You are:

Oracle July and August 2008

Contents Oracle July 2008

 

Editorial

Now that the elections are over, the newly elected GEC has taken up office. As the newly appointed Editor, I would like to thank my predecessor, Jackie McWilliams, for her hard work last year and to wish her every success in her new learning role.

The GEC will now start implementing the policies decided by the Union’s annual conference. This issue focuses on the key debates and decisions taken in Brighton.

Conference has set a demanding agenda for the GEC to work to over the next year, identifying priorities and strategies for progressing members’ concerns on a range of issues such as Lean, Contact Centre Flexibilities, pay and Workforce Change.

With pay, we are now well past the settlement date and members are rightly angry at the delay.

With Treasury constraints holding back public sector pay as the cost of living soars, it looks less and less likely that PCS will be able to obtain an acceptable offer through negotiation alone and when the GEC meet at the end of July, they will need to consider the next steps in line with the policies set by the debate on pay.

The Workforce Change proposals and the resulting threat to jobs and offices were also a key concern at Conference.

HMRC have since published the final set of proposals for cluster and individual locations and we now know for certain that their plans place hundreds of locations and thousands of jobs under threat.

If the decisions made match the proposals published, there will be a large number of locations where there will be no alternative within Reasonable Daily Travel.

This will fully test the terms of the agreement reached with HMRC on measures to avoid redundancy and, should management’s commitment to the agreement be found lacking, conference has instructed the GEC on its response.

We know that the Government’s cost cutting agenda, which underpins these plans, is counter-productive in a revenue raising department like HMRC and these plans will not deliver an efficient department or work to the wider economic interests of ‘UKPLC’.

Conference has agreed that campaigning work should be at the top of the list of priorities over the next year and I look forward to working with the Editorial Team to ensure that Oracle continues to report on the fantastic work being done by reps and members across the Group in defence of jobs and offices.

Lorna Merry

President’s column

May I thank all of you for re-electing me to the position of Group President. It is indeed a privilege for me to continue to represent you over the next year. After yet another successful annual conference, I can assure you that I will vigorously pursue the policies that were created there in support of PCS members in HMRC.

We now know the final proposals in respect of workforce change. The brutal attack on the office network in the mad rush to axe 25000 jobs in the department puts us under no illusions about the battle lines being fully drawn. It is essential that the campaigning work undertaken so far is developed further and be given priority at all levels -local, branch, group and nationally. There have been successes in our fight to reverse the cuts and these must be built upon in the months ahead.

In respect of our pay claim for 2008, we know that the department is subject to an arbitrary remit set by the Treasury. We are also aware that PCS will co-ordinate its action plan across the whole of the civil service in response to pay offers. That will mean the Revenue & Customs group playing its full part in that national campaign. It is a sad fact that at a time when many are thinking about holidays, they are this year restricted by high inflation, increasing food, energy and housing costs that we as public servants are asked to pay the price. This especially when the divide between the rich and poor ever widens and those who run big business award themselves billions of pounds in bonuses. It highlights the injustice of the way this government treats its own employees.

Add to all this the need to stand up to the additional pressures by way of sick absence management, increasing targets, higher stress levels and much more, it is clear that there will be no easing up by HMRC in their attempts to erode our working conditions.

In my Presidential address to conference I concluded with an old adage but one that is worth repeating: ‘In unity there is strength and in solidarity we can win.’ Only by all of us standing firm in resolve together will we be able to defend properly our jobs, offices, pay and terms and conditions.

Dave Bean

Senior National Officer’s column - Group conference sets the agenda

When delegates from Branches representing members across HMRC met on 19/20 May 2008 for the 2008 Annual Revenue & Customs Group Conference, they had before them a daunting agenda of motions covering different approaches to all the major issues facing members.

Over a day and half of passionate but constructive and friendly discussions resulted in decisions on policies and action points on all of those significant areas of membership concern.

What I’ve detailed below is a brief summary of all the high-level resolutions which were confirmed by the Group Conference:

2008 Pay – the 2008 pay claim lodged earlier in the year was endorsed, but the Group Executive Committee (GEC) was instructed to consider a ballot on industrial action if a satisfactory offer was not received by 1 July 2008

Staffing, Working Conditions & Job Security – the Agreement with HMRC was endorsed and the GEC was instructed to put the Agreement to a membership ballot, but to continue with negotiations on all the issues that remained outstanding in order to strengthen the Department’s commitments to avoid compulsory redundancies & moves beyond RDT

Lean Working in Processing – the Group Conference decided that there were still safeguards required before Lean Working could be acceptable to members, that the GEC should enter into urgent talks on such safeguards with the Department and to ballot members on action by the end of June 2008 if assurances were not secured

Flexibilities in Contact Centres – delegates decided that management had not provided an acceptable set of arrangements for either extending flexibilities within Contact Centres or for protecting those already on traditional FWH contracts, instructed the GEC to continue to negotiate to obtain satisfactory provisions for all in Contact Centres and agreed to recommend action to members if those talks failed and existing terms were threatened.

The GEC and Group Officers have already set to work on a programme to prioritise action on all these issues as well as the many other resolutions adopted by Group Conference.

At its next meeting at the end of July 2008, the GEC will be receiving full reports on negotiations with the Department and consultations with local representatives on all of these areas, with recommendations on how to proceed and whether membership ballots will be required. It’s also important to note that, on 2008 Pay & the issue of Staffing, Working Conditions & Job Security, there will be a need to liaise with the National Executive Committee on the timings of ballots as any dispute over 2008 Pay is likely to be Civil Service-wide and members will also be consulted over the agreement reached nationally with the Cabinet Office over avoiding redundancies. Members will be receiving detailed briefings soon after that meeting of the GEC.

So, I wish all members a very enjoyable Summer and that you return refreshed to support PCS in its efforts to protect your jobs, careers, working conditions and living standards.

Mike Duggan

Workforce Change – Time to have your say

On June 11th the department announced a further round of proposals under Workforce Change. In fact it was the beginning of the endgame. Business directorates and their staff in the remaining clusters and individual offices were plunged into the final period of consultations set to last for eight weeks or ten in Northern Ireland. They will be well underway by the time this edition reaches the thousands of PCS members concerned. It is now the turn of management and staff in the smaller, more isolated offices across the UK to discover what the future may have in store and, critically, to take steps to try and influence that future.

For the business itself, the result, as we have argued these last two years, will be nothing less than catastrophic. Cutting staff, closing offices, reducing the service to customers and attacking the economic and social infrastructure of vulnerable communities will mean that the nation’s tax revenues will continue to decline. For the country as a whole, the future means fewer schools, fewer hospitals and less security but more discrimination against the vulnerable, the elderly and the poor.

The current tax gap, the figure which represents what the revenue yield really is, as opposed to what it should be under present legislation, stands at an annual minimum of £25 billion. As that figure continues to rise, security in the way business is conducted will lessen. Last autumn, the data containing details on 25 million UK citizens was lost as a direct consequence of job cuts in the Child Benefit Office. It is a lose-lose scenario, and only PCS, on behalf of everyone involved, is attempting to maintain an air of caution and common sense against the department’s headlong rush to the point beyond which it is no longer fit for purpose.

As soon as the June 11th plans were announced, the R&C Group issued a bulletin to all members (011/08) outlining the chief proposals and recommending a course of action which members should take in order to protect their interests in these incredibly difficult circumstances. A Branch Bulletin (244/08) for local representatives also went out linking local and national lines of communication and a media release was issued detailing the union’s anger and dismay at the on-going changes.

It is unlikely that members affected will now be unaware of what is planned, but for the record, the numbers involved can be summarised as follows:

 

Projected HMRC office closures
Region Current staff in cluster and individual offices Staff projected to be required in those offices by 2011 Current number of buildings as covered in this review Proposed number of buildings to be closed
East  3,410        2,600 38 21
North west 810 380 15 10
South west 3,110 2,500 34 21
Yorkshire and Humber 1,220 730 15 8
Northern Ireland 700 350 10 5
Scotland 1,870 1,200 29 19
Wales 1,200 700 17 11
Total 12,320 8,460 158 95

 

 Further details are in Bulletin 011/08 and a complete breakdown, office by office, is available on the HMRC intranet. Full details are now with all branches and members concerned.

It is to be hoped that the ongoing process of consultation is carried out according to negotiated agreements and protocols. In earlier consultations, the union has protested that in some cases the process appeared to be a foregone conclusion and it mattered little what staff might say.

In fact where members and reps have ensured that their voices are clearly heard there is also evidence that a difference can and must be made.

There have been some excellent PCS campaigns against aspects of WFC in all parts of the country, as we have detailed in recent editions. MPs, councillors, local businesses, the media and the general public have all offered support and made a difference. The department’s original proposals have been changed and changed again.

For individual members, if nothing is done, likely scenarios may range from the very difficult to the simply impossible. It is important in these final weeks that members who are affected by the proposals make their points clearly and effectively. The union will help, support, encourage and lead but will always be more effective where members are actively involved.

Many members may believe that their office is unaffected and that therefore they need do nothing. This would be a serous mistake. Again, evidence shows that in earlier rounds, offices which were presumed safe and where staff thus did nothing, were suddenly scheduled to close, once the consultation period was over.

Everyone must get involved and make their feelings known. Reps and activists will know what to do and members who are unsure should consult their union officers.

Now is not the time to ignore the problem and hope it will go away. We have made a difference so far. We can do so again.

Ian Mellor and Dominic McFaden write

Car park rally on job cuts

PCS South East Essex Branch held a lunchtime car park meeting for members on 2nd June to highlight further job cuts and the closure of four Revenue & Customs buildings affecting branch members. Current staffing levels are set to reduce again from 2,000 to just 1,500 by 2011.

More than 100 staff gathered outside Alexander House, the main VAT processing office in Victoria Avenue, to hear Branch President Mervyn Howell talk about the impact of workforce change in Southend Urban Centre, which includes staff at Basildon, Grays and Shoebury.

‘A number of people have been here for 25 or 30 years,’ he said ‘and there’s significant potential for these staff to lose their jobs and they all live locally.’

‘The loss of Portcullis House next door means another empty building in Victoria Avenue. It’s like a bomb site already; most of our empty buildings are ex-Government owned and have gone to rack and ruin.’

