UNISON response to Resources job descriptions consultation

The following was submitted to departmental management this afternoon.

---

Dear all,

Our members have made many comments direct to managers across the new department and we do not intend to repeat those comments in this response.

However, we wish to place on record that:

• Many of our members across the new department still cannot readily see from the job descriptions where their current work is to be done in the new structure which makes it difficult to comment in detail on the proposed job descriptions. This is a common complaint from members in IT but does affect posts in the other three divisions.


• Members are still concerned about the proposal to use generic job descriptions that fail to recognise the great many specialist roles that are carried out.


• In some groups, such as Communities Assets & Administration team, meetings to discuss job descriptions have not been arranged until after the official end date for consultation today. This means that some members are unable to comment before today's deadline.


• In other groups, local negotiations are continuing beyond today's deadline to try to resolve issues on individual posts. In the main, this is due to problems with finding time in the diaries of the relevant managers. We expect these negotiations to be concluded before the Enabling process begins.

Bob Watt
UNISON

Management Responses to HR Consultation Comments

The following response has been received from the Human Resources Management Team.

---

Common Questions

1) Key information is missing

There has been some concern raised over key information not being available.

We have been keen to make the consultation over the revised structure meaningful and, therefore, it was not appropriate to have job descriptions, grades, impact tables produced until the structure has been firmed up.

The consultation was to establish whether the structure is generally appropriate to meet the future challenges of the County Council and further consultation will need take place over draft job descriptions etc.

The new structure has been costed using very broad estimated grades and therefore the grades were not based upon developed job descriptions. Any impact table would have been misleading and liable to significant change following consultation.

2) Need some support to HR during the change process and development into the new structures

There will be support given to HR colleagues to develop into new roles and, when appointed, the Service Managers will assist Service Heads in planning how this support might be given.

3) Strategic work needs to be reflected as far down the HR structure as possible

In planning the new structure HRLG was keen to ensure that strategic work needs to feature in as many jobs as possible. If we are to be seen to be supporting the strategic direction of the County Council we must strengthen the strategic/developmental elements of the HR work. The job descriptions for new posts will feature strategic/policy work as far down the structure as possible and this is reflected in the balance of operational and strategic duties and responsibilities of the Service Heads, and other posts in the new HR structure.

4) Relevant and clear project plan for full integration from 1 April 2008 is needed

We recognise the need for detailed and realistic project plans to underpin the HR restructuring. HRLG have been working to a project plan and an updated plan has been produced. It will be circulated soon and further consultation events are being planned for 15 February.

5) Impact table needed

This has been answered in question 1.

6) SLA/Service Offer needed

Ideally, a Service Level Agreement should have been produced before structures considered. whilst a Service level agreement would have helped in the process, this was not possible within the time frames and with the budgetary pressures

However, due to the pressure to make budgetary savings the design of the structure has had to take precedence. A ‘Service Offer’ paper has been produced and will be the subject of discussion by Strategic Directors, shortly. It is clear that we shall not be able to continue to provide the same level of support as managers currently enjoy. The Service Offer paper addresses these issues.

7) Structure is top heavy

The strategic development of HR policies at NCC is vital so that we can meet our obligations/aspirations and ensure service improvements. We must improve the ways in which we develop/upskill, recruit and reward employees as well as plan our workforce so that we can have a robust plan to achieve our aims/objectives and cultural change. With this in mind, there is a need to have adequate capacity to achieve these aspirations. The structure has been designed to give this capacity by allowing a balance of strategic and operational activities through the different levels, although it is recognised that there may need to be a review in the next 12 – 24 months.

8) How will strategic/operational priorities be balanced?

The balance of strategic v operational priorities will be undertaken through the newly established HR Management Team (HRMT) made up of Service Heads and Service Director (HR).

9) Matrix management of specialist teams will be very difficult.

Matrix management is not easy however, if we are to become more project/ programme based based, as an organisation, we need to enable work to be commissioned through specialist teams that may be working on a number of projects at the same time. The trick will be to balance capacity against priorities and to ensure HRMT balance these priorities.

