UNISON is campaigning against the cuts of over £100 million and 5000 jobs in the NHS in the East Midlands alone.
You can take part by visiting the Region's Keep the NHS Working webpage where you will find details of how you can get involved.
You can also download a newsletter (in pdf format) and petitions for each of the Counties in the East Midlands that you can distribute around your friends, family and workmates. To download The Nottinghamshire Deserves Better petition (in Word format) click here.
The cuts in the NHS do not just affect UNISON members in hospitals and PCTs, they affect us all as there will be less people to deliver services and provide patient care. This will reduce the speed and quality of the healthcare you, your friends and your family receive.
So, get involved! It's our NHS and we want to keep it!
20 July 2006
14 July 2006
Save Malak Ghorbany from stoning
We have received the following request for your help and support from Nottingham and Notts Refugee Forum.
Dear friends,
Once again, another Iranian woman has been sentenced to death by the barbaric practice of public stoning. On June 28, 2006, a court in the northwestern Iranian city of Urmia sentenced Malak Ghorbany to death for committing "adultery." Under Iran's Penal Code, the term "adultery" is used to describe any intimate or sexual act between a man and a girl/woman who are not married. The crime of adultery is also used in cases where a girl is deemed to have committed "acts incompatible with chastity," which includes instances of rape. The punishment for "adultery" is death.
On the day of her punishment, the woman's hands are tied behind her back as she becomes covered from head to toe in winding sheets and is placed seated in a pit. The pit is then filled up to her chest with dirt and the dirt is tamped down. At that point, members of the community are invited to murder her by hurling rocks at her. However, to ensure that the condemned woman/girl receives the absolute maximum amount of pain and torture, the Iranian government has even mandated the size of the stones that are to be used in this barbaric act of public execution. By law, the stones must not be too small as to prevent ultimate death, nor must they be too large that they could cause the girl's death "too soon."
The Committee for the Defense of Human Rights of Iranian Kurdistan has issued a statement to save the life of Malak Ghorbany, and I have initiated a petition, directed to members of the United Nations, Amnesty International, the ruling clerics in Iran, and various other organizations and entities around the world to oppose Malak's barbaric sentence. I need you to help me save Malak's life, as we did with the 17 year old Nazanin, by signing this petition and raising as much awareness as possible to her case. Without significant international pressure and expressions of outrage at the atrocities committed by the Isalmic regime, Iranians will continue to be subjected to medieval practices that violate the most basic rights of humans.
I thank you for your support, friendship, and kindness, and I look forward to a day when no woman is abused, tortured, or murdered simply because of her gender.
Fondly,
Lily Mazahery
The direct link to the petition to Save Malak's Life is: http://www.petitiononline.com/Malak/petition.html
The website about her case is: http://savemalak.googlepages.com/home
Dear friends,
Once again, another Iranian woman has been sentenced to death by the barbaric practice of public stoning. On June 28, 2006, a court in the northwestern Iranian city of Urmia sentenced Malak Ghorbany to death for committing "adultery." Under Iran's Penal Code, the term "adultery" is used to describe any intimate or sexual act between a man and a girl/woman who are not married. The crime of adultery is also used in cases where a girl is deemed to have committed "acts incompatible with chastity," which includes instances of rape. The punishment for "adultery" is death.
On the day of her punishment, the woman's hands are tied behind her back as she becomes covered from head to toe in winding sheets and is placed seated in a pit. The pit is then filled up to her chest with dirt and the dirt is tamped down. At that point, members of the community are invited to murder her by hurling rocks at her. However, to ensure that the condemned woman/girl receives the absolute maximum amount of pain and torture, the Iranian government has even mandated the size of the stones that are to be used in this barbaric act of public execution. By law, the stones must not be too small as to prevent ultimate death, nor must they be too large that they could cause the girl's death "too soon."
The Committee for the Defense of Human Rights of Iranian Kurdistan has issued a statement to save the life of Malak Ghorbany, and I have initiated a petition, directed to members of the United Nations, Amnesty International, the ruling clerics in Iran, and various other organizations and entities around the world to oppose Malak's barbaric sentence. I need you to help me save Malak's life, as we did with the 17 year old Nazanin, by signing this petition and raising as much awareness as possible to her case. Without significant international pressure and expressions of outrage at the atrocities committed by the Isalmic regime, Iranians will continue to be subjected to medieval practices that violate the most basic rights of humans.
I thank you for your support, friendship, and kindness, and I look forward to a day when no woman is abused, tortured, or murdered simply because of her gender.
Fondly,
Lily Mazahery
The direct link to the petition to Save Malak's Life is: http://www.petitiononline.com/Malak/petition.html
The website about her case is: http://savemalak.googlepages.com/home
07 July 2006
Statement on sickness absence from Councillor David Kirkham
The Cabinet meeting scheduled for Monday, July 10 includes a report from the Business Improvement Board. A draft of the Business Improvement Board’s annual report is included and this contains some statements made by the County Council in response to the Board’s findings on sickness absence. In particular, the response drafted by the Council included inaccurate references to the negotiation of reductions in sick pay and the tightening up of trigger levels.
I am pleased to say that the Council has reached an agreement with the trade unions to work jointly on examining ways of reducing sickness absence. This will include doing more work on looking at the underlying causes of absence. It will also look at how we as an organisation can provide better support to our employees, who we recognise do an excellent job in sometimes difficult circumstances. In the light of that agreement to work jointly, we have given a clear and absolute commitment that changes in sick pay and trigger levels are not on the agenda.
Reaching this agreement with the trade unions is a major step forward in our efforts to tackle absence management, which remains our top priority in terms of improving the Council’s performance and the health and wellbeing of our employees. It is therefore unfortunate that the Council’s response to the Business Improvement Board is misleading and I apologise for any confusion this may have caused.
It has also been drawn to my attention that a statement in the Board’s findings based on information provided by the County Council could imply that we do not believe that all absence is genuine. I wish to make it absolutely clear that this is not the case and does not reflect the Council’s approach. I regret that this information does not reflect the genuine concern we have about our employee’s welfare. I believe that our preferred way forward of working jointly with the trades unions, taking a more holistic approach that also considers and addresses the underlying causes of absence, provides a more sustainable way forward.
I am pleased to say that the Council has reached an agreement with the trade unions to work jointly on examining ways of reducing sickness absence. This will include doing more work on looking at the underlying causes of absence. It will also look at how we as an organisation can provide better support to our employees, who we recognise do an excellent job in sometimes difficult circumstances. In the light of that agreement to work jointly, we have given a clear and absolute commitment that changes in sick pay and trigger levels are not on the agenda.
Reaching this agreement with the trade unions is a major step forward in our efforts to tackle absence management, which remains our top priority in terms of improving the Council’s performance and the health and wellbeing of our employees. It is therefore unfortunate that the Council’s response to the Business Improvement Board is misleading and I apologise for any confusion this may have caused.
It has also been drawn to my attention that a statement in the Board’s findings based on information provided by the County Council could imply that we do not believe that all absence is genuine. I wish to make it absolutely clear that this is not the case and does not reflect the Council’s approach. I regret that this information does not reflect the genuine concern we have about our employee’s welfare. I believe that our preferred way forward of working jointly with the trades unions, taking a more holistic approach that also considers and addresses the underlying causes of absence, provides a more sustainable way forward.
06 July 2006
Samuel Morales and Raquel Castro - Colombia, Amnesty International Campaign
On 5 August 2004 trade union activists Samuel Morales and Raquel Castro were arrested by the Colombian army. In the same operation, three other trade unionists - Héctor Alirio Martínez, Leonel Goyeneche, and Jorge Prieto - were shot and killed.
According to the armed forces, the trade unionists - who they allege were members of the National Liberation Army armed group - opened fire on the soldiers and were killed in combat. On 3 January 2005, charges of 'rebellion' (ie collaborating with armed opposition groups) were brought against Samuel and Raquel. Pre-trial court hearings began in the second half of 2005 to determine whether trials should go ahead.
Subsequent investigations have revealed that the three trade unionists were killed by troops out-of-combat. In July 2005 four soldiers and one civilian were charged with the killing. Samuel Morales, a former teacher, is regional president of the Colombian Trade Union Confederation (CUT) in Arauca, and a member of the Regional Human Rights Committee Joel Sierra, an independent organisation that denounces human rights abuses. Raquel Castro is a member of the Teachers' Association of Arauca (ASEDAR), whose leaders have been the target of raids and arbitrary detentions by the security forces, repeated death threats and killings by army-backed paramilitaries. On 19 August 2003 arrest warrants had been issued for the three trade unionists killed.
Amnesty International fears that Samuel and Raquel's arrest and charges and the killing of the three trade unionists are part of an ongoing joint paramilitary strategy to undermine the invaluable work carried out by trade unionists, human rights defenders and other social activists in Arauca. We are seriously concerned that Samuel and Raquel's legal rights may not be guaranteed and if released, may be at great risk. In September 2005, Samuel's family received death threats. Trade unionists and human rights defenders are repeatedly accused of being subversive or linked to guerrilla activity. Death threats and other human rights violations often follow such accusations.
