Equalities News
Watch out for the equalities news coming up in the latest edition of Notts Unison News (NUN). Selwyn and Siobhan have even been persuaded to pose for the cameras so you know who we are if you meet us - the things you have to do to get in print! We have even persuaded Mike to include a supplement in the FE newsletter. Let us know what you think. We are hoping to keep a regular stream of information and news updates but we need you to let us know if there is something you would like to see covered.
Also keep your eyes peeled for the new equalities calendar which should be appearing soon on this website. This gives details of equalities based activities and events we thought you might be interested in. If you think we have missed any off then get in touch and let us know.
Selwyn Seymour & Siobhan Ford
Joint Equalities Officers
Notts County Unison
Tel: 0115 9810405
selwyn.seymour@nottscc.gov.uk
siobhan.ford@nottscc.gov.uk
23 May 2006
12 May 2006
Members vote to accept improved redundancy package
Following the end of UNISON's consultation on the improved offer on redundancy pay, the results were:
In light of this result UNISON Branch Officers confirmed that they will follow the members decision and accept the new proposals. This was done formally at Informal Corporate Joint Forum on the 10th May.
However the unions requested further talks on the application and definition of the criteria to be applied - this was agreed. We will take forward the concerns expressed at the members' meeting on the 27th April, however if members have concerns or queries about the application of the scheme they must contact their departmental convenors.
546 to accept the new policy
75 to reject the new policy
75 to reject the new policy
In light of this result UNISON Branch Officers confirmed that they will follow the members decision and accept the new proposals. This was done formally at Informal Corporate Joint Forum on the 10th May.
However the unions requested further talks on the application and definition of the criteria to be applied - this was agreed. We will take forward the concerns expressed at the members' meeting on the 27th April, however if members have concerns or queries about the application of the scheme they must contact their departmental convenors.
UNISON Comment on Pension Fund investments in the arms trade
UNISON has issued the following statement about the Nottinghamshire LGPS investing in arms companies:
"UNISON is appalled to hear that our pension fund is supporting companies whose activities we strongly deplore. The arms trade creates misery and suffering across the world and staff will be deeply upset to find out that they have unknowingly contributed to it.
Although £16 million is a small proportion of our total fund we must insist that these shares are sold. We have fought hard to protect our pensions and we must ensure that we do not support companies whose activities are abhorrent to us."
Jill Turner
Joint Branch Secretary
For more information about why we oppose such investments, visit the Campaign Against the Arms Trade website
"UNISON is appalled to hear that our pension fund is supporting companies whose activities we strongly deplore. The arms trade creates misery and suffering across the world and staff will be deeply upset to find out that they have unknowingly contributed to it.
Although £16 million is a small proportion of our total fund we must insist that these shares are sold. We have fought hard to protect our pensions and we must ensure that we do not support companies whose activities are abhorrent to us."
Jill Turner
Joint Branch Secretary
For more information about why we oppose such investments, visit the Campaign Against the Arms Trade website
UNISON’s formal response to the restructuring proposals
Issues Arising from the Council Report
The response to concerns raised by the last consultation can best be described as cursory. A number of quite serious concerns were raised, none of which are dealt with in any sufficient detail. Will there be any proper consideration of concerns to ensure that decision makers, whether these be councillors or chief officers are aware of the issues raised and have responded to these issues in a meaningful manner. We might pick out concerns of morale, here we are told that this is inevitable but will keep staff fully involved. However, this must also mean that unions will be kept fully involved and this has not been the case. Looking next at an issue of great concern to UNISON the issue of whether the Council is considering abandoning its very strong commitment to directly delivered services. To this no answer is given at all.
There seems little point in asking for comments if the responses are not appropriately considered, how can the Council strive for greater accountability (see principles – Appendix B) if it cannot show how it responds to suggestions and concerns it has solicited. UNISON would suggest that once the final structure is agreed this should be accompanied by a full explanation of the rationale behind the decisions to ensure that all issues raised as part of this consultation exercised are addressed.
UNISON is extremely worried about the statement that there will be a shortfall in the necessary savings in 2006/07. How will this shortfall be managed? Where will the additional savings be made? Bearing in mind the Council’s current financial difficulties this is likely to cause great anxiety amongst staff.
It is not clear how the principles will shape the development of the new structure, however they do seem to contain some major changes in policy for the Authority, notably the casual mention of ‘Managing the mix’ and ‘partnership’. The Council has traditionally taken a strong stand on direct provision of services and if the proposal is to move away from this stance then surely this should be made public.