10) Little mention of administrative support

Administrative support will be provided from within the proposed HR structure as there is no further resource that is to be disaggregated from departmental resources. It is likely to be provided by HR Assistants with some support from Business Support in the Resources Department. Following budgetary pressures and the need to become HR focused rather than just simply administrative in nature. This will give greater flexibility within the structure.

11) What is the methodology used to determine numbers of posts at each level?

The numbers of posts at each level has been determined by using the expert knowledge of each Head of HR and has been a judgment based upon this knowledge of the level and amount of work undertaken. The levels and numbers of posts have been adjusted following the consultation process and the volumes of work have been taken into account in the design of the new service. (We have been listening. Honest!)

12) Where will policy work sit?

This has already been answered at question 3.

13) No evidence that benchmarking info used to develop the new structure

The benchmarking work undertaken at the baselining stage of our development of the new structure has been used to underpin our discussions and has featured as a basis for our balance of numbers of posts.

14) Effective date of 1 April 2008 to implement the new structure is unrealistic

It is recognised that the full integration of HR by April 2008 is challenging and may slip. However, this timescale is largely dependent upon our ability to be satisfied that the crucial HR support is adequate and that the full integration will not put the organisation at serious risk of failure. A risk analysis will be undertaken closer to the implementation date.

15) Under resourced. Empowering managers will result in more ETs and greater costs to the County Council

We all recognise that there will be fewer posts in HR, although, integration will allow for efficiencies through standardisation of processes to allow us all to work in a more effective way. This will partly mitigate against the loss of staffing resources. We will also be looking at ways in which we can dispense with cumbersome administrative tasks which will involve the greater use of information technology. It is also important that training for managers is provided to a high standard to maximise their potential to deal with HR issues effectively.

It is recognised that there will be capacity issues with such a reduction in posts. However to mitigate this we will need to look a new ways of working and providing support to managers. Whilst there is a risk of more ET claims it is hoped that the new structure will mitigate against some of the capacity issues by enabling HR to be more flexible in the way we offer services.

---

Learning and Development

1) Lack of capacity to deliver imperatives

This has been partly answered earlier, however, it is perhaps opportune to state that there will be a chance for us to work more effectively with other partners to deliver learning and development. These may be other public or private sector organisations. The Learning and Development Team will also need to play a key role in supporting managers to become much more self sufficient in dealing with day to day HR issues.

2) External support will be very expensive

Cost effective external support and more effective use of partnerships needs to be further explored.

3) Balance of posts at the proposed levels is wrong. Need to consider higher level posts

The balance of posts in the Learning and Development Team has been reviewed and changed to reflect comments made. It is proposed that there may need to be two higher level posts below Service Manager with two posts to support them rather than the original suggestion of 4 posts all at a lower level.

4) Managers will need to develop their staff more and we shall have to use ‘e’ learning solutions

Agreed

5) Urgently need to resolve how internal training will be paid for

This is yet to be resolved and the Service Director (HR) is working with accountants to resolve this.

6) Team will need to support managers to take more responsibility therefore not be able to deliver day to day training

Agreed to some extent, however, it really depends upon how we decide the ‘day to day’ learning and development is to be delivered in the future.

7) Integrate L&D budgets across the Authority

This is also being addressed as per question 5.

---

Health & Safety

1) Attendance management resource should remain in departments

Following discussion with HRMT it has been agreed to action the suggestion that the ‘casework’ associated with managing sickness absence should remain in departmental teams. The Absence Management Team will remain in Health & Safety although will mainly focus upon producing management information such as trigger reports, and advice/support to managers when needed. The team will also co-ordinate redeployment across the County Council and there will be a reduction in posts here from 6 to 3 with resources being probably channelled to departmental HR team

2) Counselling should not be integrated with mediation. Two very different services

We have also agreed, following consultation, to keep two separate posts, one concerned with Counselling and the other, Mediation service. It is felt that the services are vital and are likely to be relied upon even more in the future. The overall cost of the services cannot change, therefore, the HR Assistant post in the counselling/mediation section of the Health & Safety team will be deleted to allow the counselling and mediation post to remain independent.

The Administration resources within the Occupational Health Unit and the Health & Safety Team will need to be re directed to support the Occupational Health Unit.

3) Seems that the H&S function integration has already taken place

The new Health & Safety structure has not been implemented although the team is working in a more joined up way already, allowing a greater sharing of resources across the Authority.