Please write to the Colombian authorities calling on them to guarantee the legal rights of Samuel Morales and Raquel Castro.
To visit the Amnesty International webpage with more information and details of how you can send an e-mail of support: click here
According to the armed forces, the trade unionists - who they allege were members of the National Liberation Army armed group - opened fire on the soldiers and were killed in combat. On 3 January 2005, charges of 'rebellion' (ie collaborating with armed opposition groups) were brought against Samuel and Raquel. Pre-trial court hearings began in the second half of 2005 to determine whether trials should go ahead.
Subsequent investigations have revealed that the three trade unionists were killed by troops out-of-combat. In July 2005 four soldiers and one civilian were charged with the killing. Samuel Morales, a former teacher, is regional president of the Colombian Trade Union Confederation (CUT) in Arauca, and a member of the Regional Human Rights Committee Joel Sierra, an independent organisation that denounces human rights abuses. Raquel Castro is a member of the Teachers' Association of Arauca (ASEDAR), whose leaders have been the target of raids and arbitrary detentions by the security forces, repeated death threats and killings by army-backed paramilitaries. On 19 August 2003 arrest warrants had been issued for the three trade unionists killed.
Amnesty International fears that Samuel and Raquel's arrest and charges and the killing of the three trade unionists are part of an ongoing joint paramilitary strategy to undermine the invaluable work carried out by trade unionists, human rights defenders and other social activists in Arauca. We are seriously concerned that Samuel and Raquel's legal rights may not be guaranteed and if released, may be at great risk. In September 2005, Samuel's family received death threats. Trade unionists and human rights defenders are repeatedly accused of being subversive or linked to guerrilla activity. Death threats and other human rights violations often follow such accusations.
Please write to the Colombian authorities calling on them to guarantee the legal rights of Samuel Morales and Raquel Castro.
To visit the Amnesty International webpage with more information and details of how you can send an e-mail of support: click here
03 July 2006
ATTENTION - JOINT LGBT SOG MEETING
Attention all UNISON LGBT members In Nottinghamshire
Joint
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender
Meeting
Thursday 13th July
5.00-7.00pm
All members in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire are welcome to come to this informal meeting with members from different branches across the County to give everyone a chance to get to meet other people as well as looking at conference procedure, motions etc.
Are you interested in attending the LGBT conference in November?
Then this meeting is definitely for you.
There will be refreshments and a buffet with very nice cakes to tempt you!
Please try and come if you can….
If you want any further details then contact me
Siobhan Ford
LGBT Officer
Notts County UNISON
0115 9810405
Siobhan.ford@nottscc.gov.uk
Joint
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender
Meeting
Thursday 13th July
5.00-7.00pm
All members in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire are welcome to come to this informal meeting with members from different branches across the County to give everyone a chance to get to meet other people as well as looking at conference procedure, motions etc.
Are you interested in attending the LGBT conference in November?
Then this meeting is definitely for you.
There will be refreshments and a buffet with very nice cakes to tempt you!
Please try and come if you can….
If you want any further details then contact me
Siobhan Ford
LGBT Officer
Notts County UNISON
0115 9810405
Siobhan.ford@nottscc.gov.uk
26 June 2006
Chill in the Park 2006 - free event - 2nd July
Venue: THE ARBORETUM PARK, NOTTINGHAM
Times: 12pm – 6pm
Date: Sunday 2nd July
FREE ADMISSION
With a theme of ‘a world of Nottingham music’ the city’s second Chill in the Park is bigger and better this year, taking place at The Arboretum Park on Sunday July 2nd.
With over 50 different languages spoken in Nottingham, the modest but popular event, described by one reviewer as “a pocket sized WOMAD”, aims to be a snapshot of the wealth of musical diversity within the City.
With music and musicians originating from Europe, Africa, Asia, The Caribbean and the Middle East 2006 plays host to:
Ethiopian/British Jazz/folk trio HAIKIS TRIOKA,
Vietnamese singers HA & CHI,
Singer songwriter guitarist MELANIE,
Angolan singer percussionist NEY,
Traditional Chinese musicians LING PENG and XIAO YING,
Human beatboxer LIPPICOOL,
Persian and Kurdish music from Iran with HAMAYOUN and FARHAD,
Classical Bollywood songs by RAJ
Plus DJ THE LAIDBACK PROJECT featuring RAPUNZEL M.A.P. and The New Laidbackism’s DJ D? C.I.? (yes, that is his name).
Chill in the Park boasts an intimate, family-friendly atmosphere in Nottingham’s most popular and beautiful public park. For those who like outdoor music events, Chill in the Park 2006 will be a key date in Nottingham’s events diary.
And you can buy cheap books whilst supporting NNRF's Destitution Fund at the ExLibris stall.
Times: 12pm – 6pm
Date: Sunday 2nd July
FREE ADMISSION
With a theme of ‘a world of Nottingham music’ the city’s second Chill in the Park is bigger and better this year, taking place at The Arboretum Park on Sunday July 2nd.
With over 50 different languages spoken in Nottingham, the modest but popular event, described by one reviewer as “a pocket sized WOMAD”, aims to be a snapshot of the wealth of musical diversity within the City.
With music and musicians originating from Europe, Africa, Asia, The Caribbean and the Middle East 2006 plays host to:
Ethiopian/British Jazz/folk trio HAIKIS TRIOKA,
Vietnamese singers HA & CHI,
Singer songwriter guitarist MELANIE,
Angolan singer percussionist NEY,
Traditional Chinese musicians LING PENG and XIAO YING,
Human beatboxer LIPPICOOL,
Persian and Kurdish music from Iran with HAMAYOUN and FARHAD,
Classical Bollywood songs by RAJ
Plus DJ THE LAIDBACK PROJECT featuring RAPUNZEL M.A.P. and The New Laidbackism’s DJ D? C.I.? (yes, that is his name).
Chill in the Park boasts an intimate, family-friendly atmosphere in Nottingham’s most popular and beautiful public park. For those who like outdoor music events, Chill in the Park 2006 will be a key date in Nottingham’s events diary.
And you can buy cheap books whilst supporting NNRF's Destitution Fund at the ExLibris stall.
20 June 2006
Branch response to Pensions Consultation
15th June 2006
Dear Ms Rochester
RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION ON THE AMENDMENTS TO THE APRIL 2006 REGULATIONS
I am writing to you to give the views of the Nottinghamshire County UNISON Branch on the current consultation on the DCLG’s proposed amendments to the April 2006 Regulations. We are a large Branch with 12,500 members and received very wide spread support for the campaign to protect our pension.
The Branch remains opposed to the removal of the 85 Year Rule from 1 October this year. We are aware that our union has lodged a judicial review and been given leave to proceed with it. We are challenging the Government’s view that the 85 Year Rule breaches age discrimination Regulations and prevents existing LGPS members from having full protection of their existing 85 Year Rule rights. We believe that such protection would be fair and in line with the protection afforded to members of every other public sector pension scheme.
Views on the current proposals
We recognise that the current proposals represent a minor improvement to the protections included in the April 2006 Regulations. To that extent, we do not oppose their introduction, pending the judicial review, as they would benefit some of our members.
However, Notts. County Branch does not believe that these amendments are sufficient to overcome the anger and lost morale amongst LGPS members, who now see themselves as the ‘poor relations’ of the public sector. Neither will they greatly assist the large number of LGPS employers faced with recruitment and retention problems. We continue to believe that our members in the LGPS should be given full protection, alongside civil servants, teachers, NHS staff, police and fire fighters and that such a course of action would be both just and equitable.
Whilst Notts. County UNISON Branch support the current limited proposed amendments, we would urge the Government to re-consider them to provide full protection of their 85 Year Rule rights to our members.
The wider Context
Our Branch would also urge the Government to halt this spiralling down of pension provision which will only create a crisis of destitution and poverty amongst the elderly in society in future years. The current proposals are short-term and expedient and it is time for the Government to recognise the huge benefits to society in good pensions for all. We would also state that the costs today will be far less than the bill tomorrow should they fail to act. We would especially urge the Government to cease the propaganda campaign against LGPS members and make sure that they properly reflect the true level of local government pensions (the average being less that £3000 per annum) rather than seek to paint local government workers as ‘fat cats’.
Finally we ask for parity with the most generous pension provision in the public sector in Europe, that of our MPs. Members of Notts. County Branch are disgusted that MPs have afforded themselves protection and benefits which they are denying to low-paid workers in local government. We believe that they should be ashamed.
Yours sincerely
Jill Turner
Joint Branch Secretary
Dear Ms Rochester
RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION ON THE AMENDMENTS TO THE APRIL 2006 REGULATIONS
I am writing to you to give the views of the Nottinghamshire County UNISON Branch on the current consultation on the DCLG’s proposed amendments to the April 2006 Regulations. We are a large Branch with 12,500 members and received very wide spread support for the campaign to protect our pension.
