference is contained in this report.
Monday, 19 May 2008 - 0930 - 1730
Tuesday, 20 May 2008 - 0915 - 1430
3. In accordance with Standing Orders A17 and A18, branches must give the SOC written notice of their intention to move reference back of this SOC report with details of proposed alterations, and with reasons for it, by 12 noon on Friday, 16 May 2008. This written notice should be sent to Colin Edwards, SOC Secretary, at PCS HQ, or on coline@pcs.org.uk. The branch delegation shall meet the SOC between 14.00 and 16.30 on Sunday, 18 May 2008. Only branches which have complied with the Standing Orders may seek to move reference back to an SOC report. There is no prescriptive right to move reference back: whether a reference back is heard shall depend on the time allocation acceptable to Conference.
4. Adoption of the agenda – SOC 1 (2008) and subsequent SOC reports and timetable will be proposed at the opening of Conference.
5. The SOC has separated motions into the following categories:
Category A Motions for debate, grouped as far as practicable under the main subject headings in the annual report.
Category B Motions that confirm existing policy.
Category C Motions that seek to reverse policy as determined at conference within the last two years.
Category D Motions capable of being dealt with by correspondence with the GEC
Category E Motions covered by composite motions in category A.
Category X Motions not properly submitted or not proper to group conference.
6. Card votes Voting shall be by show of hands except when a card vote is either called by the Conference Chairperson or demanded by at least 25 delegates.
7. Emergency motions must have been passed in accordance with Standing Order 7A and must be submitted in writing to Colin Edwards, SOC Secretary at PCS headquarters or on coline@pcs.org.uk by noon on Friday,16 May 2008
8. Speech limits
We recommend the following time limits for speeches:
a) Movers of motions – four minutes
b) Seconders, GEC and other speakers and those replying - three minutes.
Monday, 19 May 2008
09.30 – 09.45 Opening of conference
President’s address
Conference appointments
Opening ballot boxes
09.45 – 10.00 SOC reports
10.00 – 10.20 Presentation of 2007 annual report
10.20 – 10.40 Pay
10.40 – 11.10 Facilities agreement
11.10 - 11.25 Other industrial relations issues
11.25 – 11.35 Job evaluation
11.35 – 11.55 Workforce change
11.55 – 12.10 Law enforcement
12.10 – 12.20 Local compliance
12.20 – 12.30 Debt management and banking
12.30 – 3.30 L u n c h
13.30 – 14.00 Contact centres
14.00 – 14.10 Finance report
14.10 – 14.40 Processing
14.40 – 14.45 Estates and support services
14.45 – 14.50 HR and learning
14.50 – 15.10 Presentation of DLM
15.10 – 15.30 B r e a k
15.30 – 16.00 Guest speaker
16.00 – 16.20 Valuation Office Agency
16.20 – 16.30 Rules
16.30 – 16.40 Branch structure
16.40 – 16.50 Group organisation
16.50 – 16.55 Union learning
16.55 – 17.05 Campaigning and communications
17.05 – 17.15 Guillotined motions
17.15 – 17.30 Presentation of DLM
Tuesday, 20 May 2007
09.15 – 09.45 Guillotined motions
09.45 – 10.15 Flexible working hours
10.15 – 10.25 Bullying
10.25 – 10.30 Consultation on HR changes
10.30 – 10.35 Annual leave
10.35 -10.40 Discipline
10.40 – 10.45 Pre-surplus
10.45 – 10.55 Sick absence
10.55 – 11.00 Targets
11.00 – 11.05 Temporary promotion
11.05 – 11.10 Accommodaton
11.10 – 11.30 B r e a k
11.30 – 11.55 HR other
11.55 – 12.05 Disabilities
12.05 – 12.20 Equalities
12.20 – 13.20 Health and safety
13.20 – 14.20 Guillotined motions
14.20 – 14.30 Closure of conference
Motion 1
The membership feels very let down by the GEC over the previous 3 year pay deal that left many of our members, especially those on their max, with below inflation pay rises. Although the GEC stated they would return to the negotiating tables if the inflation rate rose above the treasury’s remit, no evaluation or indeed a revised remit from the treasure emerged.
This GDC instructs the GEC to enter into negotiations incorporating the following conditions:
Colchester – 200022
(covers motions 248 – 261)
Motion 2
This Group conference recognises that the maximum rate of pay for each Revenue and Customs pay grade should be considered the proper rate of pay for the job.
This Conference also notes that it does not take 5 to 8 years to become fully proficient and experienced within any grade from AA to SO.
Conference therefore believes that the current pay progression system where it takes 5 years to 8 years to progress to the proper rate for the job is unnecessary and devalues the work of our members.
This conference therefore instructs the GEC to negotiate the next pay deal so that all pay grades between AA to SO span 3 years only so our members reach the maximum rate of pay within 3 years of entering their pay grade.
Leeds & District – 200056
(covers motions 262 – 264)
Motion 3
This group conference believes that the current starting rate of pay for the AA grade of £13032 is far too low and represents a wage with which our members will now struggle to enjoy a decent quality of life on.
The current rate of inflation is now at least 4% and gas, electricity, petrol, public transport prices are all rising at a rate exceeding that. It is also almost impossible to buy a house or pay affordable rent on current AA wages.
This conference therefore instructs the GEC to negotiate a minimum wage for our AA employees of £14,500 with the national starting rates for other pay bands being increased proportionally and fairly.
Edinburgh - 200037
(covers motions 265 – 266)
Motion 4
This ADC of Revenue & Customs Group is concerned at attacks on HMRC staff pay by the press. However, the ADC of Revenue & Customs Group agrees that too much of the Departmental pay remit is given over to bonuses, and in line with existing PCS policy, instructs the GEC to negotiate that this money is re-allocated to ensure a decent basic pay increase for all staff in the 2008 and subsequent pay rounds.'
Bucks & Oxon – 200140
(covers motion 267)
Motion 5
This Group Conference recognises that the maximum rate of pay for each Revenue & Customs pay grade should be considered the proper rate of pay for the job.
Whilst much has been done to address the issues of our lower paid members those on the maximum of their pay scale have found themselves falling the rate of inflation and any pay increase is often capped and not counted as pensionable pay.
This conference therefore instructs the GEC to negotiate the next pay deal to ensure that those members on the maximum of their pay scale are awarded an increase at least in line with Retail Prices Index inflation rate and that the pay ceiling for each grade is increased accordingly.
Sheffield – 200099
Motion 6
The GDC notes with concern that temporary promotees are being paid a temporary promotions allowance rather than the same rate as permanent job holders of the same grade. The GEC is instructed to rectify this anomaly in negotiations for the new Pay Agreement.
South East Wales - 200102
Motion 7
It is widely accepted that our Flexible Working Hours is one of the best things about working for this Department and that it also supports work life balance. The last 3 years pay deal, accepted by the membership, was said by the GEC to have cemented flexible working as part of our contracted terms and conditions. There has since been an obvious deterioration in our members ability to operate FWH, with a stock response from the Department who say that FWH is not a contractual right and the business needs overrides everything.
This AGC therefore instructs the GEC as part of Pay negotiations 2008 that the right to FWH to become a definitive part of all HMRC employees contracted rights.
The AGC further instructs the GEC to have this agreement enforced by seeking legal advice and support if necessary.
Northumberland & Durham – 200075
Motion 8
That this AGC recognises the difficult task faced by the GEC in negotiating the provision of facilities time within HMRC. Whilst not perfect the current agreement does contain some safeguards for members and reps, however there remain serious problems to be addressed.
1. Confusion of the operation of the system during 2007 seems to have led to possible under reporting of time used
2. There is a need for more flexibility in the profiling of a representatives time to reflect ongoing changes throughout the year
3. There is a need for a fast track settlement of complaints arising out of failure to grant additional time to deal with certain circumstances.
4. The Department needs to recognise the rights of both the worker and the accredited representative to receive and to provide representation as recorded in UK Employment Law and ACAS Codes of Practice.
Finally the GEC should resist any reduction of the allocation of facilities time until a further review to be held in 2009, allowing a full year of operation of the system introduced on September 2008.
Greater Manchester – 200135
(general debate with motion 9)
(covers motions 268 – 272)
Motion 9
That this R&C Group Annual Delegate Conference denounces the wholly unacceptable Facilities Agreement and PCS's apparent acquiescence to repeated changes by HMRC in the content and indeed the spirit of the agreement.
The GEC are instructed to reverse this position and campaign amongst the membership to explain the issue and its consequences for their representation. All means from legal action to industrial action should be considered to rectify the situation .
Leicester Revenue Network – 200059
(general debate with motion 8)
(falls if motion 8 is carried)
Motion 10
That this HMRC Group Delegates Conference notes the attack upon local activists through incompetent and crass managerial interpretations of current Facilities Time arrangements. Conference notes that further unnecessary confusion was created by ill informed management "Q&A's" which were published with no DTUS agreement. Conference endorses the strategy adopted by the GEC of supporting any activist when supplementary bids permitted under the Facilities Time arrangements are denied. However in addition conference instructs the GEC to explore better ways of allocating Facilities Time. Whilst for 2007/08 such allocations were made on a pro rata basis according to membership numbers, greater account needs to be applied to:-
l. Activity undertaken by elected Branch officials that spans the representational needs of members beyond the representatives own branch e.g. LTUS activity, Regional Committee work etc.
m. Disproportionate travelling time associated with the geographical spread of each branches membership, and/or the location of key officials within the branch.
North Yorkshire – 200079
(covers motions 273 – 274)
Motion 11
This Conference believes that HMRCs imposition of time limits for trade union training under the facilities agreement introduced in 2007 is a barrier to the effective functioning of HMRC PCS Branches. This imposition may indeed be illegal as the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 makes no reference to restricting training to 10 days in the first year of trade union office and 5 days in subsequent years.
This legislation makes it clear that employees who are officials of an independent trade union recognised by their employer are to be permitted reasonable time off during working hours to undergo training relevant to the carrying out of their trade union duties. Indeed the ACAS Guide 'Time Off For Trade Union Duties and Activities' in paragraph 21 states "Trade union officials are more likely to carry out their duties effectively if they possess skills and knowledge relevant to their duties”.
Conference acknowledges that the real reason for limiting time off for training is to make PCS in the HMRC group less competent and effective when dealing with members problems. This makes it easier for HMRC to get away with dismissing staff un-fairly, changing conditions of employment, privatising work, closing offices and cutting jobs. PCS is a democratic and campaigning union whose members deserve the right to be represented by trained and competent union representatives.
Conference therefore instructs the HMRC GEC to take advice from the PCS Solicitors on the legality of the arbitrary time limits imposed by HMRC. If their opinion is that arbitrary limits may not be legal then the GEC are instructed to negotiate the removal of these restrictions and if required consider taking legal action against HMRC.
