The following was sent to management on the afternoon of 12th January 2006.
Dear all,
UNISON has held many meetings with our members during the consultation period. We have gathered together the comments and questions about the structure below for submission in time for the revised deadline of 12 th January 2007 . There might be further comments and questions about the draft job descriptions and these will be submitting in time for the agreed deadline of the end of January 2007.
Comments and questions fall into three main categories:
- Process
- Job descriptions
- The proposed structure and its impact on service delivery
They have been grouped by Division (Finance, HR, ICT and Property) and are set out below.
It is worth noting that the repeated comment we received is that the proposed generic job descriptions will make the Enabling difficult to achieve, and means that staff cannot readily see where their current work is to be done in the new structure. They are concerned that the generic job descriptions fail to recognise the great many specialist roles that are carried out.
Many members want clarification of the consultation process. What are the timescales? Who is/are responsible for feeding back the responses? And when? Is it to be done as one report back to all staff, or on an individual basis?
There are also questions about a couple of discrepancies between the number of post holders quoted in the consultation documents and those in the S188 notice for Finance:
Social Services Payments: Page 36 of the Finance & Trading Structure Consultation Document states the total of 16 staff, but the S188 schedule shows 17.
Audit: The consultation document shows 5 auditors at Sc5/6 and 2 at Sc3/6 giving a total of 7. The text (page 14) says that the proposal is to reduce the establishment by one audit manager. The organisation chart shows one Head of IA then 2 group managers, and again shows 7 auditors. However, the S188 schedule shows 11 auditors. Which is correct?
We intend to make all the comments and questions available on-line and it is our intention to publish the managerial response alongside, so that our members can be kept informed of progress.
Bob Watt
UNISON
FINANCE
1) Process & Job descriptions
Concerns have been expressed that this is “take over by the old Resources department” and that this may lead to staff from there having an unfair advantage when it comes to the Enabling process.
Members are concerned about who will sit on the Enabling panels and who will set the questions for any competitive interviews that will be necessary. Will there be a spread of managers from all the former departments to ensure that the process is applied fairly?
The Social Service payments section has been running with temporary staff (some since November 2003) and long term acting up (since 24.9.01, 18.3.02 and 1.7.02 in three instances) at supervisory level. They are naturally concerned that this length of time means that their current role should be seen as their substantive post for the purposes of the Enabling process.
Members in former Culture and Communities Accounts and Budget Section felt that it was difficult to comment without more detail. They felt that:
· Assumptions have not been stated
· The differences in service levels between former departmental support had not been stated.
· It is not clear how many and which vacant posts are “vacant vacancies or temporarily filled vacancies”.
· It is not clear about the externally funded posts.
· Job titles and grades don’t match and they wanted more detail.
· Business needs have not been challenged and customer expectations benchmarked.
2) The proposed structure and its impact on service delivery
Members are concerned that the brief given to managers when drawing up the structure was to find 10% cuts. Members are very worried that this will result in insufficient staff left to do the work given that some teams are already under pressure due to the number of temporary staff and the amount of acting up taking place in some departments. They are concerned that the structure is budget driven rather than reflecting the needs of the client departments.
There are major concerns that, if they are to move to a “core” level of service, this will be a significant drop from that currently offered. They would like to know:
· What happens to the work that they will no longer carry out and what are the risks of not doing it?
· Has there been any risk analysis?
· Who will explain the new service levels to our customers and manage their expectations?
There is general concern that the structure is top heavy and that the Resources part of the structure seems to be constructed with the current staff in mind whereas those coming in from former departments are losing posts.
There also major worries about whether the proposed pooled resource (with generic job descriptions) allows for the specialist knowledge required in some of the posts. Members would like to know how the department and authority will respond to projects requiring specialist knowledge or ensure business continuity in the event of an unforeseen crisis.
We had several comments about the impact of the proposed changes taking place at the same time as staff were trying to carry out year end procedures such as closing down accounts and budget planning.
We had many comments from particular teams and these are set out below.
a) Corporate Procurement:
The structure proposals in this area appear to contradict the Deloitte report recommendation that “The CPU should be more strategically focused as the centre of excellence for procurement across the Council”.