The Branch remains opposed to the removal of the 85 Year Rule from 1 October this year. We are aware that our union has lodged a judicial review and been given leave to proceed with it. We are challenging the Government’s view that the 85 Year Rule breaches age discrimination Regulations and prevents existing LGPS members from having full protection of their existing 85 Year Rule rights. We believe that such protection would be fair and in line with the protection afforded to members of every other public sector pension scheme.
Views on the current proposals
We recognise that the current proposals represent a minor improvement to the protections included in the April 2006 Regulations. To that extent, we do not oppose their introduction, pending the judicial review, as they would benefit some of our members.
However, Notts. County Branch does not believe that these amendments are sufficient to overcome the anger and lost morale amongst LGPS members, who now see themselves as the ‘poor relations’ of the public sector. Neither will they greatly assist the large number of LGPS employers faced with recruitment and retention problems. We continue to believe that our members in the LGPS should be given full protection, alongside civil servants, teachers, NHS staff, police and fire fighters and that such a course of action would be both just and equitable.
Whilst Notts. County UNISON Branch support the current limited proposed amendments, we would urge the Government to re-consider them to provide full protection of their 85 Year Rule rights to our members.
The wider Context
Our Branch would also urge the Government to halt this spiralling down of pension provision which will only create a crisis of destitution and poverty amongst the elderly in society in future years. The current proposals are short-term and expedient and it is time for the Government to recognise the huge benefits to society in good pensions for all. We would also state that the costs today will be far less than the bill tomorrow should they fail to act. We would especially urge the Government to cease the propaganda campaign against LGPS members and make sure that they properly reflect the true level of local government pensions (the average being less that £3000 per annum) rather than seek to paint local government workers as ‘fat cats’.
Finally we ask for parity with the most generous pension provision in the public sector in Europe, that of our MPs. Members of Notts. County Branch are disgusted that MPs have afforded themselves protection and benefits which they are denying to low-paid workers in local government. We believe that they should be ashamed.
Yours sincerely
Jill Turner
Joint Branch Secretary
Pension Consultation - have your say
It is vital that every branch and as many members as possible respond to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) consultation on its interim proposals for extending the protection arrangement for LGPS members. (The DCLG has replaced the ODPM). In response to our industrial action on 28 March and the Joint Statement with the LGA, the DCLG proposes to amend the April 2006 Regulations.
The April 2006 Regulations
The Regulations introduced on the 1st April this year, propose the removal of the ‘85 Rule’ from the 1st October 2006. The protection arrangements in the April Regulations would mean that:
• If you satisfy the ‘85 Rule’, are under age 60 at 31st March 2013 and you retire voluntarily before the age of 65 then benefits earned on service after 1 October would be liable to be reduced by an early retirement factor.
• If you satisfy the ’85 Rule’ and are age 60 on or before 31st March 2013 then you have protection. If you retire voluntarily before the age of 65 only service earned after 31st March 2013 would be reduced by an early retirement factor.
As before, the Regulations require employer consent for members to retire and draw pension before the age of 60. If your employer allows you go before 60 then your benefits would not be reduced by an early retirement factor if you satisfied the ’85 Rule’ by that date.
A member can still retire on permanent ill health from any age and from the date the member is retired by the employer on efficiency or redundancy grounds if over age 50 without any early retirement factor.
How does the current Consultation Draft propose to change the protections?
There are three changes that will improve protections for those who satisfy the ’85 rule’:
• Protection to the 31st March 2013 is extended to 31st March 2016. This would mean that a member who satisfies the ’85 rule’ and who is 60 on or before 31st March 2016 and who was allowed to go before 60 or goes without consent from 60 to 65, then benefits earned up to 31st March 2016 would be unreduced by any early retirement factor.
• The ’85 rule’ would remain for all active members who satisfy it until 31st March 2008. This means that the rule of 85 will not cease at 1st October 2006 for members who join on or before that date, but continue until (depending on negotiations) at least 1st April 2008 when the ‘new scheme’ is scheduled to come into force.
• Those who reach age 60 between 1st April 2016 and before 1st April 2020, who satisfy the ’85 rule’ and retire before the age of 65, would have any early retirement reduction on benefits earned after 1st April 2008 reduced by an early retirement factor that is tapered.
What else is in the consultation draft?
There are some technical changes that include making it clearer that a member can commute up to 25% of the capital value of their accrued rights that include benefits arising from additional contributions.
What is not in the consultation draft?
The current early retirement factors are out of date and too high. Discussions are ongoing with the Government Actuaries Department (GAD) to reduce them as soon as possible. The new factors will not be part of the Regulations but will be in guidance issued by GAD.
UNISON’s response to the current consultation
UNISON’s position – and that of the Trade Union Side – is that, while the proposals represent a marginal improvement, they fall well short of our objective of full protection for existing members if the 85 Rule is finally removed in October. Each of UNISON’s Service Groups have ‘noted’ them as interim proposals. We will continue to challenge the removal of Rule of 85 through our Judicial Review. We have voiced this view firmly at every opportunity during the negotiations and in all our dealings with Government.
UNISON and the other unions are asking you to:
• Continue to call for full protection for LGPS members, in line with the deal done for all the other public sector pension schemes
• Support the DCLG proposals as interim improvements only subject to further negotiations and our Judicial Review
To help branches, we have produced a model submission (below). Please put it into your own words and submit. The deadline for responding is 3 July 2006.
We hope that our Judicial Review will be heard in the next few weeks. If we are successful, we will be in a stronger position to challenge the Government and LGA’s resistance to full protection.
If your employer and/or council is supportive of our campaign then please also encourage them to formally respond to the consultation.
Responses need to be sent to:
Nicola Rochester
Local Government and Fire-fighters’ Pensions Schemes Division
Department for Communities and Local Government
Zone 2/F6
Ashdown House
123 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DE
Electronic responses can be sent to: nicola.rochester@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Please also send a copy of your response to:
The LGPS Unit
UNISON
1 Mabledon Place
London WC1H 9AJ
Electronic copies can be sent to: LGPS@unison.co.uk
MODEL RESPONSE TO THE DCLG CONSULTATION ON DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE APRIL 2006 REGULATIONS
(The deadline for responding is 3 July 2006)
To: Ms Nicola Rochester
Local Government and Fire-fighters Pensions Schemes Division
Department for Communities and Local Government
Zone 2/F6
Ashdown House
123 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DE
Dear Ms Rochester
RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION ON THE AMENDMENTS TO THE APRIL 2006 REGULATIONS
I am writing to you to give the views of the Toy Town UNISON branch / my own views to the current consultation on the DCLG’s proposed amendments to the April 2006 Regulations.
As you know, my union - UNISON - and the other trade unions, are opposed to the removal of the 85 Rule from 1 October this year. We have therefore lodged a judicial review and been given leave to proceed with it. We are challenging the Government’s view that the 85 Rule breaches age discrimination Regulations and/or prevents existing LGPS members from having full protection of their existing 85 Rule rights. We/I believe that such protection would be fair and in line with the protection afforded to members of every other public sector pension scheme. There will be a hearing in the next few weeks.
Views on the current proposals
My branch/I recognise that the current proposals represent a minor improvement to the protections included in the April 2006 Regulations, which came into force on 1 April this year. To that extent, we/I do not oppose their introduction, pending the judicial review, as they would benefit some of our members/myself. Recognising that, UNISON has ‘noted’ them and not opposed your current consultation.
However, Toy Town branch/I does/do not believe that your amendments are sufficient to overcome the anger and lost morale amongst LGPS members, who now see themselves as the ‘poor relations’ of the public sector. Neither will they greatly assist the large number of LGPS employers faced with recruitment and retention problems. We/I continue to believe that our members in the LGPS/I should be given full protection, alongside civil servants, teachers, NHS staff, police and fire fighters and that such a course of action would be both just and equitable.
My members/I also believe that the current early retirement factors are punitive and in urgent need of amendment. In our/my view they should be updated as soon as possible.
While Toy Town UNISON branch/I therefore support the current limited proposed amendments, we would urge you to re-consider them to provide full protection of their 85 Rule rights to my members/me.
For Nottinghamshire UNISON reponse: click here
The April 2006 Regulations
The Regulations introduced on the 1st April this year, propose the removal of the ‘85 Rule’ from the 1st October 2006. The protection arrangements in the April Regulations would mean that:
• If you satisfy the ‘85 Rule’, are under age 60 at 31st March 2013 and you retire voluntarily before the age of 65 then benefits earned on service after 1 October would be liable to be reduced by an early retirement factor.
• If you satisfy the ’85 Rule’ and are age 60 on or before 31st March 2013 then you have protection. If you retire voluntarily before the age of 65 only service earned after 31st March 2013 would be reduced by an early retirement factor.
As before, the Regulations require employer consent for members to retire and draw pension before the age of 60. If your employer allows you go before 60 then your benefits would not be reduced by an early retirement factor if you satisfied the ’85 Rule’ by that date.
A member can still retire on permanent ill health from any age and from the date the member is retired by the employer on efficiency or redundancy grounds if over age 50 without any early retirement factor.
How does the current Consultation Draft propose to change the protections?