Telford – 200114
(covers motions 275 – 276)
Motion 12
This conference is concerned managers are not reporting action taken under the MPPA (managing poor performance and attendance) guidelines to a Trade Union official when these actions are applied to trade union representatives.
Management in HMRC are placing PCS representatives under increasing scrutiny, taking action against them sooner and more forcefully than with other members of staff whilst not reporting their intentions to a trade union official. The level of action taken has been largely un-noticed at higher levels of PCS as management are not reporting their intentions under the guise that MPPA procedures manage inefficiencies and are not disciplinary in nature. We are of the belief that managers are using MPPA procedures to manage representatives out of the business in order for the action to go unnoticed and to undermine the strength of the union in local offices. We have noticed increasing incidences of discrimination towards PCS workplace representatives and believe this is an attack on the union's functions.
Conference instructs the GEC to demand that guidance is changed to advise that performance and attendance procedures do constitute disciplinary action and a trade union official should be informed when representatives are subject to them. We also instruct the GEC to recommend an investigation into actions taken against PCS representatives as we believe the amount of action is disproportionate to action taken against members of staff who are not representatives.
Liverpool Revenue – 200060
(covers motion 277)
Motion 13
This ADC disagrees with the use of part-time reps for Conduct and Discipline cases. We feel that any member who faces the possibility of C&D charges that their case should be dealt with by a professionally trained fulltime PCS rep. Therefore we instruct the GEC to negotiate 100 per cent facilities time for Personal Case Assistants.
Croydon Network – 200026
(covers motion 278)
Motion 14
That this Group Conference is astounded that a PCS lead negotiator on Facilities can agree the wording of business stream guidance and the content of the national facilities agreement with the department without the GEC voting to reject or accept such proposals.
The GEC are instructed that any future proposals on Facilities must be voted on by the GEC before a lead negotiator can agree those proposals with the department.
Ealing – 200030
This Conference deeply regrets the loss of Child Benefit data disks which, potentially, compromised the records of Child Benefit customers. We call on all PCS members to stick rigorously to the strengthened guidance on Data Protection issued by the Department, in order to avoid any dangers of such damaging events in future. We call on members to report any pressure to take short cuts which might jeopardize data security.
We deplore the knee-jerk reaction of the media and some politicians to the data loss incident. They immediately sought to scapegoat individual members of staff and set about demolishing the fine reputation for excellent customer service, built up over the previous 30 years of operations by Child Benefit staff.
We operate against a background of job cuts and repeated, frantic, re-organisations. It is inconceivable that the circumstances which led to the data loss would have occurred before HMRC Senior Managers, led by consultants and ignoring the union, introduced "Matrix Management" to the Department. Few members of staff anywhere in HMRC will find it surprising that Kieran Poynter, in compiling his interim report found it "difficult to relate roles and responsibility amongst senior management to accountability".
Conference instructs the Group Executive Committee to seek to engage with HMRC management to help develop a Departmental structure which truly delivers on Dave Hartnett's proposals to increase accountability throughout HMRC, by simplifying the organisation's structure;making it clearer who is responsible for what; and shortening lines of responsibility.
Waterview Park – 200131
(covers motions 279 and 280)
Motion 16
That this GDC notes the continuing problems of having to negotiate with 37+ business streams.
Conference therefore instructs the GEC to negotiate a return to a national Whitley system so that it can be assured that national negotiations on crucial issues such as flexi etc are dealt with centrally and binding on all businesses.
North Wales & Marches – 200078
(covers motions 281 – 284)
Motion 17
This R&C ADC notes that the Flexibility Project in Contact Centres did not provide the full consultation with PCS as promised. This ADC notes that within HMRC this has become commonplace with similar projects in other directorates.
The GEC is instructed not to agree for further projects such as this example to take place unless:
Bradford & District – 200008
Motion 18
This conference welcomes the reports that Excom will be 'Going back to the floor' & that senior members of Excom will be carrying out work on the factory floor so to speak.
Conference recognises that this may have potential benefits for members as senior management recognise the pressures on front line staff to carry out ever demanding work in difficult situations.
This conference calls the GEC to support this program in any way it can and by ensuring that it has a hand to play in the situations where Excom staff work on the front line ensuring that they mix with a large number of the staff involved & not just a' 'select few' chosen by local management.
Conference Also calls on the incoming GEC to go a step further & call for Local managers from HO level upwards to spend time carrying out Grade AA, AO & O work so that they can directly get an insight into the pressures faced by these grades of staff.
In order that a full insight can be gleamed, where possible (such as in contact centres where there is regular intakes of staff), managers should go through the full training + take calls for a minimum of a week At the very least in this scenario the GEC should call for all Contact centre managers & where possible Deputy Contact centre managers to follow this process to aid them understand the pressures of their staff.
Dundee – 200029
Motion 19
This conference agrees that increasingly our members no longer know what their job is and what is expected of them even after their jobs have been evaluated.
The GEC is therefore instructed to get agreement from the department that when a job has been evaluated a broad but clear job description will follow the evaluation and be published to all the jobholders within three months of the evaluation being agreed.
The job description much be subject to agreement with the DTUS and should reflect the job that was evaluated. If the department wants to vary the job description significantly from the job that was evaluated then that job will normally need to be re-evaluated. This instruction also applies to all the jobs that have already been evaluated in HMRC.
South East Central – North – 200062
Motion 20
Conference notes that Band O managers are increasingly becoming over worked & have an ever increasing amount of work to perform on top of their already busy duties.
These duties include tasks which would have previously been covered by staff in Estates & Support services & Human resources.
Conference notes that, HMRC has not fully thought through its planning in regard to Band O work & calls for a full review of Grade O work with full PCS involvement in order to highlight how overworked & unappreciated Band O managers are.
These issues will affect the wider membership especially in terms of Health & Safety.
This conference calls on the incoming GEC to gather information from Grade O staff in order to present this to HMRC management in order to reduce the burden & workload on Grade O staff & highlight under-resourcing & under provision .
Some options the GEC should consider calling for HMRC management to do, could be:
• An increase in Grade O coverage & staffing
• Bringing back Estates & Support services
• Anything else the GEC highlights which might decrease the stress on membership
Dundee – 200029
Motion 21
This Conference notes that the grading of Staff working in Compliance differs greatly across regimes. This motion does not seek to make any simplistic statements that staff in anyone regime doing similar work to another are under-graded. The work of the two former Departments was organised and structured differently and graded accordingly.
However, as Members from different regimes in Compliance are now involved in joint working and often co-located , the differences in grading in respect of the duties undertaken and the organisational structure is increasingly leading to concern from Members.
As an example, V A T Staff have been advised that a JEGS exercise has concluded that their posts are correctly graded. This evaluation has taken place in advance of the additional work being introduced in a lot of areas as part of integration and the changing nature of the job and JEGS appears to continue to ignore any comparative element of one post against the grading of others. There are Members who believe that PCS is ducking the issue of grading in Compliance and this requires to be addressed.
This motion instructs the GEC to consult with Members across regimes in Compliance on the issue of grading and the work which they do seeking information and the views of Members to inform subsequent future discussions with the OS to address anomalies and the position taken by negotiators.
Scotland West – 200047
Motion 22
This conference condemns the actions of HMRC management in implementing the transfer of huge areas of additional work onto Front Line Managers.
In addition to their normal management duties these members now have the added burden and responsibility for items such as Health and Safety, HR and IT.
These duties were previously dealt with by staff where it was their full time role.
They were also properly trained and had the time to properly deal with these important issues.
Each new addition to the FLM’s job is not subject to any kind of impact assessment. The training consists mainly of e-Iearning and is wholly inadequate.
Front Line Managers are being expected to carry out far more duties now than their colleagues for exactly the same salary .
We therefore instruct the GEC to call for a full review, analysis and impact assessment on the Front Line Managers role.
Edinburgh – 200037
Motion 23
This Group Conference instructs the GEC to ensure that the HMRC job- evaluation exercise on text production includes all typists, integrated and non- integrated and condemns the lack of feedback since we were first consulted on this in June 2006
Northern Ireland – 200082
Motion 24
This GDC instructs the GEC to oppose any attempts to regrade work under the guise of “teamworking” as defined in SCS 104/05, without full discussion with local PCS representatives.
South East Wales Network – 200102
Motion 25
This Conference is concerned that, despite a motion of censure of the Group Executive being carried at the 2006 Conference (Motion 1), no action has been taken which resolves the anomalous pay situation for the former HMC&E Band 8 and 10 grades. It therefore instructs the GEC to take all necessary and available action to ensure a re-valorisation of pay scales for Bands 8 and 10 in the 2008 pay negotiations.
Those who remain in these former HMC&E grades have had no consolidated pay rise since the 2004 pay agreement and are unable to opt for HMRC equivalent grading without experiencing considerable loss in earnings. Without immediate action by the GEC the pay of this group of members, as well as the consequent effect on pension entitlement, will continue to be frozen for at least a further three years for Band 8 and five years for Band 10.
Scotland East – 200050
SECTION 5 – WORKFORCE CHANGE
Motion 26
That this Group Delegate Conference condemns HMRC for the disgraceful way it has treated its employees through the Workforce Change /Urban Review process, especially in relation to the One to Ones and the Moderating Panel procedures.
Members have been put under undue pressure to agree to transfers involving difficult and/or lengthy journeys, and little or no account had been taken of personal circumstances (including caring responsibilities and disabilities)
This Group Delegate Conference instructs the GEC to put together a pack to help branches who will be involved in future reviews. Branches have struggled to deal with all the issues arising from announcements without full support and we feel that more could be done to help alleviate some of the stress this has put on many reps. The pack to include:
• Guidance on dealing with the 1 to 1 interviews
• Guidance on the Grievance Procedure, to be used where members do not agree with the Moderating Panel decision
• Guidance on the Appeal Procedures.
The pack should be available well in advance of the announcements due for the “clusters” and the “individual” offices.
Northants - 200081
Motion 27
That this Group Conference is concerned that offices are being closed without the department running Full Impact assessments on diversity and equality. The GEC are instructed to ensure that the department conduct Full Impact assessments in accordance with the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000, Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the disability Equality Duty on Public Authorities. The Full Impact to be conducted both when an office is deemed for closure and also when all work of a business stream is transferred to another part of the country.
Ealing 200030
(covers motion 285)
Motion 28
This Conference notes that increasing office closures are having a disproportionate effect on part time workers. With management's attempts to cover the jobs gap with initiatives such as Lean, Pacesetter and Leap Forward, staff who have alternative working patterns are being placed under unacceptable pressure to change their work patterns to suit whatever management wants at the time. There are also concerns that this will have a negative impact on those requesting flexible working.
Conference believes that HMRC should not solve its problems at the expense of part time workers and others on alternative working patterns.