Communications posts: The proposed deletion of the Communications Post is seen to be contrary to the recommendations of the Deloitte Business Plan, that stated “Raising the profile and importance of good procurement will be critical not only to delivering potential savings by achieving compliance to corporate contracts, but also to running successful tendering projects”. The report also addressed the issue of “mistrust of the corporate procurement” that has an impact on the success of the procurement projects, as collaboration between services and CPU is not as positive as it could be.
The Corporate Communications team do not write the internet and intranet pages for a Division/Department because this task has been devolved. So if CPU want their pages written, then someone will have to be trained to do this and manage the site. Who is to do this if the Communications post is deleted? CPU staff have been advised that corporate duties are the first priority for the Corporate Communications team who cannot guarantee to get the CPU work done to CPU deadlines if more pressing corporate duties come first.
There is also recognition at a senior level that there is the need for a Communications Officer for Finance and given the source of the work that would be undertaken, it has been suggested that it could reside within the strategic services area of the department and thus be a resource for all divisions.
Creation of an extra Senior Procurement Post: Members are of the opinion that deletion of one of the Principal Procurement Officer posts will mean a reduction in strategic resource from the current organisation structure to deal with the procurement workload connected with contracting /advice activities. The general role of the Principal Purchasing Officer (Strategic Support) does not appear to differ significantly from the job roles currently undertaken by the Principal Purchasing Officers (Supplies and Services). The structure proposal contains no additional resource in this buying team of the CPU from the current structure, indeed there is a reduction in resource on the section of CPU that will be key in delivering savings targets.
The proposed down grading of one of the posts reduces the opportunity of NCC to be represented at a senior level in its dealings with suppliers, internal category managers and in its dealings with other local authorities.
The current roles of Principal Purchasing Officers (Supplies and Services) involves line managing the CPUs buying resource, dealing with collaborative procurement and provision of advice, guidance and support to buyers in departments with respect to the structure of their procurement. The contracting/advise section of the CPU of which these two officers take a lead role are key in delivering savings targets as required by the Council. The overall effect will be a reduction in the CPU resource which has a strong possibility of leading to failure in delivering the business plan and savings identified.
Members argue that the savings targets have much better chance of being achieved by having two principal officers (strategic support) working at a more strategic level. The current artificial barrier allocating work between the two principal officers on a Supplies and Services basis could be withdrawn. All major procurements should be classed as projects with the workload allocated on a caseload basis.
b) Accountancy:As a result of Finance, HR, and IT transferring to Resources from departments there will inevitably be an increase in workload in budget monitoring requirements etc for the Resources Finance Team. This is work that would've been previously undertaken by departmental finance units. Will the necessary resources be transferred to reflect this?
For example, page 31 of the consultation document says that the team has been increased to support the transfer of buildingDIRECT and Design Group from the former Environment Department. Whilst this may be true to some extent, it appears that around 2 posts have been lost in the process (1 Accountant, 1 Finance Officer). There was a stated preference for the re-instatement of these posts.
Can you confirm that account has been taken of the complexity of the services involved for those dealing with trading accounts such as buildingDIRECT and Supplies? For example, buildingDIRECT as a real trading account (dealing with all departments and schools etc) and is seen as far more difficult to support than ”merely having a large budget to spend”. Page 6 of the consultation document claims "a reasonably balanced workload for posts at the same level". Some members are of the opinion that the distribution of workload between existing accountants is not particularly equitable at the moment.
c) Social Services payments section:Members in this section are concerned that the Support and Payments Control Team seem to have their own special place already identified on the structure chart, and that this will lead them to have an advantage in the Enabling process.
They are also concerned that the unique role undertaken by the Fostering Team within Payments hasn’t been reflected in the structure.
They would like an explanation of the role of the Support Team and why these roles have been identified as being “specialist” or different. The Team Leader in Payments Control only supervises 3 staff, whilst two other Team Leaders in Payments supervise 5. Although they understand that due to Audit Requirement, Payments Control staff cannot input invoices, they suggest that the Team Leader could supervise additional staff who undertook general Finance Assistant duties. Will the Finance Assistants in the Support Team also undertake general Finance Assistant duties?
They want it recognised that Fostering Team Finance Assistants do not input invoices, travel claims or petty cashes in the same way as general Finance Assistants do, so they cannot be included into the calculation when looking at the number of invoices etc divided by the number of Finance Assistants.