Deputy Branch Secretary Andy Lord said the branch had started lobbying local councillors and was meeting one of the local MPs to raise a question in the House. Andy said: ‘Ten years ago former Customs & Excise and Inland Revenue staff numbered over 3,000 in Southend and this had now halved. Soon there won’t be enough to fill one building. We’re wondering whether there’s any long term future for people here.’

The move of Basildon staff to Southend would mean extra travelling time and increase their parking and travel costs. Fears of South East Essex members working at Crown House in Grays were also realised in the recent Workforce Change announcement for the East, when closure of that building was added to the list.

Branch Organiser Darrell Binding said: ‘Recently the local Southend Echo newspaper highlighted the nesting and feeding domain adopted by two peregrine falcons on buildings in Victoria Avenue. These are clearly not the only endangered species here in Southend; our staff need urgent protection as well!’

The branch is stepping up their campaign over the job cuts and office closures, to highlight the problems that will be caused economically for Southend and District, as well as services to the public and local community. ‘Members are urged to write to their local councillors and MPs, and to support the local campaign.’

Canterbury learning

A wide range of learning and health awareness opportunities were on offer at the combined R&C, DWP and Prison Service Group’s Learning at Work Day held on 22 May in Canterbury.

Attended by Councillor Charlotte MacCaul, the city’s newly appointed Sheriff, the event catered for around 500 staff based in four locations in Canterbury. Organisers were pleased that around 175 managed to leave work for an hour or so to sample the opportunities, including:

  • Indian food sampling and demonstrations provided by Canterbury Curry Club
  • Health awareness tests provided by HM Prison PT staff
  • Manicures provided by Canterbury College
  • Salsa dancing demonstrations provided by Kent Adult Education Services (KAES)
  • ITQ information stand provided by Canterbury College
  • Adult education and library services stand provided by KCC / KAES
  • Key Skills computer based ‘mini tests’ provided by Move On / KAES
  • Customs Fund information stand
  • Book Swap organised by PCS and BBC Quick Reads.

Staff who attended also had the opportunity to take part in a quiz and individual learning surveys. Several also asked about joining PCS.

The organisers look forward to building on this success next year and, by so doing, helping more adults re-engage with learning for work or pleasure.

South East England Branch Learning Co-ordinator, Alan Nutten, based at Charter House in Canterbury, said: ‘Working with colleagues from other PCS Groups was vital for the success of the event. Together we framed a combined funding bid, delivered a wide range of opportunity (including free contributions from key local adult education providers) and marketed the event to a wide range of colleagues. Early feedback has been tremendous!’

Conference special

Group president - Setting the scene

R&C Group President Dave Bean welcomed delegates to a packed Hewison Hall in the Brighton Centre at the beginning of the two-day annual conference on May 19th. Within 36 hours, decisions taken by the 290 delegates would determine Group policy and action for the next 12 months.

Dave began by congratulating everyone on their achievements over the previous year. The effects of HMRC cuts and closures would have been much worse without a well organised union to protect members’ interests during very difficult times.

Looking ahead, the President declared that a platform for negotiation with the employer on surplus staff had been agreed but the key issue in coming months would be pay.

At the same time, although the union had achieved the retention of work and offices which the department had ear marked for closure there was still much to be done: ‘We must not lose sight of our main objective to keep offices open where closure would mean detriment to our members. You have my assurance as President that the Group Executive Committee (GEC) will continue to make campaigning to keep ‘offices open and work local’ their top priority.

‘We will use all legal avenues, the media and engagement with members of (all UK) parliaments to exert political pressure and we shall not shirk from industrial action at any level necessary,’ said the President.

Turning to pay, Dave reported that the issue was now at the top of the National Executive Committee’s (NEC) campaigning agenda. The three year deal with HMRC was now at an end and the 2008 pay claim had already been submitted based on 6% or £8 an hour. An early outcome was not anticipated as HMRC had not cleared the necessary avenues with HM Treasury: ‘This is not acceptable,’ he said. ‘I believe that if a satisfactory pay offer is not received by 30th June then we are in dispute from 1st July and must coordinate our efforts with other bargaining areas within the civil service.’ The successful combined PCS and education unions’ action on April 24th showed the way ahead.

Highlighting the rapidly rising cost of living, Dave echoed General Secretary Mark Serwotka’s words in saying that civil servants were the victims, not the cause of national inflation. The UK is not poor, he said, as the huge pay increases awarded within business and finance over the last 12 months clearly shows. At the same time, over 20% of PCS members remained on the minimum wage. A narrowing of the current massive tax gap would mean that all taxpayers could receive a tax cut of £1500. Meanwhile, other battles over terms and conditions lay ahead, particularly over flexible working hours.

With that, the President said he was looking forward to the usual high level of debate and moved Conference to the first of the 86 motions that would be dealt with over the following two days. ‘In unity there is strength and with solidarity, we can win,’ he concluded.

Dave Bean

Group secretary - relentless negotiation

An early Conference keynote was the wide ranging, in depth survey of the previous 12 months delivered by Senior National Officer Mike Duggan.

The department’s own survey, he began, had indicated the increasing stress and declining morale among its own staff, brought about by office closures and a demand for improved outcomes amid ever diminishing resources across all business streams at a time of rising inflation and declining standards of living.

At the same time the Group Annual Report highlighted the many achievements of PCS representatives at all levels during a fast moving year. ‘Negotiating relentlessly and protecting members’ interests has been effective and heartening at a time of overwhelming difficulty,’ declared Mike. Regretting that he had insufficient time to cover everything that had been achieved, he said that everyone involved deserved the highest praise for all their incredibly hard work.

Workforce Change - An important feature of the report was the aim to secure a guarantee of no compulsory redundancy from the employer. Meanwhile, in the previous November, a letter had been sent to the acting chairman of HMRC describing what steps should be taken to improve staff morale and restore public confidence in the department after the loss of confidential data.

Only a ballot for strike action had persuaded HMRC to respect the union’s wish that compulsory redundancies or moves, office closures and outsourcing should be put on hold during the period of negotiations. There had also been assurances on job security, a clarification of reasonable daily travel (RDT), an improvement of the one-to-one and moderating panel processes and the use of overtime and outsourcing. It was also to be expected, pending further talks, that vulnerable members who found themselves outside RDT in the continuing programme of office closures would now be able to anticipate a more secure future

The importance of further negotiations could not be stressed too highly, said Mike, as they gave the union an ongoing opportunity to influence the future direction of all business streams within HMRC including Estates and Support Services (ESS) and Workforce Change (WFC) in order to protect the present and future interests of members. In some areas, management’s handling of the moderating and appeals processes, for example, had been abysmal, particularly over equality issues, and the union must ensure that established protocols were properly observed and implemented so that horror stories reported by members and reps over the last 12 months were not heard again.

Whilst agreements already reached represented better security for members, the programme of office closures remains, said Mike, but both the GEC and NEC were now in a better position to step up union campaigns if necessary.

Pay - The SNO reminded Conference that the 2005/2007-pay deal had meant that 65% of members were on the maximum for their pay band. ‘That achievement is now threatened by the pay restraint policies that the Treasury is attempting to impose across the public sector... we regard the band maxima as ‘the rate for the job’ and it is imperative that we preserve this against inflation and achieve a satisfactory cost of living increase for all,’ said Mike.

Valuation Office - Paying tribute to the VOA Committee and their ongoing battle for a better pay settlement, Mike said that R&C and VO pay campaigns would be working more closely together and with other groups within PCS.

LEAN - Mike said that although the agreement reached with the employer remained controversial, it still, in the firm opinion of the GEC and endorsed in a membership ballot, represented considerable progress in significant aspects of LEAN working and provided the opportunity for further talks, particularly over hourly monitoring. Industrial action was not out of the question if this issue could not be satisfactorily resolved.

UK Border Agency - This was likely to be the last R&C Conference attended by members who were now forming part of the UK Border Agency, said Mike. Paying tribute to their organisation and contribution to the Group as a whole, he wished them well for the future as they moved into the new agency with the R&C Group’s commitment to keep all their terms and conditions intact. Meanwhile the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office would be most likely to join the Crown Prosecution Group in PCS and again moved with the best wishes of Conference.

Equalities - The increasingly influential equalities committees were congratulated on a tremendously busy and constructive year.

Learning - Union Learning Co-ordinator Tony Walsh and all Union Learning Reps (ULRs) were congratulated on an excellent year.

Data Loss - The Group’s stance, in refusing to allow members to be scapegoated whilst co-operating fully with the investigation process, improved the union’s standing with the public, and brought home the PCS argument that there is a direct link between the ‘penny pinching measures caused by job cuts’ and incidents such as the loss of data in the Child Benefit Office whose reps deserved the highest praise for protecting their members from ‘the wolves of the media’.

Group elections - It was encouraging to note that participation in Group Elections was higher this year than in the past.

In conclusion, Mike said: ‘Despite all the difficulties, I have no doubt that the formidable fortitude, unity and talent that exists in this Group will see us through to success.’

Mike Duggan

General secretary - confront the issues

‘We gather here yet again in Brighton as a union facing more attacks from this government than any other union in the UK,’ declared General Secretary Mark Serwotka at the outset of his incisive, inspirational rallying call to Conference early on Day One.

The agreements that the union had reached so far, particularly on pensions and sick leave, were therefore even more significant when achieved against a hostile government using its civil service as a political football ‘in the most disgraceful way imaginable’.

‘Gordon Brown never listens to things he does not want to hear,’ said Mark, ‘and has declared his intention of making us the smallest civil service in the UK since the Second World War…..

‘These failed policies have already created devastation among people that we should be here to serve, and among PCS members who are demoralised and distraught at seeing their work cast aside without recognition….he is a Prime Minister who is not fit for purpose when it comes to running our public services,’ added Mark to increasing applause as he listed government attacks over the previous four years: 104,500 job cuts, a 5% cut in resources every year until 2011, more privatisation than in the Tory years of Margaret Thatcher and John Major combined, proposals to close 1000 offices, pay freezes and pay caps including a zero per cent consolidated pay rise for 40% of members in the DWP, proposals to cut pensions, and to do away with the civil service compensation scheme.