Conference therefore instructs the GEC to:-
1. Produce publicity for members to set out their rights and highlight the fact that undue pressure from management about their working patterns is unacceptable
2. Provide information for local reps on defending members on AWPs
3. Establish and publicise an escalation route for cases that cannot be resolved at local level with the aim of not only monitoring the problem but holding the Department to family friendly policies.
Edinburgh – 200037
(covers motion 286)
Motion 29
That this Group Conference notes the office closure programme taking place under 'Workforce change' in HMRC. Part of this is the intention to centralise staff in urban centres and only retain small numbers of enquiry centre staff in local outlying areas.
Conference notes that HMRC management has entered into a pilot with DWP to provide Face to face services in DWP offices/Jobcentres.
Conference calls on the Group Executive Committee to work closely and campaign with the DWP GEC and with claimant support organisations to ensure that enough support to be available to deal with vulnerable claimants and those who require face to face services.
Conference further calls on the Group Executive Committee to work closely and campaign with the DWP GEC on the following issues: -
To obtain full information about the work done in offices where this is being piloted.
Particularly on the peaks and troughs of customer levels and to ensure that the buildings/staff can cope.
To examine Health & Safety implications of HMRC work being done in DWP workplaces.
To Survey members in DWP and HMRC on how this affects their work.
To investigate if the combination of work would mean Jobcentres/HMRC enquiry centres services are harder to close and therefore retaining services and jobs in a local area.
To consider all of above issues with the DWP GEC and produce a joint report for all members
Greater Manchester - 200135
Motion 30
This R&C Group ADC notes with serious concern the way in which management have applied the Reasonable Daily Travel guidance in relation to the proposed office closure in Bath and other locations threatened with closure under the Workforce Change programme.
Members have experienced inconsistency in the interpretation of the RDT guidance by moderating panels and as a result have had to go through the grievance procedure which has been distressing for most. In some cases the moderating and grievance panels have stretched "about an hour" to mean way in excess of 60 minutes, and have also tried to massage down travel times to a level that they see as within 'about an hour' by dictating members use alternative modes of transport, different routes, or travel at different times of the day - this is unacceptable.
Conference is appalled at the way the department is treating members of staff who are faced with an uncertain future. At a time when the department should be supporting its staff, it is making them feel vulnerable and bullied into accepting transfers which are unreasonable.
The biggest concern however is the treatment of part-time and disabled staff and the refusal by management to accept that what may be reasonable for a full-time member of staff with no impairment that requires reasonable adjustments, or without any family/caring responsibilities, is not the same as what may be reasonable for a part-time or disabled worker or someone with family/caring responsibilities.
Conference therefore instructs the GEC to negotiate with management an amendment to the RDT guidance so that it states a clear maximum for RDT , and that RDT must be proportionally applied to part-time workers, and that all personal circumstances must be taken into account. When managers, moderating panels, grievance and appeal panels are making their decision on what is reasonable clear guidance, reflecting the above should be given and applied in all cases.
Bristol Taxes - 200034
(covers motions 287- 290)
Motion 31
This Branch calls upon the ADC to instruct the Group Executive Committee to take immediate action to challenge HMRC on its long term plans for work in London & the South East and to seek the immediate postponement of Lyons Phase 2 to allow for a period of reflection and consideration of where we now are and full discussion and consultation on all plans for HRMC's future presence in London & The South East
Members in those areas feel effectively let down and cut adrift with no apparent concern from the rest of the country to the impact they are facing as a result of Lyons as well as the other changes facing the Department.
Whilst it is noted that members across the country as a whole face job cuts and challenges to terms & conditions etc it must be recognised that these problems are being most acutely faced in London & the South East. Members there are facing the double whammy of Lyons and the increased costs of property and wages leading HMRC to disproportionately seek to cut jobs and discard members in those areas.
It must be remembered that a substantial part of the UK population live & work in this part of the country and a huge amount of the wealth created in the UK is derived in this part of the country. We need a significant presence of HMRC services in London & the South East to effectively police the tax system and undertake enquiries and recover monies due. We also have some of the busiest air & sea ports in this area requiring properly trained and motivated HMRC staff to ensure these are adequately and properly policed to safeguard the public.
What will the long term impact be if HMRC services in these areas continue to be slashed at the current rate. We may end up with a situation we cannot recover from where even more money is being lost to the exchequer due to the inability to take
those cases on effectively and where we have ports & airports ineffectively being covered and increases in trafficking of drugs, arms, people etc.
Kingston – 200053
Motion 32
This ADC of Revenue & Customs Group believes that the HMRC's application of the Pre- Surplus Managed Moves Arrangements (PMMA) is being used to circumvent the Pay Master General's assurances of "not moving staff compulsorily from an office before the completion of that office's (Work Force Change) review".
The GEC is instructed to:-
1. Gather evidence from Branches of attempts to compulsorily move HMRC staff out of locations ahead of their Work force Change review.
2. Prepare and issue a brief to the PCS parliamentary group and Paymaster General, providing evidence of HMRC breaches of the ministerial assurances.
3. Seek from the Paymaster General a clear reiteration of the previous assurances on such compulsory moves; agreement from HMRC's senior managers that they will abide by those assurances.
Bucks & Oxon – 200140
(covers motion 291)
Motion 33
That this Group Delegate Conference notes that little progress has been made by the GEC in halting the HMRC Office Closure Programme. The “Urban Reviews” have now almost been completed, and a large number of local offices are now under threat of closure. If PCS is to make any headway in saving local offices from closure in the review of “cluster” and “individual” offices then a major change must be made in the way these programmes are negotiated.
The key factor in many of the local office closures is the presence or otherwise of Local Compliance work. This Conference believes that a local presence is vital to the continuing success of any Compliance programme, and the GEC is instructed to mount a major campaign for the retention of a Local Compliance presence in as many locations as possible.
Northants – 200081
Motion 34
Conference notes with dismay HMRC's decision to transform the Department and the negative effect this will have on the network of local offices. It re-affirms its belief that the most efficient and effective method of dealing with an individual's tax affairs is through provision of fully staffed, trained and equipped local offices who can deal quickly and effectively with all aspects of a taxpayer's affairs.
Conference therefore instructs the GEC to oppose the closure of local offices and calls for all the processing, compliance and telephone work already removed from local offices to be returned. Conference also instructs the GEC to:-
• Ensure any staff affected by this policy change are relocated to their local office.
• Ensure they are fully retrained to allow them to have a fully skilled job encompassing all the duties of their grade.
• Insist that all staff are on a normal contract with full no core-time flexi rights.
Conference notes that this will help protect the local office network and will help provide an improved service to the public within local communities.
Aberdeen Revenue – 200001
Motion 35
This Conference is increasingly unhappy that the concerns expressed pre- merger of the two Departments that ex-C&E areas would experience further staffing reductions has come true. HM C&E undertook a large scale modernisation and rationalisation programme which did not happen in the former Inland Revenue. That is not to say that the IR did not have staffing reductions over the years, but the scale and impact was not comparable to those which took place in HM C&E.
Ex-HM C&E areas which have already suffered consistent reductions in staffing numbers over the years were felt by members to already be understaffed or at the bare minimum staffing level to carry out the work requirements in that area.
As Members leave post-merger and are not replaced, ex-HM C&E members are asking why they have taken a "double/triple hit" in staffing reductions which are not comparable across HMRC. C&E PCS Group accepted that this was an area of concern and would be taken up in merger negotiations. This Conference has seen no evidence of this issue being on the negotiating agenda nor of any progress to date.
Conference therefore instructs the GEC to consult with Members on this issue, place on the GEC agenda for discussion, issue a report to Branches and engage in any subsequent negotiations with the OS.
Scotland West – 200047
Motion 36
This Group Conference condemns HMRC policy of the increasing use of self-keying text production. Text creation by non-specialist typists is a waste of resources at all grades.
The GEC is instructed to promote a campaign addressed to all members advising that typing work performed by non-typists threatens the jobs of specialist typists and reduces time available for non-typists to achieve their own grade related targets.
Northern Ireland – 200082
Motion 37
That this ADC instructs the GEC to insist upon representation on the Jigsaw group to work to an agreement that PCS members are not treated as numbers being moved at short notice and with no consultation.
Euston – 200040
SECTION 6 – LAW ENFORCEMENT
Motion 38
Conference recognises that the rushed announcement of the new Border agency was made to alleviate pressure on the Government and has raised many issues as trials had not been completed or evaluated and many legitimate questions were left unanswered. Conference agrees that the GEC negotiators must be given a clear and unambiguous mandate to protect the interests of our members by securing
• A no detriment guarantee for those on AAA
• Common grading through independent job evaluation
• Enhanced Border controls at all points of entry into the Country
• No privatisation of Detection functions
• Inclusion of inland customs activity
• Inclusion of the RFTU function
• Inclusion of border facing intelligence
Conference further recognises that the new agency provides an opportunity for PCS to renew its campaign for a permanent presence at those entry points that have been abandoned and instructs the GEC to seek to set up a joint campaign with the Immigration GEC for that purpose.
Wales – 200067
(covers motions 292 – 296)
Motion 39
That this AGC notes with increasing concern the increasing marginalisation of compliance members and work. Conference recognises that cuts in risk and caseworking can only serve to increase the tax gap, already running into tens of billions of pounds.
The incoming GEC is, therefore, instructed to campaign nationally, including through the PCS Parliamentary Group, for a return to local compliance functions and offices which are fully resourced and able to manage local compliance issues and risks.
South & West Wales Network – 200105
Motion 40
Conference notes that due to the ever diminishing resources within the Department, the ratio of the number of Inspectors to the number of Taxpayers continues to grow. The Departments response to this is to introduce a strategy based around “Risk”, focusing limited resources on the most Non Compliant of traders. In principal, this is a sound idea that ought to meet the aims and objectives of the Department. However, recent results within Indirect Taxes in particular suggest that far from focusing on the greatest areas of risk, the Revenue generated does not reflect the real risk. This conference instructs the GEC to instigate a review of this area of work, to ascertain where the weaknesses lie within the system and to negotiate with the Department to achieve improvements that reflect a better return for all taxpayers, protects existing staffing levels and promotes increasing resources.
South England – 200058
Motion 41
Conference notes with concern increasing attempts by Local Compliance to trial audit and intervention events by staff who have not received appropriate tried and tested training but have been given short courses and provided with little or no practical training experience. Conference agrees that this policy undermines the efforts and morale of compliance officers and does not meet with the obligation of HMRC to safeguard the tax system bye equitable treatment of its customers, Conference instructs the GEC to enter into negotiations with HMRC to prevent compliance staff from undertaking activity for which they have not received the full recognised training that existed in both HMCE and the IR, and if such an assurance cannot be obtained ballot members to work to rule.