---

Quality Assurance Team

1) Not clear as to what the team will do

The full duties and responsibilities of this team will be covered in the job descriptions being developed. It is our intention to share all the job descriptions with HR colleagues and Trade Unions and to formally consult at the 13 February meeting of the departmental JCNP.

2) How will it fit with ESC? More detail needed. Need to have a post at level 4

We do not believe there is a need for a Service Manager post. The ESC will work closely with the QA team so that the required management information is available to ensure effective management of the relationship with service users and schools. There will not be a merger of this team with the ESC.

3) Resource in the teams is too small

We accept this and following the consultation exercise it is our intention to increase the level of resources in this team.

---

Job Evaluation Team

1) Not clear as to what the team will do and the structure remains unchanged

This is not so. One post has been made temporary to support the implementation of the Job Evaluation exercise and is being funded from the pay structure project budget. The structure will be reviewed later this year.

2) Team should not sit in ESC – not transactional – will reduce the potential role of the team

The intention is to continue to keep this team reporting to the Service Head at the ESC although it is recognised that the JE team has a broader role to play in reorganisations and offering advice. This reporting relationship will not affect the developing role of this team.

---

Children and Young People and Sold Services - Schools

1) Lack of info. Therefore no meaningful consultation

This has already been answered at question 1 under the “common questions” section.

2) There should be no ‘split’ between Service Heads, need to redraw the organisation chart; 4 not 5 Service Head post needed

We have listened to the concerns of employees and senior managers and the view remains that there is likely to be a capacity problem with offering high quality operational HR support to a department of this size alongside our strategic role. Therefore, it is our intention to continue to offer two Service Heads to support the work of this department, however, to ensure that very clear areas of ‘responsibility’ are identified and to do this in close consultation with relevant managers and senior management team. There will be close working between the two Service Heads to ensure an integrated service for one department, not a two way split. It is proposed that the approach is reviewed in six months time and a discussion over these proposals is being planned with Strategic/Service Directors.

3) Distribution of posts at Functional level 3 in CYP is not consistent with other departments

This is being addressed through career graded posts at levels 2 and 3 within an agreed budget at this level.

---

Process Questions

1) Allow staff more time to apply for VR once the final structure has been agreed

We will allow new requests for Voluntary Redundancy (VR) if required, once the structure is finalised.

2) When will VRs be authorised?

VRs will be considered by the HR Management Team in the next few weeks and the Director of Resources will be consulted. It is our intention to agree the VRs before enabling processes are completed.

3) Will operational v strategic elements of JD: be given equal weighting?

This question will be answered once the job descriptions have been drafted. Further work on the enabling principles still needs to be undertaken and the weighting of strategic v operational work will be dependent upon the posts being filled. This will follow the enabling process.

4) Sole reliance on JD: will not fully reflect the work being done

Agreed, however, the principle of the agreed enabling procedure must be followed.

5) Need to fully understand how the enabling process will work

This will be covered at the next consultation event.

6) How will job pools be established?

This is yet to be agreed.

7) Need a clear and robust (realistic) timetable for integration

Already covered in question 4 of the common questions section.

8) When will grades be known?

Once the job descriptions have been agreed and evaluated probably in February 2007.

9) Are there to be any further consultation events?

Yes, your managers will advise you accordingly, although 15 February is most likely.

10) When will we have an HR business plan?

This is being worked on and a plan is to be considered in February.

11) Vacant posts should be advertised on temporary basis

This is happening however it is dependent upon the post and circumstances.

---

Summary

The feedback we have had has been extensive and very helpful. As can be seen from our responses, we have listened carefully to these comments and have modified the revised structure accordingly. Clearly, we have not been able to action all comments, however, we believe that we now have the best structure for the interim period leading up to full integration in 2008.

The budget has played a significant role in the allocation of resources and HRMT are keen to continue to be transparent and to communicate as regularly with you as possible. Therefore, further consultation events have been planned for February 2007.

---

CYP restructuring: UNISON's initial comments

The following was sent on behalf of UNISON members in CYP Department on 20th December 2006.

---

I am sending the following comments on behalf of Unison - these are not our exhaustive comments and others may follow.