The union is now looking for further agreements on no-compulsory redundancy and privatisation, continued Mark as he criticised the employer for enabling private companies who take over government work to make staff redundant from the outset.

At the same time, PCS must not rest on achievements made so far. Members deserve the expectation that the union can do better. ‘Agreements reached so far offer some bottom line protection for members….but we must build on that now and confront some of the other issues that we face,’ said Mark. In HMRC the issues include corporate intimidation as staff are bullied into accepting HMRC proposals including the closure of over 200 offices as work is centralised and jobs moved to far distant locations. 

Staff still face the continuation of discredited LEAN processing methods and the erosion of flexible, family friendly working hours, he declared.

As a Group with one of the highest membership densities in the union, he went on, R&C has the industrial muscle to force agreements from the employer. There shall not be ‘no strike deals’ within PCS, he said.

In conclusion, the General Secretary turned to the key issue of pay, where the union had not managed to achieve deals that kept members pay awards ahead of the rate of inflation. Talks were nevertheless in progress aimed at equalising rates of pay for similar work across the civil service. Meanwhile, it would not be possible to achieve better pay awards this year because the government has established below inflation financial remits which effectively means that everyone is facing a pay cut. Therefore, said Mark, a radical approach was required to change the remit so that pay progression is coupled with annual rises in the cost of living. There must also be a reduction in the number of bargaining units across the civil service and a reversal in the demand for local and regional pay. Currently, pay awards must not be less than 4.2%, the present increase in the retail price index.

To achieve this, the union must act as one and hold a national ballot on action in support of pay. All groups must reject pay offers of less than 4.2% and as a union working together, PCS must combine with other unions in the public sector to achieve pay increases, not pay cuts.

‘All civil servants are being attacked,’ said Mark, ‘and we stand a better chance if we stand up together.’

Mark Serwotka

National president - an army of support

In a hard hitting attack on government public sector policies National President Janice Godrich began her speech on Day One by thanking everyone in the Group for all the hard work they had put in over the last 12 months in fighting not only for their own members but also for the impressive support they had given to the wider campaigns of national PCS. ‘An army of support has been mobilised,’ she said, ‘in contrast to the present government whose support is falling away and who did so poorly in recent elections.’

The reason, said Janice, is because PCS takes up the issues on behalf of its members and, unlike the government, is sufficiently well organised to deliver.

Within the civil service, management have taken a ‘we know best’ approach. ‘They don’t listen and our members are left to clear up the resulting mess,’ she declared. ‘Union members know what is best for them, and it is the responsibility of the national leadership to allow members’ voices to be heard.’

‘We have restored the primacy of national conference. Members and reps can be assured that the leadership will do its best to implement the decisions taken - and not ignore them where they don’t conform to some pre-formed view.’

Reminding Conference of earlier legal battles over the legitimacy of the position of the general secretary, the President said: ‘In my view, the re-establishment of union democracy represents one of the finest achievements of the ten year history of our union.’

Improvements must continue to be made against the current background of government hostility and there has been further progress in organisation, membership levels, support for reps and communication with members to encourage them to take a greater role in the life and work of their union.

In the work of the equalities’ groups, much has been achieved but much remains to be done, especially on pay where at senior level, for instance, the difference in pay between male and female workers remains at 13.6%. ‘It is a testament to public sector trade unions that in the public services…the gap is most narrow at 0.7%...but we won’t be satisfied until discrimination in all its forms is abolished forever,’ said Janice.

In conclusion, the President returned to the weakness of the present government. PCS is now in a stronger position to press for a reversal of the current hostile attitude to public sector workers, she said. The recent government U-turn on the 10% tax threshold was evidence that minds could be changed by sustained pressure in the prevailing political and economic climate where New Labour is increasingly vulnerable.

Janice Godrich

Assistant general secretary - learning the lessons

A key reason for the growth and success of PCS over the first ten years where membership has increased by 20% to over 300,000, is because members are confident that the union is prepared to take up and campaign around the issues that are important to them, declared Assistant General Secretary Chris Baugh.

Speaking to Conference on Day Two, Chris surveyed the establishment of PCS as a key player in the wider trade union movement and placed the current position in historical perspective.

In spite of the background of a hostile media, he declared, members of parliament, the employer and the wider public are now aware that PCS, rather than merely talk, is a union that rightly campaigns to improve the working lives of its members on many issues that ironically, the media would also wish to put right. The work of the union, and that of the general secretary and president has put PCS well and truly on the trade union map.

Nevertheless, members across the public sector continue to face the biggest attack on their terms and conditions in living memory yet against this background, trade unions have achieved much despite the difficulties of the last 20 years. ‘It is a proven fact,’ said Chris, ‘that workers are better off in a union organised work place. Every major social advance that we enjoy as a free society…education, health and welfare: all of these would not exist without the struggle, the pressure and influence of trade unions. (They) remain the first and last line of defence of every worker against the onward march of market forces and the power of international capital.’

In the civil service, the union has prevented mass sackings, for example, which has happened in other sectors. Government officials in the Cabinet Office, once reluctant to speak to the union, have now been forced back to the negotiating table. ‘We would not have the most important job protocols in the public sector without the union’s campaign,’ he emphasised.

The three lessons we have learned are, that first we have solid organisation, such as that in the R&C Group, that we promote an activist culture and that our communications need to be first class.

Secondly, we understand the nature and dynamic of the bargaining process in which everything comes down to leverage. We have an elected leadership which is not afraid to take the issues to the employer.

Thirdly, campaigns are based on activists and the membership: ‘The crucial point is that when we pitch campaigning activity, we do it in a way that commands overwhelming membership support,’ said Chris.

With that comes the confidence that we have to play our pivotal role in the union movement and to show that our members have the capacity to struggle against oppressive conditions and insecurity at work. ‘PCS has shown in practice that it is possible to reject the fatalism and defeatism that has afflicted the British trade union movement for too long,’ he concluded.

Chris Baugh

Conference report 2008

In our coverage of the 2008 Annual Delegate Conference, editorial board member Darrell Binding, assisted by fellow board member Mike Lightfoot, report in detail on the motions and debates.

Pay

Group secretary Mike Duggan moved the first motion of conference, emergency motion 1A on Pay. He called for the need to maximise membership involvement on the issue, as their support would be needed in a consultation exercise. Mike gave the background to the early lodging of the pay claim, which had united all in the group on its objectives, and the disappointment and anger at the employer’s response, which was totally unsatisfactory. He viewed it unlikely that an acceptable settlement would be achieved through negotiation. To secure a decent pay raise concerted action would be necessary, firstly through the actions of the VOAC members. With this in mind, a formal complaint over the delayed settlement would be lodged with the employer after the 30th June, and all practical means to recompense members for the delay by the department would be pursued. The motion was carried unanimously.

Richard Levitt (Colchester) demanded a pay rise at least with the rate of inflation when moving motion 1, along with no more multi-year pay deals; a return of the pay scales with no more than five years to the max on each scale; and compensation for below inflation pay rises suffered by members as a result of the last three-year deal. Steve Lazenby (S West Wales) asked for clarification on which rate of inflation was meant in the words of the motion: was it the Consumer Price Index?

Lewis Bevan, supporting the motion from the GEC, extended the demands of this motion to the emergency motion just moved by Mike Duggan. The delayed pay deal was totally unacceptable, he echoed, and reminded conference of the maxim ‘we are the victims of inflation, not the cause of it!’ It was policy to have no more multi-year deals, he said, and supported the call for compensation due to the privations of the employer’s pay remit and an assured pay scale.

Opposing, Manchester’s Martin Lewis wanted the negotiators to consider multi¬year deals if they were to the advantage of members; to laughter he explained ‘because when the GEC are in favour of something, I’m opposed to it!’

Richard Levitt, in his right of reply, explained that the motion was asking for the Retail Price Index, nothing less and re-iterated the demand for no more multi-year deals. The motion was carried unanimously.

In motion 2, Matthew Meehan (Leeds & District) argued that the proper rate for the job was the maximum of each scale, and instructed the GEC to negotiate the pay deal so that all grades from AA to SO reached the maximum within 3 years of entering their grade.

Steve Ion (GEC), supporting the motion, argued that the Department was ‘getting us on the cheap’ and that we were one step nearer achieving what we want by passing
this motion. It was carried unanimously.

Motion 3 on negotiating a minimum wage for AAs of £14,500 with a proportionate increase for other pay bands was formally moved by Edinburgh branch, allowing Andy Thomas for the GEC to speak in support. This was again unanimously carried.

Facility time

Greater Manchester’s John Sharples expressed several delegate’s anger on Facility Time changes that had been agreed by the GEC in motion 8, heard in general debate with motion 9. PCS HQ did not understand branches problems, he argued; there had been significant cutbacks in sub-committees, and with Workforce Change, a significant rise in personal cases.

He added that there had been delays in WFC reviews reporting, meaning a consequent underspend of facility time, and finally chaos had been wreaked by the recent GEC election ballot.

The new facility time system worked when the official side were flexible, but in many cases they were proving not to be, and regularly said ‘no’ to increased time for complex cases, citing recent challenges to rep’s time by Processing management. Where negotiation and challenge by PCS reps failed, he said the last resort had to be legal challenge for any refusal to allow reps time to represent their members.

Mike Gilbert (Leicester) in moving motion 9 argued opposition to motion 8 in that it ‘tinkered around the edges’ of the issues and the membership needed to be made aware of the changes that would impact on their representation. Reps needed to tell management where they were wrong on facility time; it was ‘a bureaucratic nightmare, not a debate for those who use minimal amounts of time.’

Paul Godfrey (S E Wales) agreed that there were all sorts of problems with the arrangements, with large branches being ‘capped’ where others were underspent. Whilst the new system was still bedding in, he argued, we did not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and make things worse.

Simon Boniface (GEC) exclaimed ‘Oh dear!’ Both motions recorded Conference’s unhappiness with facility time, but the GEC had considered all representations received on the issue and planned to consult with branches next year on how it was working, in the hope to improve it.

There were, he said, pockets of bad managers in areas such as DMB, Customer Contact etc. who were deliberately misunderstanding the new rules. He agreed that the new GEC needed to discuss how problems would be escalated, possibly through an AGS, and asked that Conference supported motion 8 and opposed motion 9. Motion 8 was carried and motion 9 fell.