It is also interesting to note the principles of the management framework as they are not reflected in any of the accompanying nor subsequent documentation. The descriptions of responsibilities at Appendix D offers no clarity of where accountability actually rests and this is reflected in the job descriptions and person specifications for the top two tiers which again duplicate responsibilities across the tiers and are virtually identical. This lack of clarity over responsibility will cause a number of operational difficulties, not least of which will be the management of industrial relations where we can not be sure who holds the responsibility for a given function. This issue is also relevant when bearing in mind the likely pay inflation this restructuring will certainly bring to the top three tiers. Surely this additional reward should be matched by clearer and additional accountability?
UNISON is also concerned that the Council has abandoned equality as a principle, as the top tier will be exclusively white and male, should not more emphasis be made of the need to reflect the diversity of the people we serve.
Adult Social Services
The proposals put Welfare Rights with Adult Care Finance, as Welfare Rights Officers frequently challenge the decisions made by Adult Care Finance it could jeopardise the independence of the Welfare Rights Service.
Resources
One of the main concerns for staff is the ease by which the Council could seek to privatise the resource functions after they have been centralised. This is brought into focus by the ambiguity surrounding the Council’s previously strong commitment to in-house service delivery. These fears could be allayed by a restating of the Council’s belief in the benefits of directly delivered services.
Human Resources - These service blocks do not make sense either operationally nor in terms of an equal division of work. HR Strategy and employee relations is clearly a huge area and arguably the responsibility of the Service Director. The management of Health and Safety would also be a large undertaking. Perhaps a better idea would be to have HRLG collectively responsible for:
Hr Strategy & Employee Relations
Diversity learning and development
Quality assurance, partnerships and performance
Activities can be assigned as needed. The other issues of health and safety and Transactional Management could arguably fall below the Head of Service level. H&S could come within the remit of departmental HR thus keeping the strong service ties and knowledge. Transactional Management – and by these we assume we are talking about the ESC – could also report and be responsible to HRLG.
Property - Property Strategy: Who sorts out new school buildings? In C&YP, the supply of school places function (under the Service Director for Access & Extended Services) could be in conflict with property strategy and planning function in Resources (under the Service Director for Property). There needs to be clear identification of roles such as the “client” function to avoid duplication (see also Transport to Schools below). Will C&YP be the “client” who asks the others to provide the school buildings or buses, or will they try to do it themselves? Previously, Education and Social Services have set up their own Property sections and this has lead to difficulties about responsibilities/ownership etc. If these two former property sections are to be together in C&YP, we need to ensure clear lines of responsibility, or are they to relocate into Property in Resources?
Communities
Where does Education Client Services sit within the proposed structure?
Cultural Services / Planning & Sustainability - It does not make sense to split the Council’s environmental expertise between two separate divisions in Communities instead of taking the opportunity to amalgamate Country Parks, Countryside Management, Greenwood Forest and Rural Policy Development and Planning Specialisms to create a strong and integrated service. This argument also holds for the decision to keep Landscape design in Highways. Questions can also be asked as to why is Landscape & Reclamation (in Highways) separated from Landscape Maintenance and Waste Reduction who are both in Strategic & Environmental Services?
Strategic & Environmental Services - If the Council is wishing to centralise resource functions then why are Cleaning and Catering remaining in the Communities Department? Surely these services rest properly with the Property Function in the Resources Department.
Highways - why are Workshops and Fleet Management in Highways rather than with Transport in Strategic & Environmental Services (or vice versa)
Other Comments
To ensure that workloads are manageable in the new structure UNISON would request that the new structures and roles are ‘risk assessed’.
UNISON is also concerned that the proposed tier by tier and top down approach is extremely unhelpful making it difficult to comment in any meaningful way on the structure as a whole.
Section 2.2
The response to concerns raised by the last consultation can best be described as cursory. A number of quite serious concerns were raised, none of which are dealt with in any sufficient detail. Will there be any proper consideration of concerns to ensure that decision makers, whether these be councillors or chief officers are aware of the issues raised and have responded to these issues in a meaningful manner. We might pick out concerns of morale, here we are told that this is inevitable but will keep staff fully involved. However, this must also mean that unions will be kept fully involved and this has not been the case. Looking next at an issue of great concern to UNISON the issue of whether the Council is considering abandoning its very strong commitment to directly delivered services. To this no answer is given at all.
There seems little point in asking for comments if the responses are not appropriately considered, how can the Council strive for greater accountability (see principles – Appendix B) if it cannot show how it responds to suggestions and concerns it has solicited. UNISON would suggest that once the final structure is agreed this should be accompanied by a full explanation of the rationale behind the decisions to ensure that all issues raised as part of this consultation exercised are addressed.