They also felt that the following areas of the consultation document should be amended –
Pg 35 Reimbursement of petty cash claims – should be checking, processing and reimbursing petty cash imprests Payment to Foster Carers, Adopters etc
Pg 37 “Management” title in table should be Payments Manager, in order to be consistent with the rest of the document
d) Culture and Communities Accounts and Budget Section:They wished to know why, if Resources Finance manager and below are doing the same generic roles as other departmental staff, this is it not shown under the other Service Heads?
Can you explain why are the accountant roles under the chief accountant post at different levels to the rest of the structure?
Looking at the new Communities Department structure, concern was expressed at the lack of a finance clerk as there are still going to be suspense and cyborg errors which will need to be cleared. Is this to be done Scale 6 staff? If so they do not think it most efficient use of resources.
There may need to be an opportunity for shadowing roles to encourage best practise and career progression but this must be fair and equitable.
Currently lots of really good quality finance systems training is done– if this is not done there will be more queries and risk of financial regulations not being followed. Who will do this role?
There are some excellent manuals of financial guidance – who will pull together a new world one, that matches the SLA?
HR1) ProcessMany members are concerned that the process is being addressed in the wrong order. The phrase “cart before the horse” was used several times. There is a clear perception that the service level agreement should be produced first so that the structure can be drawn up to deliver it. Members wanted a clear statement setting out which areas of work will no longer be done.
There were also comments about the lack of detail in the consultation regarding the HR administration functions.
Concern was expressed about whether we will be able to implement the new structure by April 2007 and the ability to design and provide certain services when the planning for services such as L&D commissioning, and sold services to schools would need to take place in the midst of restructuring.
As stated at the HR briefings, there needs to be support and risk assessments for HR staff as they support others through the restructuring while facing the same uncertainty themselves.
Many members wanted to know what their role would be in the enabling process, both as HR professionals and as staff subject to the process.
2) Job descriptionsThe role descriptors provided lack detail and are not considered to be acceptable alternatives to properly worked up job descriptions. However, members wish to make the following comments:
· The ‘follow’ descriptor for Level 1 posts is extremely patronising.
· Level 3 posts need to incorporate reference to policy/strategy work and dealing with the impact of changes to case law and employment legislation. We would see the bulk of HR case work being dealt with at this level or below.
· We would question whether the references to schools performance and pupil safeguarding constitutes HR work. If this is the case then a full explanation of what this entails is required.
· For the level 4 posts an explanation of what the business manager – commissioning role constitutes, and how this differs from the wider Level 5 commissioning role.
They would also like answers to the following questions:
· Who will be the custodian of all policy work?
· Who will have an oversight of employment law developments?
· Who will maintain a work programme of policy work?
· Who will interface with the East Midlands LGA?
3) The proposed structure and its impact on service deliverya) HR generally
As has been previously fed back from the HR consultation, there are concerns about the lack of consistency in the structure, the lack of clarity of function, and the workability of the proposed specialist and departmental teams. We will not reiterate these but expect that they will be addressed in your response.
Additional comments and questions have been received since then and these are set out below.
They would like a clear statement of the methodology used to determine the numbers of posts at each level and how the workload at each level was assessed. Again, they need to see an explicit statement on workload, in terms of what work is no longer to be done.
1.6 Vision of rationale (Consultation Document) – This appears to describe a two stage re-structuring, the full integration to be completed by April 08 where there would be no HR in departments. This would surely involve two lots of costs, and potentially another S188. The co-location described sounds to be similar to the ESC who under 1.9 of the document it states will remain in their current form until at least April 08. Does therefore the full integration mean the ESC and HR being co-located and re-structured again?
The document talks about ‘learning through work programme’ for professional accreditation, is this linked to the ‘leadership skills programme’?
In the proposed structures there are no Senior Personnel Officer posts described, but a new role of Service Manager has appeared, would this mean the current Principle Personnel Officers could be enabled to Service Manager posts which would then enable current Senior Personnel Officers to be enabled into Principle Personnel Officer posts?
There is a real concern that with less personnel staff that this will leave the managers to pick up work and issues they would not have picked up in the past – less personnel advice/support is going to be available which could lead to an increase in grievance and harassment cases. This will have the ultimate effect of calling on HR resources.
There appear to be anomalies in the proposed structures in relation to how many posts are required at each level and where is the rationale for the numbers?
There is a feeling that attendance management will suffer in the long term as there will be less personnel staff to deal with this.