Motion 10 moved by John Barrett (North Yorkshire) followed up the theme of attacks on local activists by incompetent and crass managerial interpretations of the facility time arrangements.

It wasn’t the business of managers to interfere with branch allocations, he went on, and we needed to run rings round them. There was a big need for facility time, a union resource to be managed effectively.

Sheffield Revenue network pointed out some of the real problems for wide geographically spread branches which cannot reduce time for travelling to union meetings. He evidenced two members who used their flexi time and annual leave to carry out their duties, which was not acceptable.

Rising to support the motion from the GEC, Nick McCann said the sentiments of the motion fitted in with current GEC thinking but it wasn’t, he conceded, possible to make everyone happy.

Members are the union’s lifeblood, and there should be enough time to support them without ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul.’ The new GEC would review the allocations and usage of branches. The motion was also carried.

Next up was Telford’s Mike Veric who moved Motion 11 on the imposition of time limits on TU training by the employer and the disproportionate travelling time associated with the geographical spread of branch membership and location of key union officers.

Mike expressed his pride in PCS in making a difference in the workplace. There was a need to implement the organising agenda and show real leadership in building branches he said, but as there wasn’t any more time available in his branch to give training because of cuts and travelling issues, Mike feared his branch would lose members. The motion was supported by the GEC and carried.

Debbie Searle from Liverpool Revenue Branch moved motion 12 on concerns over managers not reporting action taken under MPPA against Trade Union reps to Group officials, noting the increased scrutiny on them.

She told conference that two branch reps had been dismissed in the past five months: one of these had been overturned on appeal, and she was hopeful on the other case.

Debbie queried the apparent different treatment of reps which management put down to ‘managing efficiencies.’ This attack on Union functions was probably happening everywhere and she urged Conference to support the motion. With GEC support the motion was carried.

Industrial relations: general issues

Mark Edwards (Waterview Park) moved Motion 15 with the exclamation ‘No... we haven’t found the disks yet!’ to general laughter.

More seriously, he talked about the media frenzy surrounding the loss and berated HMRC for doing nothing but pass the buck and create a blame culture over the issue. His motion asked Conference to instruct the GEC to engage with HMRC management to help develop a Departmental structure which truly delivered on the Chairman’s proposals to increase accountability throughout HMRC ‘by simplifying the organisation’s structure and making it clearer who’s responsible for what whilst shortening lines of responsibility.’

Steve Lazenby (S W Wales) spoke of a disaster waiting to happen, with training a farce and as clear as mud. There were going to be more personal cases likely on discipline issues relating to security breaches, and he put the blame for the disaster on HMRC and their privateers.

AGS Kerry Fairless, speaking in support from the GEC, spoke of ‘the day the world changed’ in November when the news broke over Paul Gray’s resignation.

He berated the unhelpful media stories over the loss, whilst PCS was campaigning against job losses, office closures and probably a derisory pay offer. He focused on the lack of security guidance, confirmed by the CIO Deepak Singh who, as head of IT, admitted even he couldn’t find the necessary bits on the intranet!

Kerry told delegates he was confident that the Poynter Review would attach no blame to any individual HMRC officer. The motion was unanimously carried.

‘What was set up in 1920 and destroyed in 2005?’ asked Alwyn Mason (North Wales and Marches), moving Motion 16. ‘The Departmental Whitley structure!’ he answered, criticising the GEC for letting this happen.

With 37 plus business streams negotiations had become chaotic, with silo business heads interpreting policies for their own interests. The motion argued for a stop to the erosion of staff’s terms and conditions, and the establishment of a meaningful negotiating structure.

Mike Lowe (GEC) agreed. It was an unacceptable situation and all members must be able to enjoy the same basic terms and conditions. To this end, the GEC endorsed the call for the joined-up negotiating structure which was enjoyed under the Whitley system. The motion was carried unanimously.

Bradford & District’s Steve Greenwood moved Motion 17 on consultation on flexibility projects with PCS reps. He evidenced cases where full consultation had not happened in other directorates and asked that recognised trade unions are named as the sole negotiating body for staff involved in such projects.

Michael Saunders (Edinburgh Taxes) supported the motion, stating that their worries were that this lack of consultation on projects had started in Contact Centres but would soon come to others, and become a system too quickly implemented.

In his first ‘historic’ speech as a GEC member, to loud cheers, Hamish Drummond supported the motion adding that these trials and projects were just playing with semantics, and would become problems that would ‘bite us on the bum.’ This motion was carried.

Job evaluation

Jon Conway’s Motion 19 from South East Central (North) Branch put the case that many staff no longer knew what was expected of them even after their jobs had been evaluated.

He argued that the job description must be agreed by PCS and properly reflect each job evaluated; variations to jobs previously evaluated should then be re-evaluated.

Cath Colbeck (GEC) spoke in support of the motion. She spoke of the library of job descriptions already held, and said that this motion would help to re-enforce GEC policy, which Conference subsequently carried.

Motion 20 moved by Helen Meldrum (Dundee) dealt with the ever-increasing workload of Band Os in dealing with HR and Estates work, previously covered by staff in those areas. She wanted the GEC to survey Band O members and present findings to HMRC, to highlight under resourcing and under-provision.

North West England thought the motion’s directive didn’t go far enough. Stress levels had been heightened and it was now targets over costs culture, which meant management responsibilities had been undermined. There were now no real developmental opportunities for new managers, and some SOs wouldn’t even meet the PCS reps without their Grade 6 present.

Steve Owens (Wales HMRC) spoke in opposition to this motion. It dealt with only Band O managers when all managerial grades were impacted.

Lynda Priestley (GEC) spoke in support, arguing that ‘pure’ management had now gone by the wayside over the years, and Band Os were suffering from the excess workloads now being imposed. She accepted Steve Owens’ point about all grades being covered, and advised that ongoing negotiations would address the issues raised. Motion 20 was carried.

Workforce change

Emergency motions 14 and 7 (motions 25A and 25B on the revised agenda) were the first two heard together in debate in the Workforce Change section. Alan Runswick (Liverpool) moved emergency motion 14, looking for PCS to secure the best possible levels of protection against cuts and closures.

The motion recognised that there was much in the HMRC agreement that would benefit members, on enhanced protocols for avoiding compulsory redundancies and handling the consequences of HR outsourcing; this dovetails with the national agreement. He spoke of the closure of Southport Office, with local reps involved in the appeal stage as half of the staff were not moving, and twenty grievances were pending.

Southport could remain open, he said, and cited the Isle of Wight example. ‘Some members want to go and we’ll do our best to help; some want to stay and we’ll do our best to fight for them,’ he said. Summarising, Alan said the agreement has the means to bring local managers to heel although work needs to continue on several fronts, and it allows for industrial action should the employer not do what they are signed up to do.

Opposing emergency motion 14, Steve Ryan (North Wales) moved emergency motion 7, setting the scene for the future. ‘We know about staff cuts and office closures, and we’ve had the protection of Reasonable Daily Travel and paid moves of home,’ he said ‘but the difficulty is the agreement is being presented as gaining and protecting. It doesn’t say anything about what offices will be kept open, nor about job numbers and those staff who cannot move.’

Steve argued for a national campaign to oppose all closures detrimental to the interests of members and local communities concluding with a ballot on industrial action.

John Ellis (W Lancs & W Cheshire) seconding EM 7 and Anna Owens (Euston Tower) supported the need for a national campaign, whilst Mike Black (Cambridge) believed the agreement did not solve the dispute with workforce change.

Frank Doran (Bootle Taxes) opposed EM 14 because although the motion instructed the GEC to hold a ballot there were still unresolved issues that had not yet been debated. The agreement had already been breached by the amount of overtime that had been used.

Bill Hodgson (N W England) said that the reality is that with oppressing job cuts and office closures, there was nothing stopping us taking action as the agreement allowed us to do it.

Simon Boniface rose to support EM 14 and oppose EM 7 on behalf of the GEC. The situation was clear that one motion was in favour of the agreement, the other against. In an impassioned speech, Simon spoke about external recruitment, options to avoid redundancy, retraining and the review of temporary promotions. There were demands over home working; the replacement of overtime bans; and issues over working time regulations. ‘We had to have the chance to deliver,’ he said.

On a card vote, emergency motion 14 was carried by 39,473 votes to 25,416.

Workforce change condemnation continued in Northants’ motion 26 moved by D Jenkins. The disgraceful way staff had been treated was highlighted, with no consultation, and they deserved better than being treated as a number.

Members had been put under huge pressure to travel outside reasonable daily travel with the impact of a huge financial outlay. Member’s timing of the proposed journeys had been ignored, he said, and the whole moderating process was a joke. Legal advice was needed now, the mover concluded.

Dee Luxford (Sussex) supported, giving the example of thirty-five staff who couldn’t be moved looking for jobs as a result. With support given by AGS Dominic McFadden, the motion was carried.

Ealing’s Mike MacDonald was able to move previously Guillotined Motion 27 on Impact Assessments on diversity and Equality that should be carried out when an office is to be closed and when the work of a business stream is transferred to another part of the country.

Mike spoke about the need to use documented assessments to assist cases where reps were fighting office closures and work transfer.
Mark Benjamin (GEC) supporting from the GEC agreed that true impact assessments were often not disclosed and could prove a potent weapon in the fight to prevent closures, adding that he believed that race monitoring assessments were inadequate. The motion was carried.

Local compliance

In moving Motion 39 Steve Lazenby (S W Wales Network) spoke about the deterioration in both morale and effectiveness of staff bringing errant taxpayers to account.

He called for a national campaign for a return to local compliance functions with fully resourced offices. ‘We have to start telling the truth… centralised risk selection of cases without any form of local knowledge simply isn’t working and is beginning to turn into an utter disaster.’ Closing he gave the message ‘…keep it local and close the tax gap’ as the essence of such a campaign. The motion was carried unanimously.

Debt management and banking

Motion 43 covered Field Force issues and was moved by Ray Stevens (London West Branch). Ray criticised the three pilots held because full evaluations were not carried out, leaving several key issues unresolved.