There are three changes that will improve protections for those who satisfy the ’85 rule’:
• Protection to the 31st March 2013 is extended to 31st March 2016. This would mean that a member who satisfies the ’85 rule’ and who is 60 on or before 31st March 2016 and who was allowed to go before 60 or goes without consent from 60 to 65, then benefits earned up to 31st March 2016 would be unreduced by any early retirement factor.
• The ’85 rule’ would remain for all active members who satisfy it until 31st March 2008. This means that the rule of 85 will not cease at 1st October 2006 for members who join on or before that date, but continue until (depending on negotiations) at least 1st April 2008 when the ‘new scheme’ is scheduled to come into force.
• Those who reach age 60 between 1st April 2016 and before 1st April 2020, who satisfy the ’85 rule’ and retire before the age of 65, would have any early retirement reduction on benefits earned after 1st April 2008 reduced by an early retirement factor that is tapered.
What else is in the consultation draft?
There are some technical changes that include making it clearer that a member can commute up to 25% of the capital value of their accrued rights that include benefits arising from additional contributions.
What is not in the consultation draft?
The current early retirement factors are out of date and too high. Discussions are ongoing with the Government Actuaries Department (GAD) to reduce them as soon as possible. The new factors will not be part of the Regulations but will be in guidance issued by GAD.
UNISON’s response to the current consultation
UNISON’s position – and that of the Trade Union Side – is that, while the proposals represent a marginal improvement, they fall well short of our objective of full protection for existing members if the 85 Rule is finally removed in October. Each of UNISON’s Service Groups have ‘noted’ them as interim proposals. We will continue to challenge the removal of Rule of 85 through our Judicial Review. We have voiced this view firmly at every opportunity during the negotiations and in all our dealings with Government.
UNISON and the other unions are asking you to:
• Continue to call for full protection for LGPS members, in line with the deal done for all the other public sector pension schemes
• Support the DCLG proposals as interim improvements only subject to further negotiations and our Judicial Review
To help branches, we have produced a model submission (below). Please put it into your own words and submit. The deadline for responding is 3 July 2006.
We hope that our Judicial Review will be heard in the next few weeks. If we are successful, we will be in a stronger position to challenge the Government and LGA’s resistance to full protection.
If your employer and/or council is supportive of our campaign then please also encourage them to formally respond to the consultation.
Responses need to be sent to:
Nicola Rochester
Local Government and Fire-fighters’ Pensions Schemes Division
Department for Communities and Local Government
Zone 2/F6
Ashdown House
123 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DE
Electronic responses can be sent to: nicola.rochester@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Please also send a copy of your response to:
The LGPS Unit
UNISON
1 Mabledon Place
London WC1H 9AJ
Electronic copies can be sent to: LGPS@unison.co.uk
MODEL RESPONSE TO THE DCLG CONSULTATION ON DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE APRIL 2006 REGULATIONS
(The deadline for responding is 3 July 2006)
To: Ms Nicola Rochester
Local Government and Fire-fighters Pensions Schemes Division
Department for Communities and Local Government
Zone 2/F6
Ashdown House
123 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DE
Dear Ms Rochester
RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION ON THE AMENDMENTS TO THE APRIL 2006 REGULATIONS
I am writing to you to give the views of the Toy Town UNISON branch / my own views to the current consultation on the DCLG’s proposed amendments to the April 2006 Regulations.
As you know, my union - UNISON - and the other trade unions, are opposed to the removal of the 85 Rule from 1 October this year. We have therefore lodged a judicial review and been given leave to proceed with it. We are challenging the Government’s view that the 85 Rule breaches age discrimination Regulations and/or prevents existing LGPS members from having full protection of their existing 85 Rule rights. We/I believe that such protection would be fair and in line with the protection afforded to members of every other public sector pension scheme. There will be a hearing in the next few weeks.
Views on the current proposals
My branch/I recognise that the current proposals represent a minor improvement to the protections included in the April 2006 Regulations, which came into force on 1 April this year. To that extent, we/I do not oppose their introduction, pending the judicial review, as they would benefit some of our members/myself. Recognising that, UNISON has ‘noted’ them and not opposed your current consultation.
However, Toy Town branch/I does/do not believe that your amendments are sufficient to overcome the anger and lost morale amongst LGPS members, who now see themselves as the ‘poor relations’ of the public sector. Neither will they greatly assist the large number of LGPS employers faced with recruitment and retention problems. We/I continue to believe that our members in the LGPS/I should be given full protection, alongside civil servants, teachers, NHS staff, police and fire fighters and that such a course of action would be both just and equitable.
My members/I also believe that the current early retirement factors are punitive and in urgent need of amendment. In our/my view they should be updated as soon as possible.
While Toy Town UNISON branch/I therefore support the current limited proposed amendments, we would urge you to re-consider them to provide full protection of their 85 Rule rights to my members/me.
For Nottinghamshire UNISON reponse: click here
13 June 2006
NCC Restructuring: Chief Exec responds to UNISON comments
On 12th May, UNISON gave it's formal response to proposals to restructure the County Council. We have now received a response from Roger Latham, the Chief Executive, dated 6th June and this is set out below.
Dear Jill,
Restructuring proposals
I refer to your response to the restructuring proposals that were presented to County Council on the 18 May 2006. Your response raises a number of concerns about the proposals and my comments on those concerns are set out in the following paragraphs:
Chief Officers and Senior Managers have and will continue to keep staff involved and informed about the proposals, recognising that this is importanto staff morale. A number of workshops and briefing events on the structures have been held to ensure that staff are fully involved in the final proposals.
There is still a strong commitment to direct delivery of services as long as the quality, value and efficiency are comparable with other providers and that we are therefore able to demonstrate to the Council Tax payers that they are receiving good value. It is also important, that you recognise the Council is committed to delivering the Government's agenda, which involves greater community engagement and more provision of public services in partnership. The Council is moving towards a community leadership role as well as retaining a strong base of directly delivered services.
The structure for the senior managers has been agreed and was formally signed off by the Chief Executive on 26 May 2006. The report supporting the decision record sets out the changes which have taken place as part of the consultation exercise and the rationale for the decision.
The shortfall in the necessary savings for 2006/7 will be managed through the contingency monies that have been made available, to help with this and other budget reductions. lt is anticipated, therefore, that this shortfall can be met in 2006/7 without further budget reductions.
I note your concerns about the job descriptions for the senior management posts. However, they are generic job descriptions which will be supplemented by individual duties and responsibilities and person specifications before they are finalised. I will keep your concerns under review and will look to reduce any areas lacking clarity. Any additional reward will be matched by clearer and additional accountabilities and job size. All jobs will be independently evaluated by Hay.
The Council has not abandoned equality as a principle and is applying it to get the best available people for the Chief Officer posts. To this end, the Strategic Directors of Children's and Adult's posts have both been advertised nationally and are subject to a competitive appointment process. That process is based entirely on merit and not gender or ethnicity.
Turning to the departmental issues that you have raised, I would make the following comments:
Adult Social Services - this is a very good point and the final structure has been amended to take account of your comment regarding the independence of the Welfare Rights Service.
Resources - I have already addressed the general issue of direct service delivery and privatisation is not currently on the Council's agenda for Resources functions. Elected members are confident that, working together with the Trade Unions and staff, the service can be changed to reduce costs, whilst still meeting the Council's needs.
Human Resources - the duties of the Heads of Service have been revised following the consultation period. The idea of having HRLG collectively responsible for a number of strands may blur accountability and we must bear in mind that HRLG has no decision making powers, it merely advises the Service Director HR. I do not think this would be an appropriate reporting line.
Property - I agree that there are still some boundary issues to be discussed around the service demands such as supply of school places and the property solutions which rest with Strategic Property. lt is intended through the job descriptions and business plans that the lines of responsibility will be clearly defined.
Communities:
Education Client Services: These sit within Children and Young People and not within Communities Department. Whilst Communities will continue to work closely with Education, it has been considered better to keep the trading services separate from the responsibility for policy and finance. The same approach will be applied in due course to the Nottinghamshire Integrated Transport project proposals with Education taking responsibility for the budget for school transport as well as taking decisions regarding policy and changes to service requirements.
Conservation/Country Parks: This is an issue which has given rise to a good deal of comment from within the Department which have welcomed the proposal to better integrate work on Country Parks with the Council's wider countryside agenda which currently sits within the Environment Department. Proposals have been considered at CMB who made a recommendation to me that the Conservation Section, currently within Environment, should be transferred in total into the new Culture Services of the Communities Department where it will sit within an integrated service area with Country Parks and related activities. This, I believe, will ensure that our work on countryside related activities is managed in an integrated manner. There will still be the need for the Conservation Team to work across the organisation, making essential inputs to the development of new strategic projects and continuing to provide advice through to the planning service.
Strategic and Environmental Services: You are right in identifying that there is an option here that could see these additional Property related services move to the Resources Department. However, in the early reports to Council it has been proposed that some further work will be undertaken to examine the best ways of managing trading services provided by the Council for the future and ahead of that Review it is considered better to maintain the services in their current location. This decision would also make the existing task of integrating the other resource services more manageable and could, if necessary, be considered as a second phase.