Director of Resources Comments
UNISON is extremely worried about the statement that there will be a shortfall in the necessary savings in 2006/07. How will this shortfall be managed? Where will the additional savings be made? Bearing in mind the Council’s current financial difficulties this is likely to cause great anxiety amongst staff.
Principles (Appendix B)
It is not clear how the principles will shape the development of the new structure, however they do seem to contain some major changes in policy for the Authority, notably the casual mention of ‘Managing the mix’ and ‘partnership’. The Council has traditionally taken a strong stand on direct provision of services and if the proposal is to move away from this stance then surely this should be made public.
It is also interesting to note the principles of the management framework as they are not reflected in any of the accompanying nor subsequent documentation. The descriptions of responsibilities at Appendix D offers no clarity of where accountability actually rests and this is reflected in the job descriptions and person specifications for the top two tiers which again duplicate responsibilities across the tiers and are virtually identical. This lack of clarity over responsibility will cause a number of operational difficulties, not least of which will be the management of industrial relations where we can not be sure who holds the responsibility for a given function. This issue is also relevant when bearing in mind the likely pay inflation this restructuring will certainly bring to the top three tiers. Surely this additional reward should be matched by clearer and additional accountability?
UNISON is also concerned that the Council has abandoned equality as a principle, as the top tier will be exclusively white and male, should not more emphasis be made of the need to reflect the diversity of the people we serve.
Departmental Issues
Adult Social Services
The proposals put Welfare Rights with Adult Care Finance, as Welfare Rights Officers frequently challenge the decisions made by Adult Care Finance it could jeopardise the independence of the Welfare Rights Service.
Resources
One of the main concerns for staff is the ease by which the Council could seek to privatise the resource functions after they have been centralised. This is brought into focus by the ambiguity surrounding the Council’s previously strong commitment to in-house service delivery. These fears could be allayed by a restating of the Council’s belief in the benefits of directly delivered services.
Human Resources - These service blocks do not make sense either operationally nor in terms of an equal division of work. HR Strategy and employee relations is clearly a huge area and arguably the responsibility of the Service Director. The management of Health and Safety would also be a large undertaking. Perhaps a better idea would be to have HRLG collectively responsible for:
Hr Strategy & Employee Relations
Diversity learning and development
Quality assurance, partnerships and performance
Activities can be assigned as needed. The other issues of health and safety and Transactional Management could arguably fall below the Head of Service level. H&S could come within the remit of departmental HR thus keeping the strong service ties and knowledge. Transactional Management – and by these we assume we are talking about the ESC – could also report and be responsible to HRLG.
Property - Property Strategy: Who sorts out new school buildings? In C&YP, the supply of school places function (under the Service Director for Access & Extended Services) could be in conflict with property strategy and planning function in Resources (under the Service Director for Property). There needs to be clear identification of roles such as the “client” function to avoid duplication (see also Transport to Schools below). Will C&YP be the “client” who asks the others to provide the school buildings or buses, or will they try to do it themselves? Previously, Education and Social Services have set up their own Property sections and this has lead to difficulties about responsibilities/ownership etc. If these two former property sections are to be together in C&YP, we need to ensure clear lines of responsibility, or are they to relocate into Property in Resources?
Communities
Where does Education Client Services sit within the proposed structure?
Cultural Services / Planning & Sustainability - It does not make sense to split the Council’s environmental expertise between two separate divisions in Communities instead of taking the opportunity to amalgamate Country Parks, Countryside Management, Greenwood Forest and Rural Policy Development and Planning Specialisms to create a strong and integrated service. This argument also holds for the decision to keep Landscape design in Highways. Questions can also be asked as to why is Landscape & Reclamation (in Highways) separated from Landscape Maintenance and Waste Reduction who are both in Strategic & Environmental Services?
Strategic & Environmental Services - If the Council is wishing to centralise resource functions then why are Cleaning and Catering remaining in the Communities Department? Surely these services rest properly with the Property Function in the Resources Department.
Highways - why are Workshops and Fleet Management in Highways rather than with Transport in Strategic & Environmental Services (or vice versa)
Other Comments
To ensure that workloads are manageable in the new structure UNISON would request that the new structures and roles are ‘risk assessed’.
UNISON is also concerned that the proposed tier by tier and top down approach is extremely unhelpful making it difficult to comment in any meaningful way on the structure as a whole.
**** Note added 13th June: For Chief Exec's response, click here ****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)