Sticking points were changes to Terms and Conditions, such as the requirement to hold a driving licence; reduced opportunities to elect to be office based by 2012; and the failure by management to agree a remote/mobile policy. ‘DMB are not renowned for its commitment to training and Field Force is no exception,’ Ray added asking Conference to endorse the list of demands contained in the motion.

Hector Wesley (GEC) supported the motion’s aims and added his concerns over health & safety and IT support. Hector was confident on progress with effective local consultation. Motion carried.

Customer contact

Bradford & District’s D Greenwood moved Motion 44 on the restrictions on members in centralising Resource functions in a ‘virtual’ Contact Centre Network.

Referring to the mess the Department’s on-line annual leave system was in, he stated that giving twice as much notice for leave as you wished to take didn’t work in Contact Centres. There was always the ‘business need’ that prevented staff from taking leave when they wanted to, but the real reason was there weren’t enough staff to do the telephone work: this needed to be exposed.

Sue Lewis from South East Wales Network supported the motion, saying there was no true flexibility in Contact Centres. A minimum percentage leave system needed to be negotiated.

Helen McFarlane (GEC) supporting on behalf of the GEC, praised the eloquence of Bradford & Districts’ speaker and agreed that the true position in Contact Centres was being masked with an intolerable number of job losses in the business.

The constant business demands now meant there were no ‘peaks and troughs’ which meant few got adequate breaks as there were not enough staff to cope. The Flexi issue was only part of the story, she went on, as members were being refused time off they were due. The motion was carried.

‘Management haven’t got a clue what staff are doing!’ Simon Chilton (Salford Revenue) told conference, moving motion 45 on the concerns over the National Technician Review in Contact Centres. ‘The Review suggests that the work of 105 can be done by 88,’ he said, lambasting management’s ability to do maths. ‘It’s hard to get through to a technician for advice...even harder today, because 5% of taxes technicians are talking to you at this moment!’ he said. ‘Another stupidity is the proposal to include numerical call handling targets of seven minutes in PDEs…again their arithmetic fails: if this is the average, some calls will inevitably take longer.’

Marianne Owens for the GEC talked about the staff reductions and management asking staff to cover longer hours with less staff, and in supporting the motion said the GEC were happy to carry out the recommendations proposed. The motion was carried unanimously.

Motions 46, 47 and 48 were then heard in general debate, with Vicky Searle (Liverpool Revenue) speaking first on motion 46. She spoke about the conflict between call quality and shorter call handling times, insisting on fairer measures of advisor performance. The risk of performance measures being used against those who failed to meet the call handling times or performing their job ‘properly’ put tremendous stress onto staff.

Balliol Park’s motion 47 talked about ‘button pressing issues’ and the misuse of Management Information (MIS) to humiliate and threaten disciplinary action against members. Jackie Murray (Liverpool Revenue) in moving Motion 48 talked of the draconian system, which was effectively a Health & Safety issue, with crackdowns on DSE breaks being fitted into five minute toilet breaks.

HMRC Kingston’s Ravi Kurup weighed in with support for motion 47, arguing it was stronger than motion 46: it reinforced the draconian nature of regulations, and demanded non co-operation in inputting the proper codes to assist this constant measurement.

Hamish Drummond (GEC) asked Conference to support M46 and M48 and remit M47(or oppose it). There were stark choices for Contact Centre members with either call quality or call time failures, he said. There was clearly factually incorrect information on HMRC’s stats proved by a so-called ‘mystery shopper’ exercise carried out.

He ended with the query ‘I’m fascinated to know who’s on the toilet!’ referring to the toilet break statistics being kept. Put to the vote motions 46 and 48 were both carried.

Processing

Emergency motion 2 was moved by Alan Price for the GEC and heard in general debate with motions 55 and 56 with the latter falling if M55 was carried. This dealt with the LEAN dispute, and asked for an agreement on monitoring trials or, if not achieved, a ballot for an overtime ban, work to rule and policy on non-co-operation across the Department.

In response to reject EM2, John Virtue (Bootle) passionately moved motion 55, giving the history of how the LEAN dispute had started, and how branches had demanded the GEC take action.

When action had been taken it had created vast post mountains, evidencing the pressure that the employer had been put under. Now members were again suffering with excessive workloads, harsh targets and threats of disciplinary action, he said, and demanded that branches directly involved in the dispute had a say on whether an agreement was adequate and workable.

He criticised the GEC strategy as being full of holes, with its ballot just asking for another pilot rather than the end of the excessive monitoring and LEAN’s worst extremes.

Though he was in favour for action to have been taken on a Group wide basis, this was six years too late; it might conflict and be confused with other action taken at National level on workforce change and pay. Processing members were happy to have their own fight, he exclaimed.

John Ellis (W Lancashire & W Cheshire) supported M55, saying this was a ‘cry for help’ motion from the grassroots. Members were being bullied and were suffering a lack of respect and dignity.

He criticised the tactical mistake on the dispute as signing a blank piece of paper.’ Massive overtime was now being worked as a result of this retreat, he said. Lyndon Melrose (West Midlands) supporting M55 pointed out the extension from LEAN to Pacesetter; hourly targets were wrong and were now coming in for other areas.

Pat Ward (Edinburgh Taxes) said that Lothians had been let down by the GEC in the ballot and lack of information and assistance over the past two years. She felt that the overtime ban should never have been rescinded pointing to the backlog of 80,000 items because of the action taken.

Tim Neal (Leicester) supported EM2 and motion 56, and stated that these did more for the members than M55 which was a step backwards. M56 additionally asked for regular information to be fed to the membership who had been confused by the delays in getting news. In the vote, the GEC’s emergency motion 2 was lost and motion 55 carried; motion 56 therefore fell.


‘Portsmouth…home of the FA Cup and the new model Office!’ declared Patrick Smyth (Portsdown Vectris) moving motion 57.

‘The GEC needed to take action now to protect members from changes in their terms and conditions,’ he said, ‘and not allow PAYE to disguise reductions in staff numbers.’

Processing was projecting a 2,400 shortfall over the next two years, and he feared 2,800 would be affected when MPPC goes live.

Patrick went on to demand proper jobs that gave staff the chance to rotate and develop, with risk assessments and real training. ‘PAYE service and online filing are just better deckchairs that the Captain of the Titanic is re-arranging,’ he closed. This motion was carried.

Estates and support services

In motion 59 Tina Saunders (South England) told conference that the threat to privatise security guards was selling off the family jewels, and recommended a plan of action to campaign against it.

‘With HMRC stumbling from one crisis to the next, it was time to fight back,’ she said. ‘In cases where Group 4 had been installed, the telephone had replaced security services.’

Malcolm Sargent (South East Essex) gave wholehearted support on behalf of their Southend Revenue Constables.

Giving the sorry story of past dalliance with privatisation, he told of the instance where one new guard, asked about how he had got his job and how he had been vetted, said that his mate told him about the job whilst he was at the supermarket and told just to turn up.

Malcolm considered that the football chant ‘You don’t know what you’re doing!’ at the Department was most appropriate.

Dominic McFadden (GEC) weighed in with a warning that the proposals risked ‘handing over the keys” to organised criminal gangs.

Parliamentary lobbying had found many MPs not in favour of security privatisation, and with the loss of the data disks he was not sure that it was feasible now anyway. Supporting, he said we should make it ‘loud and clear’ that this service was ‘not for sale.’ The motion was carried.

HR and learning

‘The Departments on-line HR: not fit for purpose’ was the theme of motion 62 moved by Tracey Edwards (Dorset Harbourside Network). There were problems in staff checking their pay, and correcting annual leave balances takes months and even years. Tracy argued for a comprehensive review.

Nigel Buller (GEC) agreed. Members had expressed their unhappiness over the HR systems, and dissuaded staff from claiming their T&S, he said. He cautioned delegates over the imposed one month target and asked branches to keep the Group appraised of problems. The motion was carried.

VOA

Gwenda Binks moved motion 65 on behalf of the GEC, which demanded a list of objectives be met in negotiations with management over the VOA Change Programme which would mean office closures, Centralisation, Mobilisation and Digitisation.

A ‘World Class Organisation’ was faced with cuts and closures, Gwenda said, something that PCS and the VOAC would not countenance. There had to be guarantees that pilot programmes were properly evaluated, and warned that digitisation and home-working were just cost saving drivers. ‘Say no to shared services and privatisation!’ Gwenda demanded and support a motion ‘that does what it says on the tin!’

Seconding, Debra Galloway (City VO) pointed out the problems in Reasonable Daily Travel in closing offices, with problems achieving work/life balance for many people, affecting carers and part-timers. Members would be squeezed into other buildings and even management admit there’s only enough room to house 80% of the staff. The motion was carried.

Westminster Valuation’s emergency motion 65A was moved by Dermot Hudson who spoke about the ‘Grand plan’ to cram staff into Wingate House. VOA had carried out limited workstation surveys, and he believed the outcome went against correct space standards; this led to inflicting ‘Hot Desking’ on staff which would be discriminatory against part-timers and those on sick leave. There was a danger that by ‘asking the ‘right’ questions you get the answers you want!’ With GEC support Conference passed the motion.


Peter Lockhart rose to move motion 66 for the GEC. In his speech he paid tribute to VOA members in dispute over the 2007 pay ‘award’. He pointed out that DWP staff had better conditions than VOA staff: 95% got less than the proper rate of inflation.

Peter spoke about the withdrawal of goodwill; industrial action; an overtime ban, and walkouts, and praised the support shown by Revenue and Customs members to their campaign. He called for a unanimous show of support for the VOA in passing this motion.

Elaine Storr (E Midlands Valuation) agreed, saying that some staff would be better off working as cleaners. Some had not had a pay rise for two years and condemned a ‘World Class agenda for Third World Pay.’ Will Rolfe (South East Valuation) gave his caveat to support, that he wanted parity but no deal that would cause new members to suffer. The VOA received unanimous support as the motion was carried.

The importance of motion 67’s thrust was to find new areas of work for the VOA to secure jobs. Dermot Hudson (Westminster Valuation) spoke about work drying up, with reduction in Inheritance Tax work. Hopes had been pinned on Council Tax revaluations, but this was clearly unpopular with the public. With landfill tax, IHT, London Crossrail etc compensation claims were more likely.