Highways: The Nottinghamshire Integrated Transport Centre proposals do suggest that Fleet Management in particular could be better provided through this new arrangement and the report to Cabinet in July will make reference to that. In relation to Workshops, whilst there is an important connection here, there are other factors which govern the future location of Workshops and this will require some second phase work to determine the preferred location.
Other comments - I agree that we must ensure workloads are manageable within the new structure. I have already commissioned Hay to do some work on the top level structure and they have provided their commentary and risk analysis taking account of the experience in other local authorities. I have also agreed that we will review the structure within a twelve month period which should also include a review of workloads.
I understand your concerns about the proposed tier by tier approach making it difficult to comment on the structure as a whole. However, it is a pragmatic solution to ensuring that there are sufficient senior managers in post to define the rest of the structure to meet the Council's needs.
I hope, over the next few months, we will be in a position to finalise the rest of the structure so that you will be able to comment on the proposals in more detail. I also trust that we will continue to work constructively together using the enabling process, the vacancy protocol and the redeployment process to minimise the uncertainties the disruption and the number of redundancies required.
Yours sincerely
Roger Latham
Chief Executive
Dear Jill,
Restructuring proposals
I refer to your response to the restructuring proposals that were presented to County Council on the 18 May 2006. Your response raises a number of concerns about the proposals and my comments on those concerns are set out in the following paragraphs:
Chief Officers and Senior Managers have and will continue to keep staff involved and informed about the proposals, recognising that this is importanto staff morale. A number of workshops and briefing events on the structures have been held to ensure that staff are fully involved in the final proposals.
There is still a strong commitment to direct delivery of services as long as the quality, value and efficiency are comparable with other providers and that we are therefore able to demonstrate to the Council Tax payers that they are receiving good value. It is also important, that you recognise the Council is committed to delivering the Government's agenda, which involves greater community engagement and more provision of public services in partnership. The Council is moving towards a community leadership role as well as retaining a strong base of directly delivered services.
The structure for the senior managers has been agreed and was formally signed off by the Chief Executive on 26 May 2006. The report supporting the decision record sets out the changes which have taken place as part of the consultation exercise and the rationale for the decision.
The shortfall in the necessary savings for 2006/7 will be managed through the contingency monies that have been made available, to help with this and other budget reductions. lt is anticipated, therefore, that this shortfall can be met in 2006/7 without further budget reductions.
I note your concerns about the job descriptions for the senior management posts. However, they are generic job descriptions which will be supplemented by individual duties and responsibilities and person specifications before they are finalised. I will keep your concerns under review and will look to reduce any areas lacking clarity. Any additional reward will be matched by clearer and additional accountabilities and job size. All jobs will be independently evaluated by Hay.
The Council has not abandoned equality as a principle and is applying it to get the best available people for the Chief Officer posts. To this end, the Strategic Directors of Children's and Adult's posts have both been advertised nationally and are subject to a competitive appointment process. That process is based entirely on merit and not gender or ethnicity.
Turning to the departmental issues that you have raised, I would make the following comments:
Adult Social Services - this is a very good point and the final structure has been amended to take account of your comment regarding the independence of the Welfare Rights Service.
Resources - I have already addressed the general issue of direct service delivery and privatisation is not currently on the Council's agenda for Resources functions. Elected members are confident that, working together with the Trade Unions and staff, the service can be changed to reduce costs, whilst still meeting the Council's needs.
Human Resources - the duties of the Heads of Service have been revised following the consultation period. The idea of having HRLG collectively responsible for a number of strands may blur accountability and we must bear in mind that HRLG has no decision making powers, it merely advises the Service Director HR. I do not think this would be an appropriate reporting line.
Property - I agree that there are still some boundary issues to be discussed around the service demands such as supply of school places and the property solutions which rest with Strategic Property. lt is intended through the job descriptions and business plans that the lines of responsibility will be clearly defined.
Communities:
Education Client Services: These sit within Children and Young People and not within Communities Department. Whilst Communities will continue to work closely with Education, it has been considered better to keep the trading services separate from the responsibility for policy and finance. The same approach will be applied in due course to the Nottinghamshire Integrated Transport project proposals with Education taking responsibility for the budget for school transport as well as taking decisions regarding policy and changes to service requirements.
Conservation/Country Parks: This is an issue which has given rise to a good deal of comment from within the Department which have welcomed the proposal to better integrate work on Country Parks with the Council's wider countryside agenda which currently sits within the Environment Department. Proposals have been considered at CMB who made a recommendation to me that the Conservation Section, currently within Environment, should be transferred in total into the new Culture Services of the Communities Department where it will sit within an integrated service area with Country Parks and related activities. This, I believe, will ensure that our work on countryside related activities is managed in an integrated manner. There will still be the need for the Conservation Team to work across the organisation, making essential inputs to the development of new strategic projects and continuing to provide advice through to the planning service.
Strategic and Environmental Services: You are right in identifying that there is an option here that could see these additional Property related services move to the Resources Department. However, in the early reports to Council it has been proposed that some further work will be undertaken to examine the best ways of managing trading services provided by the Council for the future and ahead of that Review it is considered better to maintain the services in their current location. This decision would also make the existing task of integrating the other resource services more manageable and could, if necessary, be considered as a second phase.
Highways: The Nottinghamshire Integrated Transport Centre proposals do suggest that Fleet Management in particular could be better provided through this new arrangement and the report to Cabinet in July will make reference to that. In relation to Workshops, whilst there is an important connection here, there are other factors which govern the future location of Workshops and this will require some second phase work to determine the preferred location.
Other comments - I agree that we must ensure workloads are manageable within the new structure. I have already commissioned Hay to do some work on the top level structure and they have provided their commentary and risk analysis taking account of the experience in other local authorities. I have also agreed that we will review the structure within a twelve month period which should also include a review of workloads.
I understand your concerns about the proposed tier by tier approach making it difficult to comment on the structure as a whole. However, it is a pragmatic solution to ensuring that there are sufficient senior managers in post to define the rest of the structure to meet the Council's needs.
I hope, over the next few months, we will be in a position to finalise the rest of the structure so that you will be able to comment on the proposals in more detail. I also trust that we will continue to work constructively together using the enabling process, the vacancy protocol and the redeployment process to minimise the uncertainties the disruption and the number of redundancies required.
Yours sincerely
Roger Latham
Chief Executive
23 May 2006
Equalities Update
Equalities News
Watch out for the equalities news coming up in the latest edition of Notts Unison News (NUN). Selwyn and Siobhan have even been persuaded to pose for the cameras so you know who we are if you meet us - the things you have to do to get in print! We have even persuaded Mike to include a supplement in the FE newsletter. Let us know what you think. We are hoping to keep a regular stream of information and news updates but we need you to let us know if there is something you would like to see covered.
Also keep your eyes peeled for the new equalities calendar which should be appearing soon on this website. This gives details of equalities based activities and events we thought you might be interested in. If you think we have missed any off then get in touch and let us know.
Selwyn Seymour & Siobhan Ford
Joint Equalities Officers
Notts County Unison
Tel: 0115 9810405
selwyn.seymour@nottscc.gov.uk
siobhan.ford@nottscc.gov.uk
Watch out for the equalities news coming up in the latest edition of Notts Unison News (NUN). Selwyn and Siobhan have even been persuaded to pose for the cameras so you know who we are if you meet us - the things you have to do to get in print! We have even persuaded Mike to include a supplement in the FE newsletter. Let us know what you think. We are hoping to keep a regular stream of information and news updates but we need you to let us know if there is something you would like to see covered.
Also keep your eyes peeled for the new equalities calendar which should be appearing soon on this website. This gives details of equalities based activities and events we thought you might be interested in. If you think we have missed any off then get in touch and let us know.
Selwyn Seymour & Siobhan Ford
Joint Equalities Officers
Notts County Unison
Tel: 0115 9810405
selwyn.seymour@nottscc.gov.uk
siobhan.ford@nottscc.gov.uk
12 May 2006
Members vote to accept improved redundancy package
Following the end of UNISON's consultation on the improved offer on redundancy pay, the results were:
In light of this result UNISON Branch Officers confirmed that they will follow the members decision and accept the new proposals. This was done formally at Informal Corporate Joint Forum on the 10th May.
However the unions requested further talks on the application and definition of the criteria to be applied - this was agreed. We will take forward the concerns expressed at the members' meeting on the 27th April, however if members have concerns or queries about the application of the scheme they must contact their departmental convenors.
546 to accept the new policy
75 to reject the new policy
75 to reject the new policy
In light of this result UNISON Branch Officers confirmed that they will follow the members decision and accept the new proposals. This was done formally at Informal Corporate Joint Forum on the 10th May.
However the unions requested further talks on the application and definition of the criteria to be applied - this was agreed. We will take forward the concerns expressed at the members' meeting on the 27th April, however if members have concerns or queries about the application of the scheme they must contact their departmental convenors.