Our first comment is that the timing of the consultation means that consultation may be rushed. Many people are off work over the Christmas break and whilst we do appreciate an extension of one week more than that has been lost due to the late arrival of papers and the two week break.

Secondly without a copy of the current structure it is hard to see who will be at risk of displacement. I am requesting that a copy of the current structure is sent to all of the recognised Trade Unions ASAP.

As with previous tiers consulted upon there is a lack of consistency throughout the document, including but not exclusively;

Format of job descriptions:
This varies and should be consistent in order for informed comparisons to be made.

Qualifications required at each level:
There is much inconsistency across each tier around qualifications - some lower tier jobs require a degree whilst the 4th tier jobs specify only a relevant professional qualification. Some jobs say degree or relevant experience others say degree - Let's have consistency across the department!

p179 Essential 'at least grade B in English and Maths' other posts at this level and above do not have this as an essential this should not be the only post to ask for this. Leave this out is my comment. Another comment about this post is re: 'Desirable (i) Since when has psychometric testing been an agreed selection tool in NCC and when and at which level is it used?

Some posts ie p167 are open to teachers only. This discriminates against a large number of talented staff who do not hold teaching qualifications but are very able to perform the duties of the post. Examination of this job description shows that this post has nothing to suggest it can only be performed by a teacher and I would hope that this would be reviewed - at least when the current postholder leaves.

Driving licence essential and good health record as per several of the posts seems to contravene the DDA, can this be addressed?

Post ID within the charts has not been easy as the titles on the charts does not appear to match the job description in every case.

Why does the Placement and Panels Service Manager accrue +2 increments and when are they applied?

p131 Why is there a grade attached?

Some posts have grades attached, how is this possible? If grades should be available by February we will have further comments then, albeit outside the timescale allowed, it is impossible to comment on the individual job descriptions in detail without attached grades.

Jo Myers
Unison

Communities Department: Restructuring response

The following was sent on behalf of members in Communities Dept on 12th January 2007.

---

Dear Mr Burrows

Communities Department Restructuring

Trade union representatives have attended a number of meetings as part of the consultation process. We have actively encouraged members to send in their comments and we request that these are all taken on board.

We wish to make the additional comments:

• The lack of structures in the Planning and Sustainability (P&S) and Community Safety, Regeneration and Protection (CS, R&P) Divisions has also meant that our comments are restricted. (This is also the case for other divisions). We are told that this is because few changes other than those highlighted in the report are planned. Nevertheless, we should be able to see a proper structure for all divisions, especially given the changes that have taken place as a result of other factors, e.g. the last round of budget cuts.


• The existing structures appear to exclude the admin support/pa function for senior management (this is an omission in the structures for the rest of the department, too.)


• The impact of further cuts in the 2007/8 financial year are not reflected in the structures. The Medium-Term Financial Strategy report, which went to Cabinet on Wednesday, refers to staffing cuts in Regeneration, Emergency Planning and Trading Standards (as well as areas in other divisions). Following a request at JCNP for clarification about what this actually means, and a reminder that Regeneration had already been devastated by the last round of cuts, we have been assured that savings will be those arising from any vacancy lapses. However, at the time of writing we are waiting for further details on the impact of the proposals, which will inevitably be reflected in the structures.


• There are some staffing proposals in the P&S Division arising from restructuring, including the merger of some functions and the transfer of staff between teams. Individual groups of workers have made comments on the specifics of these proposals, so we will not repeat them here, but the overarching theme of the effect on workloads is worth highlighting. Additionally the impact of budget cuts has not been properly evaluated in many areas. Risk assessments need to be carried out and remedial action undertaken to ensure the adverse effects on the workforce of the “double-whammy” of re-structuring and budget cuts are minimised.


• Clarification is sought on the disaggregation, as we understand the budget for 16.44 posts is moving to CYP, Research and Resource. What will happen if jobs are not found in the new departments?


• Is there any indication of how many people will have to move base and to where as part of the restructuring?


• The Arts Service is currently in a review process independent of the restructuring. We are attending a meeting with David Lathrope next week and are unable to comment at this stage.