The schools sold service – more detail is needed as to what support will be provided to schools in the future.
b) Strategic HRMembers are not clear on how strategic and operational priorities will be balanced, and have concerns about the capacity to do strategic work given the 25% reductions in staffing. They feel that there is a real danger that strategic work will be lost because HR staff will be reacting to short term operational matters.
They are also concerned about the heavy focus of strategic capacity at Service Head level. While they do not disagree that there is a need for a strategic lead at this level, they do have concerns that the various development and implementation elements of strategic work beyond the initial action plan needs to be built in robustly at all levels. For example, function level 3 at present does not mention strategic work.
In terms of allocating strategic work across teams, members are not convinced that ‘matrix management’ will work. Without proper co-ordination they feel that there is a danger that staff will end up with lots of managers asking them to do various pieces of work. How will individuals be enabled to manage their workloads if they are being pulled in all directions?
They also asked some specific questions:
· Where will support work to the corporate employee relations sit (for ICJF/SCJF)?
· Why is there a level 4/5 for H&S, but not for any other function?
· Why are there separate role descriptions for H&S but not for other specialist teams, such as L&D, JE and QA teams?
· Where does pay and rewards strategy work sit? Is this part of terms and conditions?
c) Counselling & Mediation ServiceUnder the proposed structure it is being suggested that the counselling service and the mediation service are merged and managed by one person, and that the part time counselling post is disestablished.
The demand for counselling continues to increase (and the results of job evaluation are likely to increase that demand). With the new stress management standards being introduced the team expect the demand for counselling to increase yet further.
With the Strategic Management Board and Cabinet having both set the HR community a target to reduce sickness absence as a priority over the next 2 years and it is reasonable to presume that the counselling service will play a big part in this. Managers require significant support in managing sickness absence and expect that the counselling service to assist with this.
In light of all this, it has been proposed that the Counselling/Mediation post should be alongside the Senior Nurse Advisor post at level 4 and managed by the Service Manager (Health and Safety). Concern has been expressed that it will not be possible for the Senior Nurse to manage the counselling service because of confidentiality issues. It has been pointed out to us that the post holder would not be able to carry out any of the counselling intakes or discuss cases and issues with the sessional counsellors as this would be breaking confidentiality and will be in breach of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy’s Code of Ethics.
The new structure will reduce the level of in house Counselling. This means that the number of clients seen per week will reduce from 50 to 18 per week. This will therefore mean that the only way they can continue to maintain the service will be to rely on the sessional counsellors to provide the service, who are not employed by the Authority. If they pay the sessional counsellors at £20 per session this would cost an additional £29,440 per annum to provide the service at the existing level. Failure to do this would result in a huge waiting list.
The current counsellors provide a service outside of West Bridgford. If the Authority were to employ counsellors in the county they could expect to pay between £40 - £50 per session. Taking £45 as the average and based on the number of employees being seen outside of West Bridgford at the current time, this would cost the authority £765 per week. Failure to do this would mean that employees unable to travel to West Bridgford would be unable to access the service.
Another concern is that the Mediation manager is currently full time and operates the service just for Social Services, but the proposal is to offer the mediation service countywide. We welcome that proposal. However, the manager has the support of a part time admin assistant that is not shown in the proposed structure. We are at a loss to see how one person can be expected to do the job of 3 people and still maintain the same level of service, plus provide an even wider mediation service.
ICT1) ProcessMany members are still not clear how structure will work. Consultation has been patchy, for example in some areas it didn’t filter down beyond 4th tier.
Many felt unable to comment if they don’t know how it’s supposed to work. The issue of generic job descriptions has been raised repeatedly as members cannot see where their work goes and thus cannot say for sure if the structure will work.
Those coming in from departments are worried that will be disadvantaged because the structure seems to be based on central needs rather than client departments’ needs.
There are many comments about which job descriptions are to be used for the enabling process and the failure to take account of the many changes that have occurred in many cases since they were drawn up. This is the subject of separate correspondence between UNISON and the authority and will not be covered in this feedback.
2) Job descriptionsThere are several comments about how the existing duties of those coming in from former client departments are being divided up so that they will face being ring fenced against several posts on a changed job basis rather than any on a comparable basis. There is a perception that those “already in Resources” will not have that problem.
