HMRC pay ballot June and July 2009: question and answer
Q: How does the offer on which members are now being balloted relate to the previous offer rejected in a ballot last year?
A: Members rejected a 3-year pay offer for 2008/9 – 2010/11 in a ballot at the end of 2008. Only the awards for 2008/09 were set out in detail, with the subsequent 2 years still to be negotiated within the overall parameters of a 2.4% average increase and the maxima capped at 1%. The current offer sets out those detailed proposals for 2009/10 – 2010/11.
Q: Why is PCS balloting members now on a pay offer received in April 2009?
A: The offer is based on the same overall funding/ parameters (including the 1% cap at maxima) set out in the original offer rejected last year. Following the national ‘Gus O’Donnell’ agreement, the union has been pressing HMRC to find additional money to improve the offer(s). Now that HMRC has declined to identify additional money and make an appropriate case to the Treasury, and following a review of the position at the group conference in May 2009, PCS is seeking members’ views via the ballot.
Q: As well as asking members to reject the offer, what does the second question on industrial action seek members’ agreement to?
A: This is a consultative ballot, so the second question asks members to agree in principle to industrial action aimed at improving the pay offer. A YES vote would not commit members to actually taking action at this stage – a YES vote in a further legal ballot of members would be required for action to actually be called.
Q: Why does the industrial action question include strike action – shouldn’t alternative action short of strike action also be considered (e.g. a work-to-rule)?
A: The question is seeking members’ views on the principle of industrial action, so nothing has been ruled out at this stage – hence the reference in the question to industrial action up to and including strike action. The further legal ballot of members required before any action is called would seek members’ agreement to strike action and/ or action short of a strike as appropriate. Action short of a strike could well be a realistic and effective option.
Q: Would industrial action have any effect?
A: PCS does not ask members to consider industrial action lightly. However action, or the threat of action, by PCS members at national level, and in HMRC, has allowed the union to win concessions from the employer including the defence of pensions, protection of sick pay, job security agreements and, most recently, an agreement on working conditions in HMRC contact centres. PCS believes that, where necessary and agreed by members, industrial action can be an effective tool in taking forward our objectives.
Q: What is ARC’s position on the pay offer and how does this affect Grade 6&7 members?
A: The 2008 awards were ultimately imposed on all PCS and ARC grades. ARC members have since voted to accept the 2009/10 – 2010/11 offer. PCS and ARC have joint recognition for Grades 6&7 however, as ARC currently has the higher number of members in these grades, HMRC has decided to implement the 2009 pay awards for Grade 6&7 in July 2009 salaries. This does place PCS members in these grades in a difficult position, however these members remain entitled to participate in the PCS campaign and any industrial action which may be called following a legal ballot.
Q: Why is PCS lodging a pay claim for 2009/10 when HMRC has already made offers covering 2008/09 – 2010/11?
A: Following the last 3-year settlement for 2005/06 – 2007/08, PCS duly lodged a claim to HMRC on 14 March 2008 for the 2008/09 pay year (1 June 2008 – 31 May 2009). HMRC’s response has been to make offers covering a 3 year period. As PCS has not reached a settlement with HMRC, the group conference in May 2009 agreed that a claim for 2009/10, setting out our aspirations for members this year, should be duly submitted. This claim will be lodged on the opening day of the ballot (22 June 2009) and will also re-iterate our outstanding claim for 2008/09.
Q: I’ve heard that the union will be claiming 6% with an underpinning increase of £1000 – isn’t this unrealistic?
A: Due to real terms pay cuts arising from high inflation and government pay restraints, an element of ‘catch-up’ is required to restore a measure of equity in members’ levels of pay. In addition the claim addresses the disproportionate impact of high inflation on the lower paid and the ongoing high costs of basics such as food and fuel. The union will produce campaign material setting out the detailed case for the claim and seeking to counter media propaganda portraying civil servants as ‘cosseted’ (with job security, high pay and gilt-edged pensions).
Q: What’s the position regarding the 2008 pay awards?
A: PCS has not agreed 2008 pay – this was imposed by HMRC. We have been seeking to address the consequences of the inadequate 2008 awards in the context of the ‘Gus O’Donnell’ agreement (e.g. additional money to address pay progression). Our 2009 pay claim will address the question of ‘catch-up’ for previous below-inflation increases and will also include a re-iteration of our original outstanding claim for 2008.
Q: How does the R&C group pay campaign fit with the national campaign?