• The Trade Unions have raised their concerns that Human Resources and Health and Safety have been centralised. We have been given assurances that there is no intention to change the allocation of personnel officers at the moment. The new department has such a wide range of occupational groups that we feel certain specialisms are needed e.g. Highways.


• It is not known what impact on services and personnel future budgets will have. Buy back decisions have not been made for schools this year. It is not known what impact the proposed Lighting P.F.I. scheme could have on Highways.


• Where staffing cuts have been made and/or workload increased we request that suitable Risk Assessment be carried out to include stress.


• We would like to request a detailed breakdown of how many people are in the new structure and where they are based.


• We would also request an Equality impact on the new structure.

Jenny Hogg / Selwyn Seymour
Joint Communities Convenors
on behalf of the joint trade union stewards committee

Adult Social Care and Health: UNISON Response

We have received extensive views, emails, phone calls, steward discussion.
We also arranged three joint Consultation briefings for all staff both trade union members and non members, these venues covered North, Central and South.
Approx 120 plus staff attended these meetings.
The Project Manager Pete McGavin took questions, concerns views and opinions from the floor.
Each session ended with members providing feedback to the Trade Unions.

I have seen many of the reports /feedback members have sent into Pete McGavin, and I feel to repeat these comments will serve no purpose.

I therefore do not wish to go into detail, however I will compliment all members views in a brief statement of facts as they have been raised with the Trade Unions and also comments from a general Trade Union perspective.

Management Budget Savings:

· Yes it is true the financial problems due to lack of Government funding requires a fresh look at how we Commission and Provide Services.
· Money has already been saved, so how much?
· Unison would like to see a full breakdown of how many 1st, 2nd and 3rd Tier Management posts in ASC&H have been cut, offset with what appears to be some increase in 3rd Tier Management posts in “New Area’s”.
· Unison is also requesting a full breakdown of the current savings made through the vacancy control process/ staff underspend.
· We are also requesting an urgent and detailed update on the savings made within our department with the Absence Monitoring Process.
· Unison requests the ongoing departmental decision to employ a Consultant at £750.00 per day plus VAT, and its present cost to the department with over a year’s salary plus extension of contact until March 07, be reviewed .We would request that the department should be able to show this expenditure as “value for money” whilst our members loose there jobs. Do we not have excellent staff within the department who could have equally completed this work, or at the very least issued a fixed term contract to consultants on much more reasonable terms.

In light of some of the points I have just raised, and whilst waiting for the details of above requests we would wish to arrange urgent discussions with Senior Management regarding some of the proposals which are currently being considered.

As I believe some of the proposals will deplete the current structures without considerable care and accountability and may cause Budget Over Expenditure the like of which we encountered a few years ago (2003/2004)
From what Unison was led to understand at that time, the Budgets became over spent due to inconsistent and not enough joined up practice. Monitoring did not flow and had little coordination between, Managers/Services etc.
From members discussions and fears, we believe the removal of several Team Managers and over stretching Services Managers the management of budgets could once again come under pressure.
Over the past few years Budget monitoring has also become much more complex, and varied.
Therefore Unison believes staff reductions should be a matter for concern.

Bureaucracy / Over Management Of Procedures:

There is overwhelming agreement within all staffing areas, that present practices and procedures, presently require more Senior Management oversight than is necessary.
Qualified workers would welcome new measures to be put into place which speed up decisions, and there appear some areas (direct payments etc) where several staff groups are required to deal with a single case.
All staff feel a working party to investigate improved working practices would benefit both staff and the department.

However it does need noting that everyone has stated in the forums, this alone would not amount to a huge decrease in Team Management workload.

Reducing supervision of qualified staff raises concerns for Unison, as this theology appears only to be being suggested at the Adult Care Teams.

We agree with a very poignant and vital point raised at Boughton Pumping Station, that for the department to consider that Adults either under 60 or over 60, are less vulnerable than children in our opinion is not acceptable, and that due to the high increase of Adults with Mental Health and Learning Disabilities who live alone in isolated communities and with fewer services available, lowering the levels of supervision appears inequitable in line with other departments.
There is also an increase of POVA cases, and with the deep concern Unison has with Direct Payments where individuals are presently employing staff with no experience CRB checks etc, this is placing our SM/TM/SW under more pressure.