Members were concerned that the SFIA tool seems to focus specifically on industry standards and a result doesn’t appear to address some of the softer skill sets that are the norm for job specs within NCC particularly when the role involves leading a team or managing a service area. This short fall doesn’t appear to have been addressed by the standard statements written in to NCC Job Descriptions. There is therefore a real concern that if not addressed now, the Job Descriptions could be approved and rubber stamped with these key skill missing and no way of testing for these softer skill at any interviews for existing or potential any new staff that join the authority after the restructuring/enabling process has been completed.
Members would like clear guidance on how the career grades scheme will operate within ICT. They have previously been used to describe posts which have a salary related progression based on experience/qualifications gained. However, the way some of the jobs in the new structure have been explained points more towards a career path, i.e. positions further up the structure which if vacated to provide an opportunity to compete for progression within the organisation. Which is to be the case?
Others have noted that the new jobs do not include a lot of the work they do currently. For example, while some operators support Lotus Notes and the Obtree system (Intranet/Internet sites) and all of the software that goes with it (including Oracle), this is not included in the new generic jobs. Members cannot see where Lotus Notes, Obtree or ServiceCenter Support are mentioned anywhere else, so who is going to be responsible for this?
Some members’ current job descriptions still contain details of the systems used when NCC had a mainframe. The replacement Unix systems do not form part of the new jobs and appear to have been handed over entirely to an external company who have been employed to manage the Unix systems. Our members were under the impression that their training was part of this to enable them to get up to speed with Unix and all that goes with it, but they have since been told that this is not the case and so consequently have had a huge part of their jobs has been outsourced.
The new job descriptions contain a lot of things relating to Network Operations, which is not something that those in department currently deal with or have any particular knowledge of. Why has this been included? There is concern that this will potentially disadvantage staff in the enabling process.
There were several questions and comments from EdIT:
• The job description for Support Install Engineer falls very short of setting out the work that is actually undertaken in schools. It is suspected that staff will be expected to carry on providing the same high level of support but without the recognition in the Job Description.
• Service Desk Engineer under Service Desk Team Leader (page 6 Customer Services Structure chart) is in “grey box” should this be “blue”? Is this post filled from the Resources pool or is it supposed to represent the 2 people who were appointed on 4th December 06?
• Service Desks Assistants Post [Reference 022 (1) – (4)]: The Job Purpose and Key Service Responsibilities of these 4 Job descriptions appear to be identical. The only slight difference is in the SFIA Levels and work activities. However these appear to be similar apart from Level 5 (022 - 4) which includes in its task description “Schedules the work of the help desk staff to meet agreed service levels”. This suggests it is a Team Leader role although this is not reflected in the Structure Chart Customer Services. Logically only one job description should apply to this post. If there needs to be more to accommodate career grades then some real differences in the post should be apparent. Is this to be the case, and if so when will this be addressed?
• Training & Support Officer Post [Reference 042 (1) and (2)]: The Job purpose and Key Service Responsibilities of these 2 Job descriptions appear to be identical. The only slight difference is in the SFIA Levels and work activities. Logically only one job description should apply to this post. Is this to be the case, and if so when will this be addressed?
• Some posts (Service Support Assistant & Service Support Assistant Financial - 030) which were amended on 7th December ‘06 do not appear to have any tasks incorporated as part of the SFIA framework. Are the SFIA tasks and work activities going to be added?
• Post of Service ICT Consultant (026): there are 2 separate Job descriptions, on one of them there is a (1) in the Post reference and the other is left blank. Which is the higher grade?
The proposed structure and its impact on service deliveryProposed structure does not allow former SSD team to do what they used to do. They are concerned that the proposed structure narrows down their role, and does not reflect how they currently work and deliver the service.
Management Information Systems seems to have disappeared from the charts. On the original chart they were listed under Operational Services but members now feel that the most appropriate place would be in 'Projects and Resources'.
Members have a question about the post of Service Support Asst Resources (030) and the other post which has the added function of finance. Both job descriptions have SIFA framework details missing and only one of these posts is in new structure, but they have 2 job descriptions, so where does one of the posts fit in new structure?
In the Proposed New Structure document on page 12 fifth paragraph down it quotes an example which states “there will be six Service Desk Engineer in the Customer Services Group”. However in the table on that page the post column lists 5 posts. What is the correct number of posts?