Wales – 200067
Motion 42
This Group Delegate Conference (GDC) notes that despite the efforts of our elected negotiators:
• insufficient progress has been made towards achieving the terms of Motion 31 of the 2006 GDC
• in the absence of any clear guidance from the GEC called for by Motion 31, members are still having to work cases well above the turnover limits arbitrarily abolished by SCS 104/05.
This GDC welcomes the commitments "in principle" from Senior Management for Local Compliance:
1. detailed in the letter attached to R&C/BB/373/06 dated 14 December 2006
(a) "to ensuring that work is undertaken and remunerated at the appropriate grade, and that people receive the appropriate training to support this"
(b) "to ensuring that TUS are involved in all processes which impact on the evaluation of jobs and in the Jegs process and to open and timely consultation on issues such as these."
2. detailed in Branch Secretary Briefing 424/07 dated 12 November 2007 extracts from which state
(a) “In discussion with the OS we explained that what members need are some parameters to work to at each grade and some consistency of application across every region and customer group. The regions and customer groups should not be silos where different rules apply. The same work should not be done by staff at different grades dependant on whether they are in Large & Complex or Small."
"The OS have agreed that this would be useful and are prepared to do some work on this."
(b) "As explained to the OS; when job evaluations are undertaken the only outcome members see is the grade they are told their job is. A member in an organisation as large as LC could be one of a thousand or more staff all doing roughly the same job at the same grade. Without a description of what that job is supposed to be then the evaluation appears meaningless."
"The OS have acknowledged that as part of the work they are doing they will try to work up some kind of job description for each of the jobs evaluated. This will not be a huge rigid document but simply one or two sides of A4 that explain in broad terms what the job is. This should also help with career planning and enable us all to understand better what we each do in different regimes (both similarities and differences)."
However, this GDC does not accept that
• "Fixed duties and boundaries are too rigid to fit a changing environment"
• the framework of Compliance Pacesetter and the Varney Review within which existing and new jobs in Local Compliance are to be assessed under JEGs is likely to result in an outcome that meets members' concerns.
• "It is important to state now that the OS are very clearly not going to simply adopt limits originally set in the 1990s. Furthermore any rigid limits are unlikely".
The GEC is instructed to:
3. issue a Branch and/or Members Briefing within 6 weeks of this GDC that
(a) sets out the grading limits that were withdrawn by SCS 104/05 and their link to current pay levels and the collective support for members who feel pressured into working cases above these limits
(b) sets out the case for retaining such limits (including for example, pay and grading issues and comparisons, the link between responsibility and pay, training, internal and external qualifications etc)
(c) asks Branch Reps to consult with members in Compliance to establish details of the turnover and level of risk currently being undertaken by AO, O, HO, SO and Grade 7 members
(d) asks for the views of Members and Branches as to what they consider to be their range of reasonable and acceptable limits for
• ITSA Full Enquiries
• ITSA Aspect Enquiries
• CTSA Full Enquiries
• CTSA Aspect Enquiries
• Interventions
4. issue a further Branch and / or Members Briefing within 18 weeks of this GDC that
(a) sets out the range of members views
(b) the GEC negotiation positions
(c) the results of negotiations with management
South East Essex – 200144
SECTION 8 – DEBT MANAGEMENT AND BANKING
Motion 43
This AGC notes the introduction of Field Force in DMB and instructs the GEC to demand that Management agree to the following:
I) No change to current terms and conditions for staff recruited to Field Force.
ii) Guarantee that staff employed in the London area retain London pay regardless of the sector they are appointed to.
iii) Provision of robust risk assessment form that addresses the lack of information available to Field Force Officers when reviewing their call lists.
iv) Ensure that a Higher Officer is available via the telephone at all times when Field Force Officers are on call and that they are appropriately remunerated.
v) Ensure that funding is secured to provide appropriate IT equipment for Officers engaged in outdoor duties.
vi) Field Force Officers should not be required to have a Department-provided locking cabinets in their home.
Vii) Field Force support teams to be adequately resourced and appropriately trained.
The GEC must oppose the introduction of Field Force if agreement to the above is not forthcoming.
London West - 200019
SECTION 9 – CUSTOMER CONTACT
Motion 44
This R&C ADC notes the intention of HMRC Contact Centres to centralise the Resources functions in the drive to a virtual Contact Centre network. This ADC believes this will further restrict the ability of PCS members to take time off such as Annual leave, Time Off in Lieu (TOlL) and Flexi leave (if this still exists in Contact Centres).
The GEC are instructed to take the following action:
1. Fully support all PCS members on Contact Centre Resource Teams to ensure appropriate training is provided should they be asked to take up other positions within their own Contact Centre.
2. Ensure all Annual Leave & Time Off procedures in Contact Centres comply with UK Employment Legislation.
3. Ensure any Annual Leave system in place enables all PCS members working in Contact Centres can take their leave within their leave year.
4. Ensure any Annual Leave system is not discriminatory to any group of PCS members.
5. Fully investigate the 'Business Need' reason that is normally given to PCS members when any time off is refused to find out what this phrase really means and to publicise the findings.
6. If 'Business need' is just that we do not have enough people working in Contact centres to take the telephone calls then this needs to be exposed and fully publicised.
7. To negotiate an open & fair Annual leave time off system to ensure all PCS members in Contact Centres can take their Leave & have a better Work/Life balance.
Bradford & District – 200008
(covers motion 299 – 305)
Motion 45
That this GDC notes with concern the outcomes of the “National Technician Review” in Contact Centres. The Review recommends a reduction in the number of Band O Technician posts nationally from 105 to 88 on the basis that a proportion of these calls can be passed to Team Leaders. The introduction of “call handling ” targets which we believe will have an adverse effect on the quality of service offered to the public on often complex matters.
The report also recommends that Technician support will be available until 8pm and although we welcome this, the burden of providing this will fall on a small number of new contract Technicians and will inevitably impact on their work/life balance.
We instruct the GEC to oppose any imposition of Call Handling targets and to resist any reduction in staff numbers.
Salford Revenue – 200133
(covers motions 306 – 308)
Motion 46
Conference notes the difficulties placed upon contact centre advisors by HMRC Customer Contact Directorate (CCD) in insisting that call quality is of the utmost importance whilst simultaneously demanding increasingly shorter call handling times (CHTs).
Contact centre advisors are bombarded daily by management demands to reduce CHTs to the point where many feel the only way to do so is to be abrupt and unhelpful with customers.
CCD insists call quality is of paramount concern, but this is contradicted by the fact that less than 1% of an advisor's calls are checked for quality, with half of these "live", whilst 100% of calls are measured for CHT .This anomaly results in the temptation for advisors to "take their chances" in offering a service of reduced quality on many calls that may push their average CHT up, putting them at risk of disciplinary action for failing quality standards, whilst those refusing to compromise customer service find themselves under scrutiny for having high CHTs.
Whilst conference recognises the employer's requirement for quality and efficiency, it does not agree that PCS members should be victim to this kind of "Role Conflict", which can be a contributing factor to increased work related stress and lower morale.
Conference instructs the GEC to demand of HMRC CCD that they put in place fairer measures of advisor performance to achieve their goals, instead of forcing advisors to choose which way they would like to fail.
Liverpool Revenue- 200060
(general debate with motions 47 and 48)
Motion 47
This conference notes that contrary to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Contact Centres Framework Agreement regarding Management Information Systems (MIS) and Management culture that Contact Centre Directorate management continually misuse the detailed information readily accessible with the MIS software used in contact centres. Contact Centre Directorate management are continually misusing the MIS information and are humiliating and threatening our members with C&D issues, and performance warnings under MPPA.
Conference instructs the HMRC Group Executive Committee to give notice to Contact Centre Directorate management that we will withdraw cooperation of the system i.e. we will instruct members to no longer input the many and varied codes which enable management to monitor every second our members are in attendance.
Balliol Park Branch – 200139
(general debate with motions 46 and 48)
(falls if motion 46 is carried)
(covers motion 309)
Motion 48
Conference considers that the introduction of Real Time Monitoring (RTM) into Contact Centres using MIS has increasing the amount of quantitative monitoring of advisors in contact centres to unhealthy amounts.
Whilst the use of MIS to monitor advisor behaviour has always been present in contact centres, the amount of monitoring has increased, causing stress for advisors and additional work for managers. Recent research compiled for the HSE advises that contact centre workers have worse than average scores on factors relating to work - related stress and it has also been found that employees subjected to electronic performance monitoring have reported higher levels of stress than unmonitored employees. Risk assessments have not been carried out since the introduction of the increased monitoring, despite the increase in potential stress for advisors.
Conference instructs the GEC to review the health and safety of Contact Centre Workers, with focus on the impact of excessive use of Management Information systems to monitor staff and make recommendations to HMRC on how best to reduce risks for staff working in the Contact Centre Directorate.
Liverpool Revenue - 200060
(general debate with motions 46 and 47)
Motion 49
Conference believes that Contact centre management in HMRC fail to recognise the importance of continuous training for staff which is required for continuous improvement in a climate of constant change.
Investment time is often removed/cancelled/postponed during peak periods despite updates and changes being reported regularly. Members' training is paramount in providing the tax-paying public with a quality service and should not be compromised by poor staffing levels.
Conference instructs the GEC to demand that HMRC contact centre directorate ensure that investment time is maintained throughout peak periods and that the level of investment time allocated is sufficient, with a strict minimum agreed, perhaps four hours per week, per member of staff.
Liverpool Revenue – 200060
Motion 50
Conference is concerned that advisors in Customer Contact are expected to consistently perform to an extremely high level of quality, whilst adhering to guidance that is unfit for purpose.
The Customer Advisor Guide (CAG) which advisors are expected to adhere to, and which is used to measure the quality of customer contact, is poor to say the least. Its chaotic and cumbersome layout makes navigation extremely time consuming and sometimes nigh on impossible. The CAG is also, in many parts, unclear, out of date, incomprehensive, incomplete, and/or totally inaccurate. It is written by people who do not use it. Advisors can find themselves the subject of disciplinary procedures for failing to follow guidance which, in some cases, is impossible to follow, or which contradicts itself, making it impossible for the advisor to know which section of guidance should be followed.
The CAG is currently being re-written, but this is not happening quickly enough, meanwhile advisors are being disciplined for failing to follow the ever changing and, at times, incomprehensible CAG.
This conference instructs the GEC to urgently seek immediate written assurances from HMRC Customer Contact Directorate that:
• changes to guidance be given priority over the re-writing of unchanged guidance
• common sense and discretion are used when advisors fail to reach quality targets where the advisor finds the guidance difficult to follow
• advisors will be given sufficient investment time and training to keep up to date with the changes to the CAG
Liverpool Revenue – 200060
Motion 51
Conference notes that O grade members in Contact Centres are under increasing pressure, working unpaid overtime to meet unfeasible deadlines given the size of their workload.