This I believe has also been raised at a National level.

We feel reducing Supervision would reduce case discussion between Team Managers and Qualified Workers, which could result in valuable oversight being missed.

This from a Trade Union Perspective tackles the broad view in relation to the central view of TM reduction.

Menbers points I can highlight in bullet form.

Concerns:

Consideration to agreeing (ring fencing) specialised posts within each team as a requirement eg- OT’s, ASW etc.
Supervision – Increased decision making could devolve to Un Qualified staff if the department does not address its current practices.
Qualified staff feel, TM involvement in casework to be vital.
New Localities and fewer TM’s could create fragmentation of service and supervision, with some workers having more opportunity to discuss than others.
What risk assessments have or will be done to change the present supervision policy.
Self allocation of work already exists in some areas, and especially in Hospital situations where maybe only one CCO/ SW on duty!
UNISON- has serious concerns regarding the allocation of difficult cases continuing to be taken on by non qualified staff, and although some experienced CCO’s may wish to undertake these duties, this may not be the case for all.
UNISON- has serious concerns that the department has not monitored the present situation of case work, to level of either SW/CCO/RO etc, and that there needs a fundamental work and employment ethic to be present in the proposed new structure.
UNISON –has concerns for its members, and that they will only get paid, what a contract says, and not the reality of work they are assigned to.
UNISON- believes this could lead to dissatisfaction, and at a time of huge change staff will require support from TMs.
UNISON- believes the department will need to consider Job Descriptions for most of the new posts within the proposed structure. Under the proposals Fair Pay may need to be addressed for CCO’s/ Reviewing Officers.
Concise and relevant JD’s required.
Goodwill of staff needs readdressing.
UNISON – also will expect Managers to address the workload of staff who it appears may well have worked above salary grade.
UNISON- strongly does not agree to diluting the Qualified Staffing requirements any further, and wishes the department to uphold a commitment to maintaining Training for ASW and SW.
UNISON- feels the creation of some posts has sort to undermine the skills of qualified workers, and is very mindful, of policies which mean reducing skilled staff, and asking staff on lower pay to take on more responsibility, and pay them much less, is not acceptable.
Concerns of specialist workers not being supervised by specialist management.
Concerns for loss of support and contact with appropriate mental health colleagues.
RO- views throughout County is spilt regarding changing roles, some prefer to cover all ACMT roles, others have specific contracts.
UNISON- would insist on appropriate support and extra training available.
Concerns over reorganisation that places all RO’s in one large team.
Concerns that the proposals will increase SM responsibility.
Concerns of the increase to SW, and what Risk assessment does the department suggest putting in place.
Where and how would there be an easy way to devolve budgets.
A concise and detailed report needs completing to assess the full function of the TM, as it was felt by the majority from the proposal the TM has been misunderstood, and miscalculated in its responsibilities.
UNISON welcomes the 2 year implementation period which it suggested in JCNP, but it would like to further suggest during this period, if other savings are found then no proposal should be concrete.
UNISON- requests the department continue to look at other ways of saving money rather than cutting jobs and services.
UNISON- requests full risk assessments to be completed before it restructures or places our staff / service users at risk.
Self Allocation – could pose huge problems with “who verifies” “who checks if work is picked up” “who monitors if all allocation is fair and equitable”, and should TMs be accountable under these proposals.
Move away if possible from the term “older people”.

Trade Union (UNISON) Expectations:

Full and ongoing meaningful consultation with the TU.
The setting up of Project Groups of staff, to consider individual service areas, eg SM/TM/ SW/CCO/RO etc.
Continue to look for other methods of budget savings instead of cutting Staff and Services.
Maintain the County Councils current commitment to NO COMPULSURY REDUNDANTICES
Commitment to VR in effected posts at risk.
Final Report with FAQ to be placed on the Big Issue
Transparency regarding full and detailed submission of all queries from staff.
Immediate Urgent request for extra funding/training to tackle the inconsistencies of Framework/ Pimms. It will not be possible for staff to engage in any of the new proposals without the Departments commitment to solve the many problems surrounding the IT packages we currently use. Up dating, and shortening some of the processes used, which at present do not join up to the Health Care IT processes. They appear to consume more of the TM/SW/CCO/RO time than should be required.
Changing its mind or direction when meaningful suggestions are put forward.
Staff need to be reassured that consultation means consultation, and not just a sound bite.