UNISON Comment on Pension Fund investments in the arms trade
UNISON has issued the following statement about the Nottinghamshire LGPS investing in arms companies:
"UNISON is appalled to hear that our pension fund is supporting companies whose activities we strongly deplore. The arms trade creates misery and suffering across the world and staff will be deeply upset to find out that they have unknowingly contributed to it.
Although £16 million is a small proportion of our total fund we must insist that these shares are sold. We have fought hard to protect our pensions and we must ensure that we do not support companies whose activities are abhorrent to us."
Jill Turner
Joint Branch Secretary
For more information about why we oppose such investments, visit the Campaign Against the Arms Trade website
"UNISON is appalled to hear that our pension fund is supporting companies whose activities we strongly deplore. The arms trade creates misery and suffering across the world and staff will be deeply upset to find out that they have unknowingly contributed to it.
Although £16 million is a small proportion of our total fund we must insist that these shares are sold. We have fought hard to protect our pensions and we must ensure that we do not support companies whose activities are abhorrent to us."
Jill Turner
Joint Branch Secretary
For more information about why we oppose such investments, visit the Campaign Against the Arms Trade website
UNISON’s formal response to the restructuring proposals
Issues Arising from the Council Report
The response to concerns raised by the last consultation can best be described as cursory. A number of quite serious concerns were raised, none of which are dealt with in any sufficient detail. Will there be any proper consideration of concerns to ensure that decision makers, whether these be councillors or chief officers are aware of the issues raised and have responded to these issues in a meaningful manner. We might pick out concerns of morale, here we are told that this is inevitable but will keep staff fully involved. However, this must also mean that unions will be kept fully involved and this has not been the case. Looking next at an issue of great concern to UNISON the issue of whether the Council is considering abandoning its very strong commitment to directly delivered services. To this no answer is given at all.
There seems little point in asking for comments if the responses are not appropriately considered, how can the Council strive for greater accountability (see principles – Appendix B) if it cannot show how it responds to suggestions and concerns it has solicited. UNISON would suggest that once the final structure is agreed this should be accompanied by a full explanation of the rationale behind the decisions to ensure that all issues raised as part of this consultation exercised are addressed.
UNISON is extremely worried about the statement that there will be a shortfall in the necessary savings in 2006/07. How will this shortfall be managed? Where will the additional savings be made? Bearing in mind the Council’s current financial difficulties this is likely to cause great anxiety amongst staff.
It is not clear how the principles will shape the development of the new structure, however they do seem to contain some major changes in policy for the Authority, notably the casual mention of ‘Managing the mix’ and ‘partnership’. The Council has traditionally taken a strong stand on direct provision of services and if the proposal is to move away from this stance then surely this should be made public.
It is also interesting to note the principles of the management framework as they are not reflected in any of the accompanying nor subsequent documentation. The descriptions of responsibilities at Appendix D offers no clarity of where accountability actually rests and this is reflected in the job descriptions and person specifications for the top two tiers which again duplicate responsibilities across the tiers and are virtually identical. This lack of clarity over responsibility will cause a number of operational difficulties, not least of which will be the management of industrial relations where we can not be sure who holds the responsibility for a given function. This issue is also relevant when bearing in mind the likely pay inflation this restructuring will certainly bring to the top three tiers. Surely this additional reward should be matched by clearer and additional accountability?
UNISON is also concerned that the Council has abandoned equality as a principle, as the top tier will be exclusively white and male, should not more emphasis be made of the need to reflect the diversity of the people we serve.
Adult Social Services
The proposals put Welfare Rights with Adult Care Finance, as Welfare Rights Officers frequently challenge the decisions made by Adult Care Finance it could jeopardise the independence of the Welfare Rights Service.
Resources
One of the main concerns for staff is the ease by which the Council could seek to privatise the resource functions after they have been centralised. This is brought into focus by the ambiguity surrounding the Council’s previously strong commitment to in-house service delivery. These fears could be allayed by a restating of the Council’s belief in the benefits of directly delivered services.
Human Resources - These service blocks do not make sense either operationally nor in terms of an equal division of work. HR Strategy and employee relations is clearly a huge area and arguably the responsibility of the Service Director. The management of Health and Safety would also be a large undertaking. Perhaps a better idea would be to have HRLG collectively responsible for:
Hr Strategy & Employee Relations
Diversity learning and development
Quality assurance, partnerships and performance
Activities can be assigned as needed. The other issues of health and safety and Transactional Management could arguably fall below the Head of Service level. H&S could come within the remit of departmental HR thus keeping the strong service ties and knowledge. Transactional Management – and by these we assume we are talking about the ESC – could also report and be responsible to HRLG.
Property - Property Strategy: Who sorts out new school buildings? In C&YP, the supply of school places function (under the Service Director for Access & Extended Services) could be in conflict with property strategy and planning function in Resources (under the Service Director for Property). There needs to be clear identification of roles such as the “client” function to avoid duplication (see also Transport to Schools below). Will C&YP be the “client” who asks the others to provide the school buildings or buses, or will they try to do it themselves? Previously, Education and Social Services have set up their own Property sections and this has lead to difficulties about responsibilities/ownership etc. If these two former property sections are to be together in C&YP, we need to ensure clear lines of responsibility, or are they to relocate into Property in Resources?
Communities
Where does Education Client Services sit within the proposed structure?
Cultural Services / Planning & Sustainability - It does not make sense to split the Council’s environmental expertise between two separate divisions in Communities instead of taking the opportunity to amalgamate Country Parks, Countryside Management, Greenwood Forest and Rural Policy Development and Planning Specialisms to create a strong and integrated service. This argument also holds for the decision to keep Landscape design in Highways. Questions can also be asked as to why is Landscape & Reclamation (in Highways) separated from Landscape Maintenance and Waste Reduction who are both in Strategic & Environmental Services?
Strategic & Environmental Services - If the Council is wishing to centralise resource functions then why are Cleaning and Catering remaining in the Communities Department? Surely these services rest properly with the Property Function in the Resources Department.
Highways - why are Workshops and Fleet Management in Highways rather than with Transport in Strategic & Environmental Services (or vice versa)
Other Comments
To ensure that workloads are manageable in the new structure UNISON would request that the new structures and roles are ‘risk assessed’.
UNISON is also concerned that the proposed tier by tier and top down approach is extremely unhelpful making it difficult to comment in any meaningful way on the structure as a whole.
Section 2.2
The response to concerns raised by the last consultation can best be described as cursory. A number of quite serious concerns were raised, none of which are dealt with in any sufficient detail. Will there be any proper consideration of concerns to ensure that decision makers, whether these be councillors or chief officers are aware of the issues raised and have responded to these issues in a meaningful manner. We might pick out concerns of morale, here we are told that this is inevitable but will keep staff fully involved. However, this must also mean that unions will be kept fully involved and this has not been the case. Looking next at an issue of great concern to UNISON the issue of whether the Council is considering abandoning its very strong commitment to directly delivered services. To this no answer is given at all.
There seems little point in asking for comments if the responses are not appropriately considered, how can the Council strive for greater accountability (see principles – Appendix B) if it cannot show how it responds to suggestions and concerns it has solicited. UNISON would suggest that once the final structure is agreed this should be accompanied by a full explanation of the rationale behind the decisions to ensure that all issues raised as part of this consultation exercised are addressed.
Director of Resources Comments
UNISON is extremely worried about the statement that there will be a shortfall in the necessary savings in 2006/07. How will this shortfall be managed? Where will the additional savings be made? Bearing in mind the Council’s current financial difficulties this is likely to cause great anxiety amongst staff.
Principles (Appendix B)
It is not clear how the principles will shape the development of the new structure, however they do seem to contain some major changes in policy for the Authority, notably the casual mention of ‘Managing the mix’ and ‘partnership’. The Council has traditionally taken a strong stand on direct provision of services and if the proposal is to move away from this stance then surely this should be made public.
It is also interesting to note the principles of the management framework as they are not reflected in any of the accompanying nor subsequent documentation. The descriptions of responsibilities at Appendix D offers no clarity of where accountability actually rests and this is reflected in the job descriptions and person specifications for the top two tiers which again duplicate responsibilities across the tiers and are virtually identical. This lack of clarity over responsibility will cause a number of operational difficulties, not least of which will be the management of industrial relations where we can not be sure who holds the responsibility for a given function. This issue is also relevant when bearing in mind the likely pay inflation this restructuring will certainly bring to the top three tiers. Surely this additional reward should be matched by clearer and additional accountability?
UNISON is also concerned that the Council has abandoned equality as a principle, as the top tier will be exclusively white and male, should not more emphasis be made of the need to reflect the diversity of the people we serve.
Departmental Issues
Adult Social Services
The proposals put Welfare Rights with Adult Care Finance, as Welfare Rights Officers frequently challenge the decisions made by Adult Care Finance it could jeopardise the independence of the Welfare Rights Service.
Resources
One of the main concerns for staff is the ease by which the Council could seek to privatise the resource functions after they have been centralised. This is brought into focus by the ambiguity surrounding the Council’s previously strong commitment to in-house service delivery. These fears could be allayed by a restating of the Council’s belief in the benefits of directly delivered services.