Increasing pressures on band O members have caused many of our members to take long absences with work-related stress. Contact Centre line managers are increasingly reporting problems in carrying out their normal duties within their normal working hours and many have resorted to working overtime or not taking breaks, impacting on their health and safety at work. The monitoring of statistics and idle code usage has also increased meaning that managers spend more time watching staff using Management Information Systems (MIS) than actively managing the performance of their team. Increasing pressure on managers is contrary to HMRC guidance which encourages staff to maintain a healthy work-life balance.
Our members are struggling to complete duties as well as manage teams of up to 11, which demonstrates that there are clear shortages. The department’s plans to cut thousands more jobs in the workforce change program will only serve to further increase the workload and pressure on our colleagues jeopardising their well-being and negatively impacting on the department’s functioning.
Conference instructs the GEC to put pressure on HMRC to review the workload of band O managers in Contact Centres and addresses shortages at the band 0 grade.
Liverpool Revenue – 200060
Motion 52
That this Conference calls upon the GEC to negotiate a national agreement to ensure that a manager of Officer grade or above is present in every Enquiry Centre (EC) during Public opening hours. EC Managers have a supervisory role and this cannot be carried out efficiently by remote management. This will not only give reassurance to Staff, but is also necessary for good Customer Service.
Coventry - 200025
Motion 53
Conference notes that Contact Centre management continually refuse to allow staff to apply for level transfers to other departments, citing staff vacancies in Contact Centres and the resulting "business need" as the reason for the refusal.
Contact Centres in HMRC are renowned for high turnover and as such are constantly recruiting new staff. Staff who wish to remain in HMRC and develop skills in other aspects of the business are unfairly being refused support for transfer applications when there is no realistic chance of centres being at full compliment at any point in the future. If all business streams in HMRC did not allow staff to leave then vacancies would never be filled and the department would be unable to fulfil its ambitions and carry out its vital functions. Furthermore the excuse cited by Contact Centre Management stunts the development of staff and puts them at an unfair disadvantage compared with their colleagues in other business streams.
Conference instructs the GEC to demand that HMRC improves development opportunities for staff in contact centres by implementing guidance that will allow a reasonable number of staff to make applications for level transfers given that contact centre staffing levels are unlikely to reach full compliment.
Liverpool Revenue – 200060
Motion 54
This AGC notes that members in Contact Centres are appalled that the GEC seem to be standing idly by whilst the terms of the Contact Centre Framework Document (Appendix A and Appendix B) are being slowly eroded away.
This AGC instructs the GEC to defend the integrity of the Framework Agreement and also to ensure the long term objective that the Framework agreement applies equally to all sites in Contact Centres is achieved.
Northumberland and Durham – 200075
SECTION 10 – PROCESSING
Motion 55
Conference censures the GEC for their wilful disregarding of conference policy in relation to motion EM4 passed unanimously by conference in 2007. Conference is particularly dismayed that the GEC took no heed of the instruction that the “GEC should seek the agreement of the ad hoc committee for both LPO and DPO of any proposals, prior to any ballot to call off the dispute”, in the event that the criteria for settlement as laid out in EM4 were not met.
Conference believes the GEC’s action has badly damaged the relationship between many branches and the executive, at a time when taking a united stand against the relentless attack on many of our members was paramount.
Conference instructs the incoming GEC to seek the following agreements from the department in relating to LEAN.
• Hourly counts to be replaced by daily counts for every task.
• The cessation of compulsory meetings. Teams to be allowed to decide
for themselves if and when they need to discuss any issues.
• The removal of performance boards from teams.
• An agreement that respects the diverse nature of the work force and
the varying capabilities of individual members.
• No hard targets in PDE’s.
• LEAN performance statistics not to be used in the MPPA process.
• A joint review of management roles aimed at eradicating meaningless
reporting processes.
If the GEC fail to secure the above to the satisfaction of a majority of branches with members in the PSAP network, within 6 weeks of the close of conference, members shall be balloted on an overtime ban and work to rule.
Conference orders the GEC to take instruction from the branches involved in PSAP, on this issue. Any vote taken shall reflect the volume of members involved in processing in each branch.
Bootle Taxes – 200006
(general debate with motion 56)
(covers motions 310 -317)
Motion 56
That this R&C Group Annual Delegate Conference recognises the tactical reasons for recommending settlement in the LEAN dispute.
However the timing of the release of the recommendation and the delay in announcing the proposed further Department wide action caused confusion amongst the membership.
The GEC are instructed to ensure that non elected Full Time Officers issue the relevant information in an efficient and timeous manner in future major decisions.
Leicester – 200059
(general debate with motion 55)
(falls if motion 55 is carried)
Motion 57
That this Revenue & Customs Group Delegate Conference recognises that the introduction of MPPC into the PSAP Business Stream poses a threat to job security and the local office network as a whole.
This Group Conference is opposed to the centralisation that MPPC could create and, therefore, instructs the GEC to campaign against any threat that undermines the future of a local office presence, as well as that of local jobs.
This campaign should include ballot(s) on any industrial action deemed necessary as and when MPPC is rolled out.
West Lancs & West Cheshire – 200132
(covers motion 318)
Motion 58
This Conference notes that workplace broadband internet access has been distributed unevenly between the business streams, with staff working in Customs, Compliance, Risk and Debt Management & Banking being given access, whereas other staff – notably in Processing, have not.
Conference further notes that many Processing staff have been made pre surplus by the department. They are required under this quasi-legal fiction to actively look for other jobs, and the main list of pre surplus vacancies is only available to those with internet access.
Conference believes that whatever currently passes for HMRC ‘policy’ on this issue is actively disadvantaging Processing staff, who are suffering a detriment in relation to their more fortunate colleagues.
Conference therefore instructs the GEC to begin negotiations with the department to secure equality of treatment across all the business streams, and for all staff to enjoy the provision of workplace internet access.
Sussex Area - 200009
SECTION 11 – ESTATES AND SUPPORT SERVICES
Motion 59
This conference totally opposes the decision of HMRC to seek to privatise Security Guards.
This decision flies in the face of increased security threats posed by criminal gangs and terrorist groups. Rather than seeking to privatise security HMRC would be better placed concentrating resources in ensuring our workplaces are safe and secure. All future decisions to privatise security arrangements within the department will inevitably lead to further incidents of data losses, etc. for which innocent members may be blamed. Therefore, all such attempts should be resisted by PCS and the department encouraged to continue to look at its own security arrangements with the emphasis on maintaining these services in-house.
This Conference further recognises that our own in house security teams, many with years of loyal service to HMRC, are best placed to carry out this function.
This conference instructs the GEC to urgently carry out the following:-
1. Convene a meeting of reps and members from each affected site to determine a strategy and a way forward.
2. All members meetings to be called on each site, ideally with a GEC speaker, to take on board members concerns.
3. A campaign to be built around the following:
• Members in each site to be balloted for their willingness to walk out for an hour to attend a protest rally alongside their striking security colleagues. A press and media conference should be called at the same time. Other initiatives involving the wider membership to be further considered.
• A business case, similar to that produced by the PCS at the time of the Mapeley privatisation, to be presented to management. We should build this case from membership feedback and also where it exists from supportive business managers.
• Urgent contact with MP’s and the press throughout the country, in order to encourage visits by MP’s to the affected sites.
• A regular campaign bulletin to be produced and circulated to all members to highlight the union’s case.
• An immediate message of support to be sent to our members in security from the GEC.
• Support for other areas of the membership in ESS facing similar attacks.
South England – 200058
Motion 60
That this Annual Group Delegate Conference notes with concern the rapid demise of ESS and the loss of experienced Accommodation and Health & Safety staff able to deal with the constantly changing organisation allocations and business streams under review.
Conference instructs that the GEC brings to the attention of HMRC the risk to H&S and extra costs by releasing staff before the Department's estates changes have been fully implemented.
Cornwall & Plymouth Revenue – 200024
Motion 61
This R & C Group Conference accepts that the proposed reduction of post rooms from 200+ to fifteen will have a detrimental affect on the members within ESS and will allow management to declare many of our members surplus or pre-surplus.
The GEC is therefore instructed to involve themselves fully in this trial and ensure that these post rooms are fully staffed and that this scheme is not a further job cutting exercise and/or a plan to make post rooms attractive for privatisation.
The GEC is further instructed to involve local reps in all stages of the negotiations process and issue a report within six months of the end of this conference.
Bootle St.John’s House - 200007
SECTION 12 – HR AND LEARNING
Motion 62
This GDC notes the current online HR system is not fit for purpose and with the reams of paperwork that currently have to be completed because the system doesn't work that it actually uses more time rather than saves time for users.
Furthermore this GDC recognises the problems staff have experienced in making diversity monitoring declarations over the last year which have included staff inputting the information required, thinking they've saved it only to access the system at a later point to find the information is no longer there.
The incoming GEC is instructed to approach the department within 1 month of conference and require a full and comprehensive review of the online HR system is carried out in conjunction with PCS and identified problems are addressed accordingly.
Dorset Harbourside Network – 200115
Motion 63
This group conference notes with concern the inadequate support and guidance offered to managers around implementing the new HR procedures. Guidance is in certain instances vague and is open to wide interpretation, it is also at times contradictory. Advice offered can at times be inconsistent leading managers to feel that they are not being properly supported. These difficulties are experienced by everyone but can lead to misunderstandings between staff and their managers resulting in grievances and the additional stress that this causes for everyone. Conference instructs the GEC to approach HR & Learning with a view of addressing the lack of clarity concerning the contents of the HR & Learning Guidance instructions on the new procedures.
Edinburgh – 200037
Motion 64
That this Annual De!egate Conference notes with concern the problems caused by the decision to move work from Pay Section in Worthing to the HR Service Centres. The GEC is instructed to enter into negotiations with management to revisit this decision with the aim of returning this work to Worthing. The GEC is further instructed to provide regular reports to members on the progress of these negotiations.
Worthing – 200120
SECTION 13 – VALUATION OFFICE AGENCY
Motion 65
This GDC notes the VOA Change Programme announced by the Chief Executive in Nov 2007. This included an office closure programme as well as a shift towards Centralisation, Mobilisation and Digitisation across the entire VO including DVS
This GDC instructs the GEC and VOAC in line with national PCS policy to pursue the following objectives in negotiations with management:
• The best national terms and conditions available for all (to include pay and flexi)
• Introduction of any aspect of this programme should only be after proper consultation (to include testing, evaluation and impact) and agreement with PCS
• Any and all change to be introduced on a genuinely voluntary basis.
• Any new jobs/processes to encompass a broad skill set
• Any new jobs to be graded appropriately
• No extension to TRACS (electronic monitoring)
• Improved opportunities for PCS members
• Continue to improve work life balance of members
• No compulsory redundancies
• No compulsory relocations
• No office closures
The GEC and VOAC must ensure that members are informed and consulted about progress regarding each aspect of the programme, including whatever steps might become necessary to safeguard their interests.