Report Compiled by Grace Perry from views and opinions expressed by members etc, and support from my colleagues within ACMT, Ged Talty and Steve Ainsbough.

Grace Perry
UNISON Convenor ASC&H
13th January 2007

UNISON response to Resources restructuring Consultation

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?

---

HR

1) Process

Many 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 descriptions

The 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 delivery

a) 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 HR

Members 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 Service

Under 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.

---

ICT

1) Process

Many 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 descriptions

There 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 delivery

Proposed 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?

---

PROPERTY

Comments 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.

UNISON 2006 National LGBT Conference reports

The conference took place in Manchester in November 2006. Two Notts UNISON Branch delegates have written up their experiences.

---

This was my first year as LGBT Officer for the Branch and so arranging for the conference felt quite daunting. With the paperwork sorted out and submitted to deadlines and everything booked we spent a weekend beforehand meeting together with other delegates from the Region discussing conference procedures, language and motions. This was extremely helpful as we were able to meet up with other people who would be at the conference and also look at the motions that would be discussed there.

This is only the second year as LGBT and it was noticeable that there remains a need to really identify with each other and learn about what we have in common as well as respecting our differing viewpoints. Having Pauline from Leicestershire at the weekend gave us an insight into some of the concerns of the Transgender members and this was very useful. Also Pauline is visiting the SOG group here in Nottingham on 17th January so if you want to come please contact me and I will give you details.

The Branch sent 4 members of the newly formed LGBT Self Organised Group, all first-time conference goers, and also submitted 2 motions to the conference, one on workforce monitoring of LGBT staff and the other on the inclusion of LGB people in the 2011 Census. Both were emphasising the urgent need to ensure that data is held confidentially and that the risk of using data to ascertain numbers of and needs of the LGBT community took into account the under-reporting that would be inevitable.

On the Friday a few of us travelled up by train together and started the weekend with Bucks Fizz and a picnic on the way, it felt like quite a party atmosphere. We arrived and signed in at the desk in the Town Hall – this was quite imposing in itself with lots of ornately carved staircases and rooms and pictures of Manchester dignitaries (male and white) on the walls. The venue might have been imposing but the welcome was very warm. I was glad that I knew some faces from the preparatory weekend and quickly felt part of things. It was quite a challenge to keep up with what was going on and there was a point were we were asked at the last minute to move a motion which we hadn’t had time to prepare for or understand and Richard rose to the occasion very bravely.

Our motion on monitoring was the second on to be debated on Saturday. I was extremely nervous at having to move the motion but there was a lot of encouragement and I felt pleased to have done it. Over the weekend there were a lot of new speakers and each time there was an encouraging round of applause for them. Both the motions from our Branch were carried easily and hopefully will form part of the workload of the LGBT Officer and for the Branch next year. Some of the other motions debated include issues such as:

Disclosure of sexual orientation to clients – asking for information and support to all members to help them deal with this issue.

Blood donation – the ongoing campaign about the restriction on gay or bisexual men being able to donate blood.

Support for International and European Pride events which highlighted the sometimes violent reaction met in some countries such as Warsaw, Moscow and Jerusalem to attempts to hold Pride events.

BNP – the rise in activity is of concern to us all and it was alarming to hear from some delegates about their Council elections. We can’t afford complacency and this came across loud and clear.

Women’s Participation - One of the liveliest debates was around whether or not to provide women only spaces. There had not been a lesbian caucus group and the social was a mixed event at this conference. A motion was raised that suggested that providing women only spaces was divisive and discriminatory and should be abandoned.

A number of the women in the hall, myself included, descended on the microphone to speak passionately for the need to preserve womens space. Apart from the fact that the whole concept of Self Organisation is that under represented groups need to have opportunities for their members to meet separately and that despite proportionality there were still 60% male delegates at our conference. UNISON is still struggling to raise the number of women activists and yet here is yet another argument that says we don’t need the same consideration as other groups in the Union such as black, disabled, bisexual & transgender members. The motion fell but the fact that there had been no space for a lesbian caucus meeting had an impact on the participation of a number of women attending their first conference and this was apparent when on Saturday afternoon there was a discussion group for women and the stories of isolation in branches as women and as lesbians was shocking. It is a very different story than the situation here in our Branch where there are women officers and I’ve had a lot of support.