It is proposed that the Systems security and access team are joined with Help Desk. How do their roles fit into this structure? Only one line in their new job description relates to their team. Where has their work gone and who is going to do it?
Members have a question about the Resource Pool. The consultation document doesn’t provide any detail on how the pool will work and how staff will benefit from working within a resource pool environment when it comes down to their personal development and the opportunity to gain experience in different areas of work to those they currently reside in. Who’s responsible for recruitment and staff development?
Some concerns have been expressed that separating spec and installs under two separate legs of the structure could prove detrimental. Customers using both services have seen a marked improvement in the service particularly in terms of ownership when both disciplines came under one area.
How many Service Support Assistants are there as references differ:
• Consultation document, structure chart = 5
• Job descriptions provided by management state 7 on the summary and Finance (2)/Admin (4) on the actual job descriptions
Service Support Assistant (Admin) for ICT Services appears light bearing in mind that the job purpose is to provide support across the service. Elements of the job description seem to indicate the resource is more akin to the Customer Services strand. If the former is the case, how will the different disciplines access this resource?
Depending on the response to this question, members may need to put forward some suggestions for additional tasks on the Service Support Assistant job descriptions. Will there be a response in time for them to meet the deadline for job descriptions consultation on 31st January 2007?
‘Framework Roadmap’ is listed as one of many projects under one of the Programme Managers in Projects and Resources, but with no obvious team structure beneath that post to support it. Major features of the current work, which are diffcult to locate in the new structure are:
• Technical expertise in the features of the FW software combined with in depth knowledge of departmental requirements – allowing advice to business leads on how best to build new processes. The level of skill and experience that allows you to distinguish between what a customer wants and what they actually need, and to convince them of that
• Testing new releases – testing and understanding new features and regression testing to ensure problems do not occur in the live system
• Release management – raising RFCs, testing and accurately implementing changes in the live environment
The Social Services Team has not yet begun to focus on incorporating all of the bespoke adult finance systems (SOCS,LABS,Abacus,Paradox HC etc..) into Framework. This promises to be a massive project and they cannot identify who will actually get this work done in the new structure
Operations Support are concerned that their current structure has an Operations Support Manager, 2 Senior Operations Support Analysts, 2 Senior Operators, 2 Operators and a scheduler - all on different grades. The new structure has a Team Leader, 2 Operations Engineers and then 4 Operations Engineers. If the current Operations Support Manager is to be in the Team Leader position then they have lost a post. Is this the case?
PROPERTYComments and questions are mainly about the proposed structure and its impact on service delivery. Comments on Job Descriptions are to follow.
The main area of concern is the integration of those coming in from former client departments who are unsure of their roles and positions in the new department.
We have been asked why the new CYP Department is apparently setting up a property section as well as transferring property staff to Resources? The structure charts for CYP show a Land and Property Manager in the Access to Services/School Provision & Planning section. Members are concerned that this is potentially wasteful duplication. If the team in CYP is not a duplication but the result of disaggregating roles, will those due to be transferred be ring fenced against both sets of jobs?
Another disaggregation issue is the post currently dealing with “furniture and equipment” and with “P.E Maintenance”. The budget for P.E. is approximately £100K p.a. and it is understood that this is to go to buildingDIRECT. This is approximately one-third of the role. Will the remaining two-thirds role be expanded to cover all Capital Projects Builds, not just schools as at the moment?
We have had concerns expressed about the future of the switchboard team at County Hall. They have reduced from 11 to 3 over the past few years and concerned about their future with the creation of the contact centre. Can you advise about their position in the restructuring?
There are three concerns that have been raised about the proposed buildingDIRECT structure. The first is with regard to the proposed structure in respect of Service Agreement Administrator Lead 0.33 hour post (scale 4). This post equates to 12 hours per week in a supervisory role over the Service Agreement Administrator who is contracted whole time (scale 3). The Service Agreement Administrator and Mechanical Engineer (Service Agreements) compliment the team in the capacity of administration and technical roles to provide the procurement and service delivery of Service Agreements to customers/clients. It is felt that there is a need for support to cover the workload of these posts rather than have a part time supervisory role in the team.
The second concern relates to the supervision of the admin team and is being addressed via local negotiations.
The third concern is the proposal to change the role of the multi-trade supervisors. This has been taken up by UCATT as those concerned are currently Craft Workers. UNISON makes no comment on this proposal.