Group Executive Committee/VOAC
(covers motions 319 – 321)
Motion 66
In view of:
• The imposition of below inflation pay increases for 2007 in the VOA
• The pay relativities between the VOA, its parent department, The Rent Service and OGD's
• The structural difficulties with the VOA pay system
• Government pay restraint
This GDC instructs the GEC and VOAC to pursue any and all opportunities to deliver fair pay in th.e VOA including
• Above inflation pay increases for all members
• Pay parity with the VOAs parent department and TRS
Group Executive Committee/VOAC
Motion 67
Conference instructs VOAC and GEC to explore and seek potential new areas of work and pursue a strategy of diversifying the VOA's work in order to secure jobs particularly if substantial changes to the local taxation system occur in the future.
London Westminster Valuation – 200123
SECTION 14 – RULE AMENDMENTS
ALL MOTIONS IN THIS SECTION REQUIRE A 2/3rds MAJORITY
Motion 68
That this Conference accepts that the existing workload justifies the retention of a standing orders committee of five members rather than reducing to three as envisaged in the Transitional arrangements adopted in 2005.
Consequently Conference agrees to:
a) replace the existing Rules 7.20 , 7.21 and 7.22 with:
7.20 There shall be a group standing orders committee ("SOC") consisting of 5 members. Each member will serve for 5 years. Each year the Chairperson shall be elected by the SOC from among those of its members next due to reach the end of their term of office. Where the chairperson is absent, the SOC shall elect a temporary substitute. The quorum shall be 3 out of 5 of the elected members together with a deputed member of the Secretariat.
7.21 SOC members shall not be delegates of Branches nor entitled to speak or vote on Conference business.
7.22 In every year after conference the senior member(s) of the SOC shall retire and shall be eligible for re-election. Where more than one member retires at the end of any electoral year, either by rotation or voluntarily, then the terms of office of those elected will be governed by the principles that the highest polling successful candidate will fill the vacant position that has the longest period of office to serve and the lowest polling successful candidate will fill the vacant position that has the shortest period of office too serve.
b) replace the existing Paragraph 3A of the Transitional Arrangements with:
3A) In 2009, elections will be held for all 5 places on the group standing orders committee (SOC) and candidates will be advised that the highest polling candidate will serve for 5 years (retiring in 2014), the second highest polling candidate will serve for 4 years (retiring in 2013), the third highest polling candidate for 3 years (retiring in 2012), the fourth highest polling candidate will serve for 2 years (retiring in 2011), and the lowest polling candidate will serve for 1 year (retiring in 2010). In 2010 a new SOC member will be elected for 5 years (retiring in 2015). In 2011 a new SOC member will be elected for 5 years (retiring in 2016). In 2012 a new SOC member will be elected for 5 years (retiring in 2017). In 2013 a new SOC member will be elected for 5 years (retiring in 2018). In 2014 a new SOC member will be elected for 5 years (retiring in 2019). In 2015 a new SOC member will be elected for 5 years (retiring in 2020). In 2016 a new SOC member will be elected for 5 years (retiring in 2021). The cycle of yearly elections for 1 SOC member to serve for 5 years will be repeated annually thereafter.
Group Executive Committee
Motion 69
That this Conference accepts that the existing workload justifies the retention of a
Standing Orders Committee of five members rather than reducing to three as envisaged in the Transitional arrangements adopted in 2005.
Consequently Conference agrees to :
a) replace the existing Rules 7.20 , 7.21 and 7.22 with
7.20 There shall be a Group Standing Orders Committee ("SOC") consisting of 5 members. Each member will serve for 4 years. Each year the Chairperson shall be elected by the SOC from among those of its members next due to reach the end of their term of office. Where the Chairperson is absent, the SOC shall elect a temporary substitute. The quorum shall be 3 out of 5 of the elected members together with a deputed member of the Secretariat.
7.21 SOC members shall not be delegates of Branches nor entitled to speak or vote on Conference business.
7.22 In every year after Conference the senior member(s) of the SOC shall retire and shall be eligible for re-election. Where more than one member retires at the end of any electoral year, either by rotation or voluntarily, then the terms of office of those elected will be governed by the principles that the highest polling successful candidate will fill the vacant position that has the longest period of office to serve and the lowest polling successful candidate will fill the vacant position that has the shortest period of office to serve.
b) replace the existing Paragraph 3A of the Transitional Arrangements with
3A) In 2006, nominations will be sought for all five places on the Group Standing Orders Committee (SOC) and candidates will be advised that all candidates will serve for 3 years. In 2009, elections will be held for all FIVE places on the Group Standing Orders 'Committee (SOC) and candidates will be advised that the highest polling candidates will serve for 4 years, the second highest polling candidate will serve for 3 years, the third polling candidate for 2 years, and the two lowest polling candidates will serve for 1 year. In 2010, after that year's elections, the newly elected highest polling member then serves for 4 years, the previous year's highest polling candidate for 3 more years, and so on for future years. All these arrangements will be subject to any pay band limitations/reservations that may be current at the time.
Eastern – 200002
(falls if motion 68 is carried)
Motion 70
This conference notes despite the unions continuing campaigns to resist HMRC's self destructive and arbitrary job cuts and its socially irresponsible closure of offices, our membership is declining. The centralising drive of the department also sees more of our members working out of larger locations.
To ensure the voice of the union continues to represent a wide range of diverse views and smaller branches in the group this conference agrees that Revenue & Customs Group rule 7.13 should be amended to
7.13 Branches may send delegates to Group Conferences on the following basis:
Members: Delegates:
1-200 1
201-400 2
401-800 3
801-1200 4
Along with one further delegate for each further 1000 members or part thereof.
Norwich Taxes – 200084
Motion 71
Conference notes efforts in 2006 (motion 114) to promote the accountability of our elected officials and the transparency of decisions they take on behalf of the members.
Therefore it is important that members are able to establish the line taken by GEC members on the major issues that affect them. As such conference believes the voting record of GEC members at GEC meetings should be published to branches.
Conference agrees that Rule 6.5 should be amended as follows-
The GEC should meet at least 5 times a year, and a simple majority of those eligible to vote shall form a quorum. An agreed record of the decision (with details of attendees, apologies and absentees, together with the voting record of attendees whenever a vote is taken) for each meeting of the Group Executive Committee will be published to branches within 2 weeks of the record of decisions being agreed as a true account.
Norwich Taxes – 200084
Motion 72
That this GDC recognises the importance of PCS having a voice in every workplace and therefore resolves to amend the Group constitution as follows:
Insert at the beginning of Section 5
"Workplaces
5.1 The local basis of organisation will be the workplace, which may be known as "the Office"
Branches that were organised into "Offices" immediately prior to the merger of the former C & E and Inland Revenue Groups will be similarly organized into "workplaces" under this rule.
Other Branches may determine that local units of organisation within the branch are "workplaces" under this rule.
5.2 The functions of the workplace shall be:
(a) To deal through its Officers (in accordance with any relevant policy of the Group or Union) with those matters affecting the staff of the workplace which are determined locally;
(b) To discuss the business and policy of the Group and Union at meetings held for this purpose;
(c) To advise the respective Branch Executive Committee (BEC) and, where appropriate, other representative bodies of the Union on all matters of local importance.
5.3 Each workplace shall elect annually as Officers a Chairperson and a Secretary and further Workplace Committee members by workplace ballot of the members of the workplace in accordance with regulations made from time to time by the GEC. An Officer may be removed by ballot of the members of the workplace if the same is requested by a resolution passed at a workplace meeting which is supported by two thirds of those voting.
5.4 The duty of the Chairperson shall be to preside at Workplace meetings.
5.5 The duties of the Secretary shall be to recruit and obtain the necessary
authorities, subscriptions and dues from members; to communicate Union policy to members and represent the views of members within the Union; to represent the views of members to management; to organise ballots in accordance with relevant regulations; to convene meetings and keep such records of proceedings as shall be necessary and to carry out any other duties as required”
5.6 The duties of other Workplace Committee members shall be to assist the Workplace Secretary and to be available to participate in negotiations as Trade Union Side members.
Renumber subsequent rules accordingly.
Cambridge Revenue – 200014
Motion 73
This AGC notes the impact that closure of offices has not only on members but that members may no longer be able to remain part of their current PCS Branches.
This AGC notes that under Group and National rule that members shall be organised into branches at the discretion of the NEC and wherever practicable on the basis of those sharing the same employer or bargaining group located within reasonable proximity to on another or in a single place of work.
This AGC also notes that Branches are charges to, recruit and retain members and to promote the most effective practicable system of local and workplace representation.
This AGC notes that although members may be relocated as a consequence of Work Force Change but remaining within the same business stream that there is no need for them to become part of another Branch and that view is consistent with the ethos of National rules 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 on the composition of Branches.
This AGC notes that in a Work Force Change closure scenario, it is only the location that changes, but the negotiating area with the business stream remains the same.
This AGC therefore instructs the GEC to add a new bullet point to R&C Group rules section 5 on Branches to be numbered 5.2(e).
Subject to the authority of the NEC and GEC, no Branch may be disbanded or it’s members relocated to another Branch or bargaining group as a consequence of Work Force Change Closures, without the agreement of the members in that branch by way of ballot.
Northumberland and Durham – 200075
Motion 74
Conference believes that it in order for the Group to effectively challenge management it is vital that GEC members can be held to account, through the democratic process, for their actions as individuals whilst serving on the GEC
Conference recognises that it is important that local representatives have a direct link to the GEC. Therefore conference agrees that the best method of electing GEC members is to form constituencies based around groupings of branches, with the members within each constituency electing one person to the GEC.
Conference therefore agrees to replace Section 6.9 with the following -
Election to the GEC shall be held each year.
The group shall be divided into 25 constituencies.
The constituency boundaries shall be determined by the GEC, by the grouping together of branches on the principle that:
1. After taking into account any transitional arrangements or reservations expressed elsewhere in the constitution no constituency shall contain 30% more members than any other.
2. Constituencies shall whenever practical form local geographical areas.
Subject to the overriding authority of the election regulations issued by the General Secretary, the Group Secretary will also issue guidance about the Group elections that shall be published to Branches and shall be binding on all members.
Sheffield – 200099
Motion 75
Conference believes that in order for the Group to effectively challenge management it is vital that GEC members can be held to account, through the democratic process, for there actions as individuals whilst serving on the GEC.
Conference recognises that the proposed rules for electing GEC members outlined in the Revenue and Customs Constitution will prevent individuals being held to account, as the less effective GEC members will simply be able to hide behind political factions to secure re-election.
Further to this Conference recognises that at this time of great change in the department it is important that local representatives have a direct link to the GEC. Therefore conference agrees that the best method of electing GEC members is to form constituencies based around groupings of branches, with the members within each constituency electing one person to the GEC.