Human Resources - These service blocks do not make sense either operationally nor in terms of an equal division of work. HR Strategy and employee relations is clearly a huge area and arguably the responsibility of the Service Director. The management of Health and Safety would also be a large undertaking. Perhaps a better idea would be to have HRLG collectively responsible for:
Hr Strategy & Employee Relations
Diversity learning and development
Quality assurance, partnerships and performance
Activities can be assigned as needed. The other issues of health and safety and Transactional Management could arguably fall below the Head of Service level. H&S could come within the remit of departmental HR thus keeping the strong service ties and knowledge. Transactional Management – and by these we assume we are talking about the ESC – could also report and be responsible to HRLG.
Property - Property Strategy: Who sorts out new school buildings? In C&YP, the supply of school places function (under the Service Director for Access & Extended Services) could be in conflict with property strategy and planning function in Resources (under the Service Director for Property). There needs to be clear identification of roles such as the “client” function to avoid duplication (see also Transport to Schools below). Will C&YP be the “client” who asks the others to provide the school buildings or buses, or will they try to do it themselves? Previously, Education and Social Services have set up their own Property sections and this has lead to difficulties about responsibilities/ownership etc. If these two former property sections are to be together in C&YP, we need to ensure clear lines of responsibility, or are they to relocate into Property in Resources?
Communities
Where does Education Client Services sit within the proposed structure?
Cultural Services / Planning & Sustainability - It does not make sense to split the Council’s environmental expertise between two separate divisions in Communities instead of taking the opportunity to amalgamate Country Parks, Countryside Management, Greenwood Forest and Rural Policy Development and Planning Specialisms to create a strong and integrated service. This argument also holds for the decision to keep Landscape design in Highways. Questions can also be asked as to why is Landscape & Reclamation (in Highways) separated from Landscape Maintenance and Waste Reduction who are both in Strategic & Environmental Services?
Strategic & Environmental Services - If the Council is wishing to centralise resource functions then why are Cleaning and Catering remaining in the Communities Department? Surely these services rest properly with the Property Function in the Resources Department.
Highways - why are Workshops and Fleet Management in Highways rather than with Transport in Strategic & Environmental Services (or vice versa)
Other Comments
To ensure that workloads are manageable in the new structure UNISON would request that the new structures and roles are ‘risk assessed’.
UNISON is also concerned that the proposed tier by tier and top down approach is extremely unhelpful making it difficult to comment in any meaningful way on the structure as a whole.
**** Note added 13th June: For Chief Exec's response, click here ****
24 April 2006
Workers' Memorial Day event: 28/4/06
This Friday, 28th April, is Workers' Memorial Day (WMD) when we are asked to "remember the dead, fight for the living".
You are invited to attend a WMD short service of rememberance and thanskgiving from 12 to 12.30 pm, with a vigil outside on the steps of St Peters Church, St Peter's Square, Nottingham from 12.30 to 12.50. This will be followed by a procession to Weekday Cross to lay empty shoes and a poem recital.
This will be led by David McCoulough, Chaplain to Commerce and Industry, with an address from Vincent Borg, UNISON Asst National Health & Safety Officer, and a reading from Helen Black, UNISON East Midlands Regional Secretary.
All are welcome.
You are invited to attend a WMD short service of rememberance and thanskgiving from 12 to 12.30 pm, with a vigil outside on the steps of St Peters Church, St Peter's Square, Nottingham from 12.30 to 12.50. This will be followed by a procession to Weekday Cross to lay empty shoes and a poem recital.
This will be led by David McCoulough, Chaplain to Commerce and Industry, with an address from Vincent Borg, UNISON Asst National Health & Safety Officer, and a reading from Helen Black, UNISON East Midlands Regional Secretary.
All are welcome.
12 April 2006
Strike wins new pension talks
UNISON today agreed to recommend suspending planned industrial action over pensions after the joint unions agreed a basis for further talks with employers.
The formal decision to suspend further industrial action will be taken by the industrial action committee on Thursday, but representatives of all service groups have agreed the move.
General Secretary Dave Prentis said: "The joint union/LGA statement is a positive step and that is why we have decided to suspend our planned strike action. It provides a framework to enable negotiations to take place on the future of the local government pension scheme and on protection arrangements. There is still a great deal of work to do in the detailed negotiations over these complex issues in a short time frame and we will be concentrating all our efforts on achieving a satisfactory conclusion."
The move follows a TUC-brokered joint statement with the Local Government Association which commits both sides to:
=> discussing proper protection for current members of the LGPS pension scheme if the Rule of 85 were to be abolished
=> making 50% of the savings available to pay for protections, and of savings from changes to the commutation arrangements
=> agreeing that changes in future should be made by agreement where possible
=> negotiating a fair new-look scheme for the future.
The joint statement followed successful one-day national strike action on 28 March.
Read the joint statement and visit UNISON pensions page for more information.
The formal decision to suspend further industrial action will be taken by the industrial action committee on Thursday, but representatives of all service groups have agreed the move.
General Secretary Dave Prentis said: "The joint union/LGA statement is a positive step and that is why we have decided to suspend our planned strike action. It provides a framework to enable negotiations to take place on the future of the local government pension scheme and on protection arrangements. There is still a great deal of work to do in the detailed negotiations over these complex issues in a short time frame and we will be concentrating all our efforts on achieving a satisfactory conclusion."
The move follows a TUC-brokered joint statement with the Local Government Association which commits both sides to:
=> discussing proper protection for current members of the LGPS pension scheme if the Rule of 85 were to be abolished
=> making 50% of the savings available to pay for protections, and of savings from changes to the commutation arrangements
=> agreeing that changes in future should be made by agreement where possible
=> negotiating a fair new-look scheme for the future.
The joint statement followed successful one-day national strike action on 28 March.
Read the joint statement and visit UNISON pensions page for more information.
Possible suspension of pensions action
The TUC have issued a press release at lunchtime today (click here for details) stating that:
"At a meeting of all the unions representing members covered by the Local Government Pension scheme this morning (Wednesday) a proposed joint statement with the Local Government Association was unanimously recommended for endorsement. Each of the unions will now urgently be holding their necessary internal consultations on that recommendation.
The joint statement, which has already been endorsed by the Local Government Association, is the result of detailed informal discussions over recent days. It establishes the framework for the detailed negotiations on future local government pensions.
To facilitate these negotiations it is being recommended that all the industrial action currently planned should be suspended."
Media coverage can be found on the BBC News website: "Council pension strikes suspended"
UNISON should have news on the national website pensions section in due course
"At a meeting of all the unions representing members covered by the Local Government Pension scheme this morning (Wednesday) a proposed joint statement with the Local Government Association was unanimously recommended for endorsement. Each of the unions will now urgently be holding their necessary internal consultations on that recommendation.
The joint statement, which has already been endorsed by the Local Government Association, is the result of detailed informal discussions over recent days. It establishes the framework for the detailed negotiations on future local government pensions.
To facilitate these negotiations it is being recommended that all the industrial action currently planned should be suspended."
Media coverage can be found on the BBC News website: "Council pension strikes suspended"
UNISON should have news on the national website pensions section in due course
08 April 2006
Strike Latest: Action to continue over pensions
Prior to the LGA letter (see below: blog entry at 10.11pm on 7th April) the unions announced a rolling programme of action that will see every UNISON region take part over the three days in the following order:
=>25th April: South East, Eastern, South West and Greater London
=>26th April: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
=>27th April: Northern, North West, Yorks and Humberside, East and West Midlands
As Nottinghamshire UNISON is in the East Midlands Region, we are preparing for a further day of industrial action on 27th April.
For more details from UNISON's national website: click here
=>25th April: South East, Eastern, South West and Greater London
=>26th April: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
=>27th April: Northern, North West, Yorks and Humberside, East and West Midlands
As Nottinghamshire UNISON is in the East Midlands Region, we are preparing for a further day of industrial action on 27th April.
For more details from UNISON's national website: click here
07 April 2006
Pensions: LGA writes to all Local Authority Chief Execs about negotiations
The following letter has been sent out by the LGA to all Local Authority Chief Executives this afternoon.
Although UNISON welcomes the commitment of the LGA to enter into negotiations on a way forward, at the time of writing a formal proposal has not been tabled with the TUC, UNISON or other involved trade unions, contrary to the employer’s statement. We are seeking urgent clarification from the LGA about the status of the document.
In light of the ongoing talks, a number of national UNISON meetings have been scheduled for next week in the event of us having an acceptable proposal to consult on. Also the National Joint Union Strike Team is scheduled to meet on Wednesday.
Lucille Thirlby
Senior National Officer
Local Government Service Group
Dear Chief Executive
Local Government Pension Scheme.
I hope it is helpful to bring you up-to-date on recent national developments concerning the Scheme. You will appreciate that this is a very fast-moving situation, but this is the position at the time of writing.