A: The group campaign is being taken forward in the wider context of the national PCS campaign, on which members will be consulted shortly. The 2009/10 claim to HMRC will be based on a national ‘model’. If HMRC members vote to reject the offer and/ or vote YES to industrial action in principle at departmental level, the next steps will be considered in the light of developments on the national campaign. The NEC is due to meet shortly following the close of the ballot of HMRC members to consider the way forward.
Q: What are the objectives of the PCS national pay campaign?
A: The ongoing campaign is based on securing decent cost-of-living increases; the separate funding of pay progression as in the rest of the public sector; opposition to regional pay; cutting the number of bargaining units; opposition to performance pay; and addressing equal pay.
Q: What are the objectives of the group campaign on HMRC pay?
A: Members are being consulted on the offer, and the principle of industrial action, with a view securing improvements to the offer consistent with the wider aims of the national campaign.
Q: How does all of this impact on members in the VOA?
A: VOA members had a single year settlement imposed on them in 2008/09, and pay levels are generally much worse than in HMRC. One of the group’s objectives, in line with the national campaign objectives, is to achieve pay parity between members in the VOA and HMRC. A VOA pay claim for this year has been submitted, and the counterpart claim for HMRC members will be submitted on 22 June 2009. Unlike HMRC, the VOA has in fact agreed to work towards finding additional money from efficiency savings and has made a case to the Treasury for this.
Q: What commitments were given in the previous HMRC 3-year settlement in relation to pay progression?
A: The 2005/06 – 2007/8 pay settlement contained a commitment that members would progress to the maxima in 5 (AA and AO), 6 (Officer) or 8 (HO and above) years. This was tied in with assimilation exercises moving members to a point on the pay scale associated with length of service in the grade, from where they would progress in future years.
Q: Why isn’t the union pursuing a legal claim against HMRC for breaching its commitments on pay progression?
A: PCS has taken legal advice, which indicates that there may be a basis for a breach of contract claim with regard to this matter, and we have written to the department in those terms. We will consider carefully whether such a claim is feasible and take further advice from counsel as necessary. However, part of the difficulty with prosecuting such a claim is that HMRC's response may be to simply remove the increases on offer to those at the maxima in order to establish a more favourable progression outcome, thereby further disadvantaging members at maxima who are already facing increases of only 1% in each of the two years. PCS' objective is to take forward a campaign aimed at securing a decent pay outcome for all members, whether that be for the majority at maxima or those suffering a detriment by virtue of HMRC's breach of its commitments on pay progression.
Q: Doesn’t the 2009/10 – 2010/11 offer deliver some pay progression though?
A: The offer provides shorter pay scales by increasing the pay scale minima relative to pay scale maximum, however this only directly impacts on a small number of members. For the remaining members below maxima there is some pay progression by virtue of the payment of flat-rate monetary awards which are worth more in percentage terms to those lower down the pay scale. However this falls short of previous commitments to progress members to the maxima within a defined period of time. Progression is otherwise subject to the amount of money on offer in future years, and how this is actually distributed, so there are no guarantees for members.
Q: The offer delivers an average increase of 4% to those below the maxima – isn’t this reasonable?
A: The average increase of 4% to those below maxima is only possible from the 2.4% ‘pot’ as those at the maxima (the majority) are only being offered 1%. The 4% increase does not meet previous commitments to pay progression which, elsewhere in the public sector, is funded in addition to basic cost of living awards. The HMRC offer does not in any case match the ‘going rate’ for such awards in the public sector. Therefore an increase of 4% is wholly inadequate in terms of delivering reasonable pay progression; covering increases in the cost of living - including the increased cost of basics such as food and fuel which impact more severely on the lower paid; and achieving parity with other public sector workers.
Q: Why has HMRC not been able to improve the offer(s) as a result of the Gus O’Donnell agreement?
A: HMRC’s view is that it does not have the scope to recycle efficiency savings into pay improvements and that it does not plan to seek Treasury authority to do so. It states that additional funding is not available in the light of HMRC’s financial state and that pay would not in any case necessarily be its first priority.
Q: What efficiency savings does PCS believe that the department is able to identify for pay purposes?
A: The Gus O’Donnell agreement opened the way for additional funding for pay from efficiency savings, including by reducing the use of consultants, contractors and overtime; and ‘opening the books’ to find savings from general administration budgets. PCS has submitted detailed proposals on all this to HMRC. However we have made it clear that we are not seeking to trade permanent HMRC jobs for pay.
--------------------------
Tab Bottom
- Directory
- Contact Us
- Search