Conference therefore agrees to replace Section 6.10 with the following –
Election to the GEC shall be held each year.
The group shall be divided into 25 constituencies.
The constituency boundaries shall be determined in the first instance by the GEC, by the grouping together of branches on the principle that
i) After taking into account any transitional arrangements or reservations
expressed elsewhere in the constitution no constituency shall contain
30% more members than any other.
ii) Constituencies shall whenever practical form gepographical area’s.
iii) In the event that any one branch is of such a membership size that
they exceed the average branch size, they shall elect one member only to the GEC.
Subject to the overriding authority of the election regulations issued by the General Secretary, the Group President will also issue guidance about the Group elections that shall be published to Branches and shall be binding on all members.
Bootle Taxes – 200006
Motion 76
Conference agrees that branches may now be allowed to submit motions and nominations by e-mail, as this will avoid postal delays, reduce paperwork and also support policy on tackling the carbon footprint in the Civil Service. Therefore Conference agrees a change to Group Constitution Rule 7.19:-
Insert after “The appropriate form” – “or electronically via e-mail using text only format”
Yorkshire & North Lincs- 200044
Motion 77
Conference recognises the opportunity afforded to the group of its own journal as a means of both communicating to members and documenting the many problems faced by our members in the workplace. However conference notes the danger of interference in its production by elected and unelected officials within the group who do not have direct responsibility for its production.
As such in order to prevent such interference, and ensure independence from the GEC, conference agrees to the following rule amendments:
10.1 and 10.2 to be deleted and replaced with:
10.1 The management of Group Publications shall be vested in the Editorial
Board.
The board shall consist of:
An Editor for the Group Journal, elected by card vote where necessary,
at the Annual Group Conference. The Editor shall be entitled to attend
any meeting of the Group Executive Committee, and shall be afforded
adequate facilities time to undertake the production of the magazine.
The editor shall hold no other position in the Union at group or Branch
level, to ensure that negotiations are not affected by their position.
4 members elected, by card vote where necessary, at the annual group conference.
2 members appointed by the Group Executive Committee. One shall chair the Editorial Board. The other shall act as a liaison between the GEC and the Editor.
Bootle Taxes - 200006
Motion 78
Conference believes in many cases that negotiations specific to a business unit are best carried out by the representatives from within that business unit.
Rule 6.10a shall be inserted after 6.10:
The Assistant Secretaries positions shall be elected as follows:
Two positions shall be elected by card vote at conference. They shall be for the position of Group Organiser, and for the portfolio for negotiating terms and conditions and HR Policy.
Eight positions shall be split by the GEC into constituencies of Business Units. They shall then be elected directly by members from those specific Business Units.
Rule 6.11a shall be inserted after 6.11:
Anyone nominated for the eight constituency assistant group secretary positions, must come from within the business units covered by the position they are
being nominated for.
Bootle Taxes - 200006
Motion 79
Conference believes in many cases that negotiations specific to a business unit are best carried out by representatives from within that business unit.
As such rule 5.6 shall be amended as follows –
Clause a) shall be deleted and replaced with:
The GEC shall constitute such other Committee’s to represent members. This shall be at the request of the majority of branches and/or members within any particular business unit, or at the GEC’s own discretion. Each Committee shall have responsibility to represent members within that bargaining area. Such committees shall be elected by a ballot of members in the bargaining area or business unit.
Bootle Taxes – 200006
SECTION 15 – BRANCH ORGANISATION
Motion 80
This conference believes that, due to the many reorganisations and mergers within HMRC, Branch Coverage needs to be reviewed.
We currently have different branches covering the same group of members within an office. We have Branch constitutions that overlap and National and geographical Branches within the same office. It is no longer clear, which Branch some members should belong to and this is causing friction between Branches.
This conference calls on the GEC :
1. To consult widely with local Branches to assess the extent of problems
2. Following this consultation to draw up guidelines for potential Branch
re-organisations. These guidelines should aim to cause as little disruption as possible to Branches.
3. To produce these guidelines by the end of October 2008.
London HQ – 200064
(covers motions 322 – 326)
Motion 81
That this Conference instructs the GEC to put in place adequate funding and facilities time to enable every Branch across the Group to have a Branch Women's Officer (BWO) and Branch Women's Advisory Committee (BWAC).
The female membership of the Revenue & Customs Group is 60% and it is vital that the importance of the role of the BWO/BWAC is acknowledged in this way.
Northern Ireland – 200082
Motion 82
Since the removal of local Whitley Committees the level of local consultation appears to have significantly dropped and in a number of Branches there is a decided lack of a coordinated approach to staffing and HR issues by Management. Conference instructs the GEC to conduct a survey of Branch Secretaries to identify problems and to work toward solutions that improve local consultation.
South East Essex – 200144
SECTION 16 – GROUP ORGANISATION
Motion 83
That this AGC recognises that the present structure of PCS Revenue & Customs Group is not working effectively for members. Indeed, conference recognises that a structure which seeks to ape a departmental structure which itself has been widely condemned as unworkable simply cannot help but fail.
Conference therefore instructs the incoming GEC to set up immediately a wide ranging consultative exercise with representatives and members with a view to implementing radical changes to the group set up, with proposals to be brought before AGC 2009 for implementation as soon after that date as is reasonably possible.
Conference recognises that a fundamental part of that review would be on the principle of abolition of the post of AGS, and increased number of ordinary GEC members, and the reinstatement of regional executive committees underpinning and supporting the work of the GEC. Conference further recognises that these committees should be on a geographical rather than functional basis.
South & West Wales Network - 200105
Motion 84
That this Group Delegate Conference believes that insufficient support is given from PCS HQ to Branch reps who deal with Personal Cases. The number of Personal Cases is increasing exponentially, especially following the WFC office closure programme, yet it appears that no monitoring or tracking of these cases is done by PCS centrally.
The GEC is therefore instructed to set up a working group, whose Terms of Reference will include:
• Monitoring the working of Personal Cases by Branch reps, via the GECLO system
• Looking at cases to identify trends and “hotspots”
• Providing detailed advice to Branches in dealing with particular types of cases.
The Terms of Reference will NOT include taking over involvement in Personal cases, as this should remain the duty of the Branch. Neither will it involve any changes to the current “legal advice” procedures.
The Working Group should review it’s working after 12 months to see if any improvement in the way that Revenue + Customs Group handles Personal Cases has been made.
Northants - 200081
Motion 85
That this GADC recognises the importance of the 2008 Pay Campaign and that it is necessary to expend funds to lobby MPs in support of that claim. We are disappointed however that funds to stage campaigns opposing office closures have not always been forthcoming from HQ.
Pay is a very important National issue but in some locations, members consider having jobs in there locality a greater importance/priority. This GADC therefore instructs the GEC to ensure that sufficient funds are available to support Branches that are fighting against campaigns to close offices.
Cornwall and Plymouth Revenue – 2002024
Motion 86
This conference instructs the incoming GEC to amend the system of 25 year PCS Long Service Awards to an automatic award system rather than the present system of awards on request.
Newcastle – 200021
Motion 87
This Conference instructs the incoming GEC to ensure that the terms of Motion 11 passed at Conference 2007 are met in full without delay and to endorse an additional instruction on timing.
Motion 11 called for the publication of the roles and responsibilities of all elected Group Officers. At the time of writing this motion, only details of the DGS and AGS posts have been published. Those of President, Vice - President, GEC Member and Treasurer have not. This is unacceptable and shows contempt for Conference and the Members of this Group. The publication of this information will assist in determining the allocation of facility time to posts and define remits. Additionally, it provides Members with the necessary information for election to Group posts and should therefore be issued with the timetable for holding AGMs issued to Branches each year .
Scotland West – 200047
Motion 88
This Conference instructs the incoming GEC to ensure that the terms of Motion 11 passed at Conference 2007 are met in full without delay and to endorse an additional instruction on timing.
Motion 11 called for the publication of the roles and responsibilities of all elected Group Officers. At the time of writing this motion, only details of the DGS and AGS posts have been published. Those of President, Vice - President, GEC Member and Treasurer have not. This is unacceptable and shows contempt for Conference and the Members of this Group. The publication of this information will assist in determining the allocation of facility time to posts and define remits. Additionally, it provides Members with the necessary information for election to Group posts and should therefore be issued with the timetable for holding AGMs issued to Branches each year .
Scotland West – 200047
Motion 89
This Conference notes the failure of motions of censure to radicalise the behaviours of GEC members.
Conference instructs GEC members who have not been on a negotiation skills course to attend at the earliest opportunity.
Conference also instructs that elected Deputy Group Secretary, President, Vice Presidents to attend a PCS introductory course each year to hear the concerns and ideas of new PCS representatives in order to better understand the grassroots of the union.
Norwich Taxes – 200084
Motion 90
This Conference notes with concern that not all business areas within the remit of Assistant Group Secretaries are receiving an adequate level of attention and representation.
Some work areas have been the subject of many Branch and Member briefings and others none. While it is understandable that there is more going on in some areas than others it is not credible at this time of change that there are no issues affecting Members in a particular work area.
The GEC is instructed to ensure that AGSs:
• Are aware of which business units are included within their allocated area of responsibility and what work they carry out.
• Issue briefings during the year which are inclusive but specific where necessary with the aim of assuring members in all business areas that the AGS is aware of issues affecting their work area and is consulting/issuing information as required.
• Ensure that representation on any PCS sub-committees and working groups is inclusive of all members in the business area where broad issues are involved and have relevant specific representation where the matter is more specialised.
Scotland West – 200047
Motion 91
AGC notes the recent fiasco within HMRC over the LEAN and 31 January ballot has meant that many members became disenfranchised through a mess of poor communication and awful administration. We need to ensure that there is no repeat of this and that members are able to voice opinions on issue that will affect them very directly.
This AGC therefore instructs the GEC to look at, design and implement the process to enable members to vote on line or via telephoned/text facilities before 6 April 2009. This facility will cover national and group ballots on all aspects of union work, including but not exclusive to elections, pay agreements and industrial action. Members should have to enrol onto this to ensure that those who wish it still have the option of obtaining paper copies of the ballot papers where appropriate.
The short term outlay will save money in the long term and ensure that every subscription paying member has their voice heard.
Northumberland and Durham – 200075
Motion 92
This Conference wishes to express its disappointment over the number of motions which were not heard at the previous two HMRC Group Conferences due to lack of Conference time. Conference appreciates the difficult and often thankless task undertaken by the Standing Orders Committee in compiling the motions for debate but there are too many motions which do reach the agenda and would benefit the Membership but are lost to the guillotine based on where they are placed in the agenda.
This motion calls for the facility to be introduced which was available at PCS C&E Group Conferences for the GEC during Conference, to compile and agree a list of motions from the agenda which they would support and would otherwise not be heard due to lack of time.