Kevin Williams (VOAC) supported the motion, saying how the cancellation of Council Tax revaluation was a blow to chances of new work, and led to a loss of a third of the staff.

HIPS hadn’t been given to VOA; this work was clearly subject to Government whim. Local Income Tax ought to go to the VOA he argued. In the meantime, short- term work arising from the M42 widening compensation scheme and the 2012 Olympics project was all the VOA could look forward to. Subject to Scotland East’s Alan Barnes’ bid for Local Income Tax in Scotland, the motion was subsequently passed.

Branch organisation

Raj Shah (London HQ) raised the issue of ‘poaching’ members in motion 80, which dealt with branch coverage after re-organisations and mergers.

He gave the example of national and geographical branches which had overlapping constitutions and members in the same office. A consultation process was needed, he requested. Andy Bridges (Euston Tower) supported, saying that re-organising and merging brings experience to the newly merged branch.

Hugh Thompson (N W England) argued that some mergers were fine but others were hostile; there needed to be some ground rules to facilitate mergers, he said. Dee Luxford (Sussex Area) said there needed to be good reasons for branches to merge and it should be for the branches and their members to decide.

Jackie McWilliams, responding on behalf of the GEC, said how pleasing it was to see so many branch mergers this last year.

The GEC had encouraged branches sharing the same locality to look at closer working, and possibly to merge, she said, but appreciated it wasn’t always an easy process. Some facilitation between branches on consideration to merge had occurred, and Jackie hoped these branches would do so this year.

She reminded delegates that branches are there to represent our members and needed to be organised in such a way as to do so.

With the GEC supporting, the motion was carried overwhelmingly.

In Motion 81 Karen Taylor (Northern Ireland) and Christine Chorlton (Salford Revenue) argued the case for funding for every branch to have a BWO (Branch Women’s Officer) and Committee (BWAC). Such committees encouraged women to get involved, said Karen. Supporting, Christine spoke of the 1999 Revenue Group committee report on improving women’s involvement at conference. It had been a long hard fight to get a BWO and BWAC against lack of funding and Facility time, she said.

John Coote (GEC) considered the facility time issue important enough for the ‘pot’ of time to be increased, through Group negotiators, and better guidance given on funding. Motion carried.

Group organisation

Controversial emergency motion 5 (motion 82A) moved by Pete Grubb (Salford Revenue) attacked the state of COMMIX membership records and the restrictions placed on branches in updating it, which had led to a very bureaucratic and resource intensive group elections ballot. The motion laid down some simple changes for future workplace ballots.

Gwenda Binks for the GEC responded by seeking remission of the motion.

Workplace ballots were successful in increasing membership involvement, and more members than ever had voted in the recent ballot, and thanked the branches for their work. She agreed that the GEC would consult branches over the system, but if not remitted she asked delegates to oppose the motion. The motion was remitted.

Union learning

‘Union Learning Reps time should follow the same rules as H&S reps,’ argued Ashley Galliers (South East Wales Network) in moving motion 97.

The current HMRC agreement limited ULR time to 15%, and to get additional time you had to do a business case through your manager to Director level. ‘Where was the commitment talked about in the Leitch pledge?” he queried. ‘This work should be classed as Official time and put in as an appendix to the learning agreement” he argued. Delegates agreed and the motion was carried.

Campaigns and communications

Job cuts, office closures and reduced services was the topic of Steve Lazenby’s motion 104 moved on behalf of South & West Wales, demanding a complete withdrawal of co-operation across several fronts and strategic and permanent industrial action.

Cynicism of members had been turned round to fight back and support the local campaigns against closures. The closure of the Newport (Wales) Office and transfer of the staff to Llanishen, Cardiff at the same time as DWP staff are being transferred to Newport from Cardiff was a daft and unedifying prospect.

What was more bizarre was the VOA announcing that Newport was a strategic site occupying the old IR building, with the recruitment of 50 additional staff and no estate savings made whatsoever, he said. In Wales, campaigning had made a difference with Carmarthen’s future secured. With this success, Steve asked, what an equally vigorous national campaign might achieve?

Anna Owens (Euston Tower) opposed the ruling out of industrial action; we had to be in a position of strength, she argued and fight on all fronts with a national unity in the Public Sector.

She felt the motion sought to weaken the union’s position. Kevin McHugh (Benton Park View) sought remission of the motion: he agreed with many of the motion’s sentiments and ban on overtime, but didn’t want management taking control.

Despite Steve’s impassioned plea, conference voted to remit the motion.

 

 

Conference sketch

What do PCS, Mark Knopfler and Bob the Builder have in common? Yes, they were all on stage at the Brighton Centre in late Spring. Not at the same time of course – just imagine: the NEC, the sultan of swing and the ever-optimistic Bob all joined in a rousing chorus of ‘we can fix it’! – but certainly in that Main Hall well known to fans of televised political conferences.

It’s all there: big screens, dramatic lighting and state of the art PA, which lets the speakers sound as if they’re talking just for you in your own front room, only the room is about the size of a football pitch. Impressive.

The DWP Group is on stage first for two days, then National Conference for three more. What with fringe meetings and rallies on top of the gruelling seven hour daily schedules, delegates who attend for the whole week need plenty of stamina. No wonder there is the occasional resort to a refreshing pint or two once the long days are done. Mark Knopfler no doubt gets his for free.

Meanwhile the R&C Group was in Hewison Hall, the other big room in the Centre. It was great for south facing sea views but bad for photography, so we had to lower the blinds and lose the view so that delegates could see the speakers and I could take a few snaps of the action. You can see some of the results on these pages.

Other pics are displayed on what National President Janice Godrich calls our ‘wall of shame’. Victims can buy the evidence in return for a donation to Amnesty International who have a stall in the main foyer. All in a good cause.

The pain and pleasure of following football always crops up at Conference. This year, President Dave Bean introduced GS Mark Serwotka by reminding everyone that Mark’s team Cardiff City had just lost the FA Cup Final. Mark thanked Dave for kicking a man when he was down and hoped that as a well known Leicester City fan, the President would be enjoying life next year with his newly relegated team in the third tier. Touché!

It wouldn’t be Conference without the GEC getting a lambasting from disgruntled delegates who think the Executive have been a bit shy of implementing last year’s decisions with sufficient rigour.

Pity any GEC member given the tricky job of explaining to a room full of keen reps why the called-for action has still not happened. Honorary Life Member Dave Bearne compared the job to ‘entering the Temple of Doom’.

The trick seems to be either to shroud the issue in bewildering facts and figures and hope that ‘Conference will accept that the problem is far more complicated than we ever thought, possible, colleagues’, which rarely works, or to brazen it out and accept inevitable defeat with good grace. Kerry Fairless is a master of the latter.

When he knows he’s on a complete loser he cheerfully announces that he’ll not be wasting any more time on a lost cause and will therefore leg it off stage as fast as possible. Life goes on...

Around 500 motions for debate are sent to Group HQ for consideration in the weeks before Conference. It’s the job of the all-powerful Standing Orders Committee to select those that may actually get an airing. It can be devastating for a branch to see their motion(s), usually crafted with time, effort and commitment, end up on the cutting room floor.

It’s a complex business, appeals are allowed and the agenda can rapidly change. Amid the mix of triumph and paranoia, the SOC cultivate their image as universal masters of the dark arts. Black comedy rules: ‘Just because we make you laugh, doesn’t mean we’ve got a sense of humour,’ declared SOC member Es Chorlton in announcing the next day’s programme.

The five strong committee was in danger of being cut to three members this year, according to rules set up at the merger of Revenue and Customs.

On behalf of the GEC, SOC Secretary Colin Edwards eloquently proclaimed the need to preserve the five, on the grounds of the sheer level of work involved, more in fact than the National SOC with less motions and more time to prepare.

Advising branch delegates that it might well be in their interests to vote ‘yes’ on this one, if they ever expected to see their own motions on the main agenda again, he ended with a reference to that fine upstanding American police inspector, the legendary Dirty Harry: ‘Conference, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya?’ Kerry Fairless

It’s always sad to see people go. This year Dave Bearne and Jim Park got their Honorary Life Membership awards and regaled Conference with experience, wit and wisdom.

Later, as John Ellis left the speaker’s stand for the last time with a smiling ‘Ta’ra then,’ Dave Bean paused to pay tribute and say that things would never be the same without him.

During the debate on IT, John reminded Conference that Mrs Thatcher had declared that automation would mean increased leisure time for the workers: ‘What she didn’t say was that we wouldn’t get paid for it!’ he declared ruefully.

Once the day’s work is done, it’s time to party and this year’s ‘be there’ event was the Talent Contest and general rave up run by the Group Women’s Committee.

In a jam-packed room just off the basement bar in the Royal Albion Hotel, act followed act to thunderous applause and much merriment fuelled by MC Karen Taylor.

‘This union’s got talent!’ declared chief judge Es Chorlton awarding third prize to Hamish Drummond and Alan Valentine. Their rousing song Bella Ciao had made up for the otherwise tragic lack of songs sung in Italian about going off to die fighting Fascism – Hamish was clearly in crisis as he told Conference the next day that in the space of 24 hours he’d gone from being a young member to an overweight, balding, white, middle aged member of the GEC.

Second was Liverpool’s Alan Runswick (it’s amazing what can be done with a length of flexible pipe) but the runaway winner was soul diva extraordinaire Daphne Dennis. Daphne’s a real talent and got even more fans by very generously donating her £100 prize to Amnesty bringing the total raised on the night to £273.

Later, professional singer Claire Mooney delivered more reasons to be cheerful accompanied on various percussion by some of the contestants including lord of the dance Dave Bean. Then the Chorltons got us all roaring along to ‘The Wild Rover’ and similar while Northern Ireland’s Barney Lawn borrowed Claire’s guitar and tore into a few rock classics to end the evening and bring the house down. Who needs Mark Knopfler?

Time for trainees

Once again Conference was splendidly served by the team of trainee delegates who gave up their two days to keep the doors, count card votes, listen to debates and generally unravel proceedings.

It must all seem a bit strange at first (‘the guillotine now falls on guillotined motions’) but thanks to the much appreciated work of mentor and Equalities Officer John Coote, the trainees soon had a good a good grounding in how it all works.

