Support your union and fellow strikers from UCU and Unite

11.00 assemble Hastings pier for a march to the town centre

For more information see the PCS website

Support your union and come the Central London strike rally

Methodist Central Hall

12 noon  assemble

1pm  speakers

Refreshments available – for more information see the PCS website

See the PCS website for more details

All of us have endured a painful and unnecessary redundancy exercise (most recently illustrated by HR launching a Grade 7 recruitment exercise as other G7 staff leave on terms!).  The 2011 Staff Attitude Survey results in DCLG reflected record high levels of dissatisfaction – particularly with regard to senior management and their approach to managing change.  And this is of course on top of a two year pay freeze (more than a 10% pay cut in real terms) and significantly increased pension contributions from this month onwards.      

We believe that now is the time for the Board to stabilise DCLG and give staff renewed confidence in their future within the Department.  Instead senior management have decided to impose new, detrimental Poor Performance Procedures (PPP) which will make the dismissal of staff easier.  This is particularly worrying when the ‘bar is being raised’ and especially frustrating when many staff already have very demanding roles and are working as flexibly as possible.

Faster, easier dismissals

The intended PPP will reduce the formal trial period for poor performance from four stages to three (meaning one less check will be carried out) and from a minimum of seven to a minimum of two months.  Staff may be dismissed after less than nine weeks of formal trial period.

The grounds for judging someone to be a poor performer are now to be defined as a failure to achieve the key objectives or milestones of a particular role – or a failure to demonstrate the relevant competencies and behaviours for the grade – or a failure to achieve “other deliverables” which are not your objectives or milestones.  HR management are however unable to tell us what the “other deliverables” are – claiming instead that these will vary from post to post.

In contrast, the existing (contractually highlighted) definition of poor performance makes it clear that objectives need to be missed in “a manner clearly below reasonable expectations and fundamental to what the job requires” accompanied by failings “likely to represent a serious inability to perform adequately”.  It can therefore be seen that the significantly changed definition means it will be easier for someone to fall into the poor performance system than in the past.  Under the intended PPP, staff achieving their objectives may still ultimately be sacked on the grounds that the competencies and behaviours they had demonstrated in achieving those objectives were not perceived as good enough – or on the grounds that some other undefined deliverables have not been delivered.

Equality concerns

PCS has not been provided with any indication as to what equality evidence and considerations were taken into account in the design of the new PPP. However the diversity data regarding staff who received a Not Achieved box marking in the last three years indicates four potential areas of concern – gender, ethnicity, age and disability.  In the 30 cases identified since 2008/09, 21 recipients were male, 16 were from a BME background, 16 were aged over 50, and 5 were disabled.  Although the Not Achieved marking is not a poor performance marking, it may be seen as an indicator of the staff under most threat from a downward pressure on markings. 

DTUS sought compromise

DTUS representatives sought to engage constructively and meaningfully with HR management on the basis that both parties must be willing to move on key issues.  However, senior management remained intent on maintaining all the fundamentals of its position and signalled very early on that they did not expect to reach agreement with the DTUS.

Management have told us that the new system is “a balanced and fair proposal.”  We do not agree.  One example of what they describe as an improvement is the explicit granting of a formal appeal at each stage of the new procedure (although