The motion numbers on this list could be put one at a time to Conference and if no opposition was raised by Delegates the motion could be passed without debate. If there was opposition from the floor, the motion would return to the agenda of motions for debate.
Scotland West - 200047
Motion 93
This AGC notes with concern that there is not one single point of contact in PCS who has been tasked to challenge and co-ordinate campaigns around the issue of Work Force Change.
This AGC therefore instructs the GEC to create an Assistant Group Secretary position to deal solely with WFC queries and issues and be tasked with co-ordinating campaigns across the department. This role should also highlight any successes achieved by PCS and its members and also provide direct support to Branches and members on this issue.
This position should be filled by August 2008.
Northumberland and Durham - 200075
Motion 94
That this Group Delegate Conference instructs the GEC to make available additional resources to PCS structures operating in all Non-Strategic Offices to help with the greater problems experienced by PCS members in those Offices as a result of the Departments plans.
Cumbria & North Lancs – 200028
Motion 95
That this ADC recognises the increasing number of complex personal cases being handled by PCS representatives at Branch level and directs the GEC to put in place arrangements at PCS HQ which will enable Branches to have speedy access to professional legal advice and legal publications.
East Cheshire & South Lancashire - 200134
SECTION 17 – UNION LEARNING
Motion 96
This R&C Group Conference instructs the Group Executive Committee to develop and implement an induction training package for all new Group Executive Committee members. The induction training should be offered once elected to the Group Executive Committee and should cover:
• Roles and responsibilities of elected officials;
• Day to day workings of the GEC and its sub committees ;
• Equality;
• Best practice;
• Help and support available.
Group Executive Committee
Motion 97
This GDC instructs the GEC to negotiate with HMRC that time ULRs spend doing Learning work on behalf of HMRC (i.e. anything for which HMRC wants to take credit and/or include in their national figures such as Skills screenings, Learning At Work Day etc) is classed as "Official duties" and not ULR time.
The Learning Agreement should be amended to reflect this and an Appendix added to list all activities already agreed nationally, which fall into this category , with no detriment to ULRs or the current agreement. The Appendix to be a working document that is updated every time a new area of work is designated as work for HMRC.
South East Wales Network - 200102
Motion 98
Conference notes that Workplace Learning Centres have been established in offices throughout the Department since 2001. Both the hardware and software currently in use are over 7 years old. Conference further notes that the funding currently available to Union Learning Representatives is targeted towards the capital expenditure involved in the establishment of new projects and learning centres, and does not allow for the maintenance, support and upgrading of existing installations.
Conference is concerned that without financial support for the existing Workplace Learning Centres to allow for the repair, upgrade and if necessary replacement of the computer equipment, the hardware and software will eventually fail and the centres will have to close.
Conference therefore instructs the HMRC Group Executive Committee to begin negotiations for an agreement whereby the Department will provide full support for the computer equipment in the Workplace Learning Centres.
Balliol Park - 200139
Motion 99
This GDC notes that ULRs from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are currently not represented on the ULR National Working Group by right. As Learning comes under the control of the devolved govemments, this means that Learning and funding issues in the devolved areas may not be fully understood/recognised by PCS/HMRC.
This GDC instruct the GEC to enter into negotiations with HMRC to ensure that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are represented at the ULR National Working Group meetings.
This GDC further instructs that such representatives are to be elected by the ULRs in each of their own devolved areas.
South East Wales Network - 200102
Motion 100
Conference notes that the existing Workplace Learning Centres are currently connected to the internet by the Department by ISDN connection, whereas Customs, Compliance and Debt Management & Banking staff have been given broadband internet access at their workstations.
Conference further notes that the facilities given to some staff at their workstations now far surpass those offered by the Workplace Learning Centres, to the effect that the "quiet space for learning" away from the workstation and the telephone that the Learning Centres offer is being undermined by the outdated type of internet connection currently provided by the Department.
Conference agrees that this situation is unsatisfactory and instructs the HMRC Group Executive Committee to begin negotiations to make broadband internet access to Workplace Learning Centres by the Department an integral part of any learning agreement with HMRC.
Balliol Park – 200139
(covers motion 328)
Motion 101
Conference notes that, despite previous assurances, our Union Learning Representatives have still not been given workplace internet access by the Department.
Conference agrees that workplace internet access is an extremely useful tool in helping our ULRs to fulfil their duties and properly represent their members, in addition to allowing a more effective use to be made of their facilities time.
Conference therefore instructs the HMRC Group Executive Committee to begin negotiations to make broadband internet access for our Union Learning Representatives by the Department an integral part of any learning agreement with HMRC
Balliol Park – 200139
(covers motion 329)
Motion 102
That this group conference notes that the Departmental Learning Agreement contains provision for the establishment of local learning centres. This Conference instructs the GEC to encourage and assist all branches in the establishment of such centres and to negotiate with HMRC to ensure that all such initiatives receive appropriate departmental support.
Salford Revenue – 200133
Motion 103
GDC instructs the GEC to renegotiate the rules of the HMRC/PCS Learning Agreement to remove the cap on time limits for ULRs to carry out their duties. The amendment should follow the rules as laid down in the Employment Act 2002 of allowing "reasonable time".
South East Wales Network – 200102
SECTION 18 – CAMPAIGNS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Motion 104
That this AGC deplores the continued slashing of jobs, offices, and services in HM Revenue & Customs. Conference recognises that these cuts are having a devastating effect on not just services to the public, but also the wellbeing of our members.
Conference accepts that a strategy of national action is required should the department continue to refuse to explore other ways of achieving required efficiency savings.
Conference therefore instructs the incoming GEC to instigate talks with HMRC designed to achieve the following objectives;
a. An end to all office closures
b. An end to any further job losses in HMRC
c. An end to the use of private sector consultants in HMRC
d. A root and branch reform of HMRC to undo the structural mess that the
creation of HMRC created
e. No further privatisation of services in HMRC
f: An end to the functionalisation of services in HMRC
Should negotiations fail to achieve the above reasonable aims, the GEC is instructed to ballot the membership for a campaign of action on the following issues;
a. A permanent ban on the working of overtime in HMRC
b. No cooperation with PFW
c. No cooperation with LEAN methods of working
d. Withdrawal of all forms of goodwill, including excess travelling for work and meetings
e. A strict working to grade across all disciplines in the department
Conference recognises that these action points are achievable and would command widespread support across the group membership, and are a far more effective method of action than intermittent one day strikes.
South & West Wales – 200105
Motion 105
Conference notes that current industrial action strategy employed by the HMRC Group Executive Committee is reminiscent of outdated 70's strike action which often causes unnecessary financial hardship to some of our members without having any measurable benefits. Conference acknowledges that strike action may be necessary in certain circumstances; however a more targeted strategy would have a greater effect on the various directorates.
Conference instructs the HMRC Group Executive Committee to develop and implement targeted industrial action including working to rule, business and/or directorate specific action and other suitable action in consultation with Branches
Balliol Park – 200139
(covers motions 330- 332)
Motion 106
This AGC believes that through staff cuts, office closures, constant changes in structure, the fragmentation of the Department into different business streams and the implementation of half baked Management theories such as Lean, HMRC is rapidly reaching the point where it is “not fit for purpose”.
This AGC instructs the GEC to report such failures by HMRC Management to bodies such as the Treasury Select Committee and campaign for more resources for Compliance and Debt Management and Banking to tackle tax evasion and collect outstanding duties. This will result in more jobs for PCS members and increased revenue for the government.
Northumberland and Durham – 200075
Motion 107
This Conference notes that increasing office closures are having a disproportionate effect on part time workers. With management’s attempts to cover the jobs gap with initiatives such as Lean, Pacesetter and Leap Forward, staff who have alternative working patterns are being placed under unacceptable pressure to change their work patterns to suit whatever management wants at the time. There are also concerns that this will have a negative impact on those requesting flexible working.
Conference believes that HMRC should not solve its problems at the expense of part time workers and others on alternative working patterns.
Conference therefore instructs the GEC to:-
1. Produce publicity for members to set out their rights and highlight the fact that undue pressure from management about their working patterns is unacceptable
2. Provide information for local reps on defending members on AWPs
3. Establish and publicise an escalation route for cases that cannot be resolve at local level with the aim of not only monitoring the problem but holding the Department to family friendly policies.
Salford – 200133
Motion 108
Conference notes that a recent campaign has raised the profile of resourcing within the Law Enforcement element of the Department, focusing on the risk to Society in general and wider issues of people smuggling and the like. Conference also notes that there have been a number of press media campaigns highlighting the potential pitfalls to the Economy of not having a strong plan to Inspect traders records and ensure as much compliance as possible. This conference instructs the GEC to mount a campaign to preserve and increase Inspector posts, across both Direct and Indirect Taxes, using data such as the Monthly VAT Performance Pack to argue where Revenue is being lost through under resoursing.
South England - 200058
Motion 109
This Revenue & Customs Group Conference notes the series of talks with HMRC following the suspension of the industrial action ballot on 22nd January 2008.
One of the key aims of the talks must be to eradicate the use of overtime whilst job cuts are taking place.
If an overtime agreement with HMRC, that eradicates all other overtime except that used for genuine health & safety purposes, is not in place by 30th June 2008 then the GEC should ballot members on a continuous overtime ban, following the appropriate authority from the National Disputes Committee.
Bradford & District - 200008
Motion 110
This Group Conference notes that, despite the carrying of successive motions in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 condemning PFW and demanding that PCS withdraw co-operation, this has yet to be achieved.
Conference recognises that PFW is a time consuming, unproductive and statistically dubious method of predicting resource availability and is unpopular with managers and staff alike, many of whom consider it to be a bullying tool which pressurises them and causes stress.
Conference therefore instructs the GEC to make all necessary preparations, including legal advice if considered necessary, to make a sustained boycott of PFW a key part of any industrial action short of a strike planned for 2008 and beyond.
Sussex Area - 200009
Motion 111
This Revenue & Customs Group Conference recognises the opportunity missed by the GEC to increase the pressure on HMRC management to halt the job cuts and office closure programme by suspending the industrial action planned for 31st January 2008.
The meaningless "assurances' given by HMRC management which led the GEC to call off the action were immediately undermined by the Intranet announcement from Acting Chairman, Dave Hartnett on 24 January 2008. This stated that the "Department is able to agree to the requests (for a pause in announcements of office closures, redundancies, moves of staff as the pause coincides with its own review of the Workforce Change Programme. " The message went on to say that "I have made it clear that we will not take part in talks under the threat of industrial action" clearly implying that PCS has backed down in the face of a hard line stance by HMRC management.
Meanwhile, HMRC management continues to offer overtime working which enables it to mask the detrimental effect the job cuts are causing to the Department and also enabling it to restart the Workforce Change programme from a stronger position than before.<