They had an initial two hour learning session in which they practised writing motions and speaking in public. Everyone kindly offered feedback on the learning experience. It was: ‘friendly… constructive… well structured… a good foundation… really enjoyable.’

Some were a bit anxious when it came to acting as tellers in close votes and wanted more information about the actual practicalities of the job.

Daniel Malloy said: ‘Having had no experience of Conference before I was initially apprehensive. My only background for what would be discussed was my branch AGM and mandate meetings.

The mandate meeting was very dry and monotonous with the motions discussed there feeling alien and detached from the membership. In attending this Conference I have seen a different side.

The motions took on a different life, especially when you see the branch that move the motions talking with passion and conviction, even if you don’t agree.

I would certainly recommend being a trainee delegate to any member or less active reps. This has invigorated me to go back to my branch and start pushing the issues close to my heart and the membership. I would like to thank PCS for this opportunity.‘

Dominique Buesnel spoke along similar lines and added: ‘To see a motion from your own branch be carried without opposition is fantastic! A further benefit has been meeting fellow reps, getting to know more about senior reps and generally networking. The stalls around Conference are interesting and the talent show party organised by the GWAC team was fantastic… I had a great night!’

Many said they would like to come back as full delegates in the future and of course new members, trainee delegates and reps are the future. We wish them well.

Flexible working hours

Emergency motions 6 and 9 and 15 were debated together, with the former motion 130 being covered within this session. Chris Barclay (East Kilbride) kicked off emergency motion 9 which advised that the head of Contact Centre’s threat on the removal of Flexi working rights was a direct challenge of members’ terms and conditions and potentially an illegal breach of contract. ‘There has to be give and take on both sides,’ he said referring to flexibility, arguing that unpaid overtime was being worked to plug gaps.

Seconding EM9, Debbie Clark (Scotland East) spoke about working in a Contact Centre with no flexibility. The pilot exercise was a disenfranchisement of members, and they would take action to ensure there were no detriments to their working conditions.

Joining the debate, Dave Greenwood (Bradford & District) moved emergency motion 6 saying that members were asking him what PCS was doing about the situation. This motion asked ultimately for all forms of industrial action to be considered if a suitable agreement wasn’t reached. An official briefing was needed, Dave went on, as the manager concerned was looking for a dispute. Members in Bradford didn’t want to lose their current flexibility on start and finish times so a dispute was beckoning.

Peter Lockhart for the GEC then moved emergency motion 15 which wanted to negotiate improvements to PN103 contracts, amongst other things, but gave the caveat to ballot all HMRC members on industrial action should negotiations fail to preserve other staff’s existing FWH rights, as well as defend Contact Centre members established PN103 conditions.

Peter pointed out that some 5,000 members had no flexibility, and the GEC sought to have a strategy for action; emergency motion 9 was severely limited in its aspirations and didn’t deal with the fundamental issue. The issue in Contact Centres was akin to matters happening elsewhere. The GEC supported emergency motion 6 to a degree, as it was tactically astute in setting out contractual conditions.

Steve Black (Balliol Park) opposed EM 15 arguing it assumed we could deal with the head of Contact Centres, which was he believed a waste of time. Richard Levitt (Colchester) said that for his local Customer Advice Team there was no business requirement to work under the proposed regime. EM 6 offered more protection for members.

Exercising his right of reply on motion EM9, Richard Barclay re-iterated the fact that negotiations had failed to support PN103 rights and we needed some action now.

As both EM 6 and 15 were carried, EM 9 fell.

Bullying

Motion 139 was moved by Dave Bean (Sheffield) who spoke of the dignity of others and respect; a workplace free from harassment and woolly guidance. He questioned definitions of Corporate and institutional bullying, pointing to the previous debates on LEAN where members were afraid to take toilet breaks. His motion sought to pursue all relevant avenues to address bullying behaviours, including negotiations; media campaigns and legal action.

Despite Salford’s Pete Brook raising concerns about the motion’s instruction on circulating advice to members on cases, the motion was carried.

Continuing the Bullying theme, motion 140 asked for a survey of all members to identify the bullying ‘hot spots’ once reps had been consulted over which type of questions to ask and how to get a good response from the membership. Mover Alan Valentine (Dundee) spoke of the bullying and harassment of members due to the setting of unreasonable targets.

Supporting, Jackie McWilliams for the GEC stated that they were well aware of the bullying problem in Offices: ‘any type of bullying is wrong and needs to be stopped. Some members were suffering from stress caused by bullying over reaching targets, and running this survey might bring the extent of the problem, out into the open’, she said. ‘HMRC may have given up caring for their staff; we haven’t!’ The motion was carried.

The endemic bullying culture in HMRC and the complete lack of confidence in its grievance procedures was the subject of Mike Veric’s motion 141 for Telford. ‘The guidance might as well be printed on toilet paper for all its worth!’ he exclaimed.

Mike talked about the lengthy proceedings of grievances and the end result, which was not about revenge but closure and natural justice. This motion demanded negotiated changes to grievance procedures so that in upheld bullying allegations, the complainant was made aware of the penalty made against the guilty party.

Some concerns were expressed about this aspect of the motion. HQ Manchester’s Mike Crumpton had considered the arguments, and believed it didn’t help the victims know this amount of detail. It was impractical, immoral and had legal implications. Geoff Webb (Lee Valley) disagreed. From his experience of dealing with many cases, he thought disclosure would help the bullied person. Such a change would be the single biggest victory in personal cases, he believed.

Kathy Cross (GEC) speaking against the motion argued that this proposed change would go against natural justice. Some complainants would probably be aware in some cases, but confidentiality would be compromised. Would knowing the full details gain closure for a victim of bullying? It might lead to management being deterred to impose penalties, she said. Despite GEC opposition, the motion was carried.

Consultation on HR changes

Motion 145 was moved by Andy Foster (Devon & Somerset). This pointed out the detriment members had suffered because of HR policy changes, instructing the GEC to audit and publicise all such changes and their status, before balloting members on acceptance or rejection.

He censured the GEC, arguing that HR policies were a fundamental change to members’ terms and conditions and that members should therefore be balloted on them. He referred to Branch Bulletin 221/35 on the issue that it was logistically impossible to run such a ballot.

AGS Kerry Fairless for the GEC asked conference to remit the motion. Since 2006 conference the HR ballot had been high on the agenda, and briefings had been issued on the progress and GEC thinking on the issue.

‘We hadn’t agreed the FHW proposals put forward so we were not in a position to ballot’ he went on and assured delegates when the GEC could recommend acceptance of these proposals a ballot would be held. The HR ballot was far more complex: it wasn’t a case of ‘we haven’t done it coz we can’t be bothered!’ he said.

Pretty much every option was considered, Kerry pointed out, but none offered anything positive save ‘We’ve had a ballot!’ The GEC were committed to involve branches in on-going and future HR negotiations, with a view to improving the guidance we already have in place.

The plea for remitting the motion was refused and conference carried the motion.

Leave

Mike Veric (Telford) put motion 146 to Conference on adoption leave, which asked the GEC to enter into negotiations with HMRC to improve the current rules on adoption leave prior to a child being ‘matched’.

‘There was a finite amount of time available to people prior to adopting a child before annual, flexi and unpaid leave is exhausted,’ he said. The motion was carried.

Discipline

Early Management Action (EMA) meetings not being ‘formal’, therefore denying the right for a union rep to be present at meetings with a manager and his member of staff, was the subject of debate in motion 151.

Tim Neal (Leicester) moving said that early management action meetings are part of the disciplinary process and must therefore be formal.

Quoting Section 10 of the Employment Act, he spoke about the ACAS definition of ‘a quiet word’ with someone as informal, but in HMRC guidance written notes were made at EMA stage, which were retained for three years in staff personnel files.

He demanded all references to EMA as ‘informal’ be removed from the guidance and ensure members had the right to be accompanied by a rep made explicit, and legal challenges made where the right was denied.

Vicky Searle (Liverpool) opposed. Whilst agreeing with the motion’s sentiment and the right for members to be represented, she was concerned over what might happen if we removed informal action from the guidance and the effects it might have on PDEs and transfers: she asked for remittance of the motion but this was not agreed to by the mover.

Nick McCann (GEC) supported the motion. Informal meetings were often not seen as such, and could have a big potential impact on subsequent disciplinary action. Legal challenges by reps should happen after legal advice is sought, he said. The motion was carried.

Pre surplus

Bucks & Oxon branch moved motion 155 on the unsuitability of the revised pre-surplus guidance.

Steve Bond, moving, declared that PMMA was not fit for our members with too short timetables expected for moves, and no suitability for the job criteria exercised in most cases. ‘Managers weren’t aware how to use the process,’ he argued; ‘it was surplus arrangements using management compulsion.’

Geoff Webb (Lee Valley) seconded, asking for reps to be imaginative in their actions against this new scheme. He called for industrial action short of a strike to withdraw from PMMA. The motion was carried.

Sick absences

Guillotined Motion 157 on sick absence procedures MPPA was moved by Edinburgh’s Michael Saunders.

Managers were being forced to use MPPA against their staff, and this heightened the stress of the sick members involved. Michael argued for managers to have full discretion as to the actions to be considered and senior managers taking control where they disagreed on actions proposed.

Steve Ryan (N Wales and Marches) had concerns over the use of ‘manager’s discretion’ in the motion. What did ‘taking control by senior managers’ mean?

Michael exercising his right of reply talked about the stress levels in Contact Centres, where HOs joined Os in meetings on MPPA procedures. Large numbers of Os themselves were off sick, and the whole MPPA process was ‘just a tool to get rid of people.’

With some opposition, the motion was carried by a majority of delegates in support.

HR other issues

The detrimental aspects of homeworking, with the alienation and isolation of homeworkers, was discussed in Motion 168 moved by Steve Ryan (North Wales & Marches).

There were numerous H&S concerns, with the long hours culture being exploited, he said. Homeworking was being extended into DMD and Valuation, but this should be voluntary not compulsory, Steve argued.

It should be fully risk assessed and properly funded by the Department; currently it was being used as a means for cost cutting. Business rates, Capital Gains implications and the security of sensitive data were all raised as issues in the motion.

Michael Lowe (GEC) supported on behalf of the GEC. He added that negotiations still hadn’t finished after three years. The motion was carried.