Last week the Trade Unions called staff out on strike over their demand to retain the 85 year rule. The Unions however are also aggrieved that they do not have protection for existing staff equal to that granted by the Government to other public sector workers. Whilst the LGA has sympathy with this perceived unfairness, we have to give first regard to the affordability and sustainability of a funded Scheme.
The Minister for Local Government laid an Order on 30 March, which brings the 85-year rule to an end by October 2006, with protection for existing staff who will be 60 by 2013. He called on both sides to begin talks, to start now ‘on a nothing ruled in, nothing ruled out basis to address the protection of existing Scheme members, the recycling of savings, and the development of a more equitable Scheme’.
Despite the Unions calling further industrial action, the LGA has responded positively to the Minister’s statement. It initiated informal soundings with Trade Union leaders, facilitated by the TUC.
As a result a special LGA Group Leaders meeting, also attended by the Chairman of the Human Resources Panel, took place on Wednesday 8 April. We decided to move our position significantly by agreeing to discuss enhanced protection, subject to affordability. A copy of our unanimously agreed statement is appended.
This has now been presented to Unison, the lead trade union, and the ODPM. The LGA stands ready to engage in meaningful discussions and negotiations on this basis and hopes that the Trade Unions will call off planned industrial action as soon as possible and engage positively with us.
We will keep you informed of significant developments. The Group Leaders next meet on 19 April.
[The LGA Chairman is writing in similar terms to your leader]. Please share this information with your staff as you would wish.
Yours sincerely,
John Ransford
Deputy Chief Executive
Local Government Pension Scheme – LGA proposal for developing a framework for a programme of discussions and negotiations
1. The statement by the Minister for Local Government on 30th March laying Parliamentary Orders, including the Order to abolish the Rule of 85 from October 2006, provides a framework for developing a new-look scheme. He said that “in the light of discussions held yesterday with the Trade Unions and Local Government Employers, we are calling on both sides to begin talks, to start now on a nothing rule in nothing ruled out basis, to address the protection of existing Scheme members, the recycling of savings, and the development of a more equitable Scheme”.
2. All participants are firmly committed to change in pension provision, now and in the future, being made by agreement as far as possible, respecting the role of the DPM as regulator.
3. This commitment to create a new-look scheme should encompass all issues raised by the participants within the context of the Parliamentary orders and related Ministerial statements. The scheme must be sustainable and affordable for employers and as a key element of the renumeration, recruitment and retention package for Local Government employees and those belonging to admitted bodies.
4. The following specific action points are emphasised by the participants to be addressed during this process:
• Work to resolve the outstanding differences in relevant actuarial assessments to be undertaken immediately and all emerging proposals to be assessed by professional advisers appointed by the participants.
• Up to 50% of the savings accruing from the abolition of the Rule of 85, and consideration of the savings from the revised commutation arrangements, to be made available to fund scheme improvements, including protection arrangements for existing staff, and creating a more equitable and affordable Scheme.
• Urgent negotiations to take place before the Parliamentary summer recess on developing a good quality, sustainable and affordable new-look LGPS going forward, fully equality proofed with greater choice and flexibility on when and how members move from employment to retirement and having regard to the respective contributions of employers and employees; incorporating discussions on affordable protection to existing staff, including full protection, taking account of appropriate actuarial and legal advice.
5. All participants are committed to concluding the first phase of these negotiations in order to report to the Tripartite Committee in June. The Minister said in his statement that “the Government stands prepared to introduce further amendments before the summer recess to update the regulations in the light of any agreed proposals which emerge from the talks between the Trade Unions and Local Government Employers”.
LGA Chairman, Group leaders and Chair of LGE Employers
Local Government Association
5 April 2006
For the UNISON response: click here
Although UNISON welcomes the commitment of the LGA to enter into negotiations on a way forward, at the time of writing a formal proposal has not been tabled with the TUC, UNISON or other involved trade unions, contrary to the employer’s statement. We are seeking urgent clarification from the LGA about the status of the document.
In light of the ongoing talks, a number of national UNISON meetings have been scheduled for next week in the event of us having an acceptable proposal to consult on. Also the National Joint Union Strike Team is scheduled to meet on Wednesday.
Lucille Thirlby
Senior National Officer
Local Government Service Group
Dear Chief Executive
Local Government Pension Scheme.
I hope it is helpful to bring you up-to-date on recent national developments concerning the Scheme. You will appreciate that this is a very fast-moving situation, but this is the position at the time of writing.
Last week the Trade Unions called staff out on strike over their demand to retain the 85 year rule. The Unions however are also aggrieved that they do not have protection for existing staff equal to that granted by the Government to other public sector workers. Whilst the LGA has sympathy with this perceived unfairness, we have to give first regard to the affordability and sustainability of a funded Scheme.
The Minister for Local Government laid an Order on 30 March, which brings the 85-year rule to an end by October 2006, with protection for existing staff who will be 60 by 2013. He called on both sides to begin talks, to start now ‘on a nothing ruled in, nothing ruled out basis to address the protection of existing Scheme members, the recycling of savings, and the development of a more equitable Scheme’.
Despite the Unions calling further industrial action, the LGA has responded positively to the Minister’s statement. It initiated informal soundings with Trade Union leaders, facilitated by the TUC.
As a result a special LGA Group Leaders meeting, also attended by the Chairman of the Human Resources Panel, took place on Wednesday 8 April. We decided to move our position significantly by agreeing to discuss enhanced protection, subject to affordability. A copy of our unanimously agreed statement is appended.
This has now been presented to Unison, the lead trade union, and the ODPM. The LGA stands ready to engage in meaningful discussions and negotiations on this basis and hopes that the Trade Unions will call off planned industrial action as soon as possible and engage positively with us.
We will keep you informed of significant developments. The Group Leaders next meet on 19 April.
[The LGA Chairman is writing in similar terms to your leader]. Please share this information with your staff as you would wish.
Yours sincerely,
John Ransford
Deputy Chief Executive
Local Government Pension Scheme – LGA proposal for developing a framework for a programme of discussions and negotiations
1. The statement by the Minister for Local Government on 30th March laying Parliamentary Orders, including the Order to abolish the Rule of 85 from October 2006, provides a framework for developing a new-look scheme. He said that “in the light of discussions held yesterday with the Trade Unions and Local Government Employers, we are calling on both sides to begin talks, to start now on a nothing rule in nothing ruled out basis, to address the protection of existing Scheme members, the recycling of savings, and the development of a more equitable Scheme”.
2. All participants are firmly committed to change in pension provision, now and in the future, being made by agreement as far as possible, respecting the role of the DPM as regulator.
3. This commitment to create a new-look scheme should encompass all issues raised by the participants within the context of the Parliamentary orders and related Ministerial statements. The scheme must be sustainable and affordable for employers and as a key element of the renumeration, recruitment and retention package for Local Government employees and those belonging to admitted bodies.
4. The following specific action points are emphasised by the participants to be addressed during this process:
• Work to resolve the outstanding differences in relevant actuarial assessments to be undertaken immediately and all emerging proposals to be assessed by professional advisers appointed by the participants.
• Up to 50% of the savings accruing from the abolition of the Rule of 85, and consideration of the savings from the revised commutation arrangements, to be made available to fund scheme improvements, including protection arrangements for existing staff, and creating a more equitable and affordable Scheme.
• Urgent negotiations to take place before the Parliamentary summer recess on developing a good quality, sustainable and affordable new-look LGPS going forward, fully equality proofed with greater choice and flexibility on when and how members move from employment to retirement and having regard to the respective contributions of employers and employees; incorporating discussions on affordable protection to existing staff, including full protection, taking account of appropriate actuarial and legal advice.
5. All participants are committed to concluding the first phase of these negotiations in order to report to the Tripartite Committee in June. The Minister said in his statement that “the Government stands prepared to introduce further amendments before the summer recess to update the regulations in the light of any agreed proposals which emerge from the talks between the Trade Unions and Local Government Employers”.
LGA Chairman, Group leaders and Chair of LGE Employers
Local Government Association
5 April 2006
For the UNISON response: click here
Redundancy Pay Dispute temporarily suspended
This is to confirm that the Trade Unions in the County Council have confirmed their willingness to suspend our local action for an additional 21 days to explore an improved offer from the Council.
We should receive the revised redundancy pay policy next week.
We should receive the revised redundancy pay policy next week.
Jill Turner
Joint Branch Secretary
Joint Branch Secretary
02 April 2006
Anonymous postings
We have received a couple of comments about the proposed smoking ban at the County Council. Unfortunately, the author did not include their name or workplace so we are not able to publish them. As it says at the top of the blog:
"If you wish to comment, please ensure that you include your name and workplace. This is to ensure that the blog is not abused by spammers and non-members of the branch."
If you are a member of Nottinghamshire UNISON and have comments and views that you want to share with the rest of the branch via this blog, please remember to include your name and workplace/department in your comment.
"If you wish to comment, please ensure that you include your name and workplace. This is to ensure that the blog is not abused by spammers and non-members of the branch."
If you are a member of Nottinghamshire UNISON and have comments and views that you want to share with the rest of the branch via this blog, please remember to include your name and workplace/department in your comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)