There were a number of motions around developing as an LGBT group and ensuring there is training and awareness of all the differing strands that make up our SOG. We bring together people with very differing experiences of oppression and there is work to be done in the future to ensure that our unified group does not lose any of the voices of its members. There are similarities in the issues we face such as coming out, homophobia transphobia and biphobia however we also have to recognise that this SOG may sometimes raise things from more than one angle and we need to respect our different priorities as well. I believe that in a diverse group each of the sections(including the gay men) needs to meet separately sometimes in order to network and discuss issues particularly pertinent to them. This would not be divisive but would lead to increased participation and strength within our group.

A list of the motions and decisions reached at this year’s conference is available at the National UNISON website (http://www.unison.co.uk/) under conferences and conference database this gives a complete list of all the motions.

It was hard work and the weekend went by in a blur of motions, people and speakers and Sunday’s early start nearly finished me off and saw a few latecomers straggling into the hall! I arrived home on Sunday evening exhausted but enthused by the energy and passion of the people I had met during the weekend

Next year the LGBT Conference will be held in Glasgow 16-18 November 2007 and I’m hoping the Branch will have another delegation to send who are as enthusiastic and committed to the job of representing LGBT members from Nottinghamshire County Branch at this important national event.

Siobhan

---

Introduction

I have been employed by Nottinghamshire County Council since August 1998. Some time after this date I became a paid up member of UNISON. Several years ago Lesbian, Gay and Bi-Sexual (and recently Transgender) workers within the local authority started up a staff group. As a Gay man I regularly attended its monthly meetings which looked at policies and issues such as Equality within its LGBT workforce and also acting as a support group for employees.

It was by chance that I got involved with the National LGBT Conference this year. The person who was originally going had to drop out, and I took his place as a delegate, 4 weeks prior to the Conference taking place.

Training Weekend 4th and 5th November 2006:

This was a pre-conference course held at the Jurys Inn, Station Street in Nottingham, for delegates from the East Midlands region. I was one of several who had never been involved in UNISON business or ever attended a UNISON Conference. I found the preparation and training during this weekend very useful. The trainers taught us about terminology, rules and procedures set out by UNISON. They gave useful advice such as how we would be able to present ourselves if participating in a speech. A good deal of the weekend was spent looking at all of the LGBT Motions and Standing Orders being proposed by all the different regions and branches for the National Conference in Manchester.

UNISON National LGBT Conference 17th to 19th November 2006:

On Friday 17th November 2006 from 4:15pm to 5:00pm regional meetings were held in various rooms of the Town Hall in Manchester. Our East Midlands region met in the reception room to discuss motions and amendments. East Midland Regional LGBT Group were submitting Motions and Amendments, as were the Nottinghamshire County Council Branch LGBT and the Nottinghamshire Healthcare LGBT Group. From 6:00 to 7:15pm delegates met in their Service Groups. As I am an employee of Nottinghamshire County Council I met with the other Local Government delegates in the Great Hall. The evening ended with a Civic Reception held by the Lord Mayor in which he made a welcoming speech to LGBT delegates in the Banqueting Hall.

Saturday 18th November 2006 delegates were all in the Great Hall debating and voting on motions concerning LGBT issues. At 3:00pm there were Discussion Group meetings. I attended the LGBT workers rights – a beginners group workshop, a series of exercises using scenarios and real life incidents where employees have faced discrimination in their work place. From 4:45 to 6:00pm there was further business of debating Motions, Standing Orders and listening to a guest speaker within the Great Hall.

On Sunday 19th November 2006 the Conference started in the Great Hall at 9:15am. Having got behind on time on Saturday, there were more Motions to be debated and put to the vote. However, after 1:00pm all delegates took part in the closing Ceremony songs.

Conclusions:

This was my first time at a UNISON LGBT Annual Conference. I felt it was rewarding being able to listen, participate and vote on issues affecting Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender people in the workplace and the greater community.

Richard