Disabilities

Eastern branch’s motion 191 wanted the creation of a Disability Champion at Assistant Group Secretary level, and was moved by Disability Champion Alan Dunn, but it excited some debate from Tim Neill (Leicester) who argued against. We needed Disability Champions but another AGS? Equalities were being covered under the present structure and there were issues over the cost in Facility Time.

Jackie McWilliams gave the GEC line which was supportive of the motion. The Equalities Committee post does take up a lot of time, she agreed, and praised the work of the Disabled Members Advisory Committee who had input into every policy. The motion was carried.

‘Diversity monitoring was fine but asking about the nature of someone’s disability isn’t’ argued Richie Alcroft (N W England) in motion 192.

Monitoring was a useful tool that benefits both staff and management, but it was clear that the monitoring adopted by the department indicated that they had not understood the social model of disability.

The biggest barrier Richie identified were the attitudes of people to the disabled, when asked to complete an on-line survey. The motion argued for more confidential declaration of disability.

John Coote (GEC) supported the motion, agreeing that the current departmental system was outrageous. The reasons for monitoring were to ensure reasonable adjustments were made, but the question needed on disability was a simple ‘yes or no’. The motion was carried.

Equalities

Christine Chorlton (Salford Revenue) spoke about the silence surrounding menopause in motion 197, asking for a comprehensive workplace policy to be negotiated.

She spoke about the symptoms of menopause, and the medical issues surrounding HRT, before going into the problems members faced getting time off for treatment.

Some female staff suffered panic attacks and workplace stress, with workplace policies and culture affecting many of them, she said.

"Some 70% of employers have no policy on the menopause” she said ‘and 1 in 10 lose their job following sick absence.” Christine pointed out to delegates that the majority of the membership are after all women.

Karen Taylor (N Ireland) agreed, wanting protection for menopausal women from the excesses of MPPA.

Neil Wilson opposed, arguing that it wasn’t just women who were affected and some men suffered from its male equivalent, the antropause. This aspect was not recognised in the motion, and wanted assurance on the issue from the GEC.

Gwenda Binks gave the GEC’s support, referring to a recent GWAC policy draft and added that the GEC would be meeting soon to discuss this; negotiations would then be commenced with management.

She gladly assured the opposer of the motion that his issue would be taken into account. Gwenda finished by asking for all groups to raise the issue and awareness, especially through Oracle. The motion was carried.

Motion 198 dealt with issues surrounding domestic violence, and was moved by Gill Holland (W Midlands). She criticised the GEC and asked for a review of PCS policy as well as HR policy on MPPA.

Domestic violence had placed one member in Early Management Action (EMA) but their Senior Manager had dealt with the issue with the result that MPPA action had been stopped.

Gill asked for development of a policy on domestic violence in the workplace, and a draft GWAC policy would help members. The motion sought to help the vulnerable, to ensure compassion and fairness in such matters.

Andy Gethin (Stoke Revenue) spoke of the devastating effects of domestic violence which carried into the workplace, causing higher sickness levels and other problems.

Managers had a duty of care under Health & Safety, he said, but most have no idea, as evidenced with the ‘crass’ imposition of MPPA. There was a lack of reps who were trained counsellors; a clear HR policy was needed, with training for managers and reps to understand the issues along with other practical measures.

In opposition, Karen Taylor (N Ireland) said she was very sympathetic to the concerns raised in the motion, but some stated ‘facts’ were inaccurate, and its criticism was unfair on the GEC and GWAC.

Since the merger of IR and C&E the employer had stalled on the policy issue, and she gave praise to Helen Watkins on the GEC for the work she had done. The GWAC had pressed for implementation of new policies, she said, and there was a need for training. Reps aren’t counsellors, and we cannot assume a role we aren’t trained for, she said.

Jeannette Brooke (GEC) opposed the motion on the grounds it was unfairly critical of both the GEC and GWAC. She hoped for a resolution on some points soon, and once GEC negotiations were complete, she expected the VOA would also be involved in determining its own policy on this area. The motion was carried.

Health and safety

Hot desking found no space in delegate’s patience, as it was roundly criticised in a general debate between Mike Saunders motion 204 and D Ingreji’s London HQ’s motion 205.

Mike wanted the GEC to negotiate a national policy that linked in with the restack issues in workforce change. He told delegates about the ‘wacky races’ in his own office, with constant moving up and down floors trying to find a free desk.

The whole issue had not been thought out professionally and was a waste of time. He urged delegates to support motion 204 as it gave the GEC greater negotiating power than motion 205.

Alan Valentine (Scotland East) agreed that it was vitally important to support this motion. They had eight desks for nine people in his office and it was not acceptable to try and find a desk in these circumstances. ‘We have to overcome poor planning by managers and protect our members,’ he said.

Motion 205 opposed any further hot desking for single office based staff and a campaign for an appropriate environment for staff to work in safely. Requirements for wheelchair users and those who needed specialist keyboards were being ignored, and it was taking up to fifteen minutes ‘ferrying around’ your personal items, he said.

Emergency evacuations were a nightmare, and the IT was not keeping up with the hot desk ambition, D Ingreji said. ‘There had to be a proper degree of commonsense and flexibility, and not become a staff reduction agenda.’

Speakers Andy Bridges, John Walkinshaw, and Chris Hodder all supported motion 205, whilst Alan Kinloch (E Midlands) opposed both as he considered the argument over hot desking could be won: IBM had it in their offices ten years ago and they no longer use it, he said.

Kerry Fairless (AGS) found merit in both motions. Motion 204 gave a clear steer on hot desking with checklists and the concerns listed and practical measures, whilst Motion 205 dealt with Health & Safety requirements in the increased risk of accidents.

He didn’t think the motions contradicted each other so decided to ‘sit back and await delegate’s decision on this one!’

At the end of the debate motion 204 was lost whilst 205 was carried.

Workforce Change

South coast campaigns on cuts and closures

As HMRC’s programme of Workforce Change (WFC) continues to bite, reps throughout the UK are fighting hard to combat the worst effects of office closures and movement of work.

Among the many excellent campaigns we continue to cover is the battle currently being fought within WFC’s Cluster 42 affecting offices in Brighton, Hove, Lewes, Newhaven, Worthing and the Face to Face Office in Bognor Regis.

At the forefront from Sussex Area Branch are Lewes office reps John and Diana Webster and senior rep Nick Hilton in the VAT office in Hove, part of the South East England Branch.

Essentially the Teville Gate office in Worthing is set to close along with the offices in Lewes (54 staff) and Hove (54 staff). Some work is being transferred to Brighton. In the wider south east, 25 offices are under threat along with 2300 jobs.

Common issues represent a serious threat to members in terms of extra travel time and costs and discrimination against those who will find it impossible to follow their jobs to another location.

Women and/or part-time staff make up 67% of the current staff numbers in Lewes, for instance. Most involved face an effective pay cut and many will be forced to give up their jobs entirely.

The local issues include the fact that Brighton office currently has about 230 staff and just 30 spaces in the car park. Generally Brighton is heavily congested with high car park charges.

Extra staff coming in will exacerbate these problems, yet if members transfer to public transport, the business will suffer as out-of-office visits will become practically impossible.

In Lewes, Processing staff have not been told of their new location, and jobs may vanish altogether as work is moved away from the south east under the Lyons Review proposals.

Compliance work is probably being moved to Brighton. Dates have been set for the movement of some work before the consultation process has been finalised, which suggests that HMRC is merely conducting a paper exercise with the outcomes decided in advance.

‘Lewes is a self-contained market town. It needs a tax office. If we are closed, not only will our members suffer as almost 70% are outside reasonable daily travel (RDT), but the service to our customers will be seriously affected. The elderly and disadvantaged will suffer if they have to go to Brighton to discuss tax/tax credit affairs,’ says John Webster.

Reps and members are fighting hard. The Lewes MP Norman Baker is supporting the campaign along with East Sussex Council. Local media report the ongoing situation. ‘We also ensure that our members are kept fully informed of the situation and encourage them to take part in the consultation process,’ says John. ‘Our team had an excellent response to our research questionnaire, finding out about transport details and so on from members,’ he adds.

John and Diana admit it’s been a daunting but very rewarding task. Both became involved only recently. ‘We try to do our best for members and it’s a two way street. We can’t do anything without their support,’ says John.

‘We tried to get members to speak from the heart rather than just stick to dry facts and figures in the document which we sent to WFC on May 14th,’ adds Diana.

In Hove tax office, Nick realises that with Brighton only three miles away, some will argue that they don’t have a case. ‘Brighton is hopeless for parking, so we’ have to travel in on public transport,’ he says. ‘As tax officers we need to make visits to businesses. Trying to do that on the bus would be virtually impossible. Time scales involved would be unworkable.’

Also, the geographical skills of WFC are once again letting them down. The Brighton office is wrongly located on their documents, which makes nonsense of their counter arguments about RDT and business efficiency.

Doubts also exist about the capacity of Brighton office to accommodate over 100 new staff without compromising health and safety and reasonable working conditions.

Meanwhile a House Committee is established in Hove office to co¬ordinate members’ responses and run the campaign. The key argument is that Hove must be retained as a necessary complement to the work in and around Brighton.

Nick has brought Hove MP Celia Barlow on board who instigated a petition to present to Parliament that resulted in 109 signatures from local businesses supporting the retention of the local office. Nick visited them all to explain the situation. ‘Local people could not believe that HMRC would want to relocate to central Brighton, because of all the issues of access and parking,’ he says.

Stop press

Following the publication of Workforce Change proposals on June 11, the Group Executive have allocated specific GEC members to each Region to provide support and assistance for Branches involved in the current round of consultations.

GEC member Ashley Beare, spoke for all when he said. ‘The work force change consultation process is currently underway in the south west, and remaining areas of the country, and PCS GEC members are organising reps so that members real concerns regarding jobs local to where they live, together with the availability of quality work remains the key agenda items and we hope, through excellent liaison with MPs and other bodies, that common sense will prevail so that the public - our customers - continue to receive a quality service from as many locations as possible throughout the UK.’

 

Oracle July 2008

You can also download the PDF version of the magazine

  Oracle July 2008

Social Bookmarking

How to use social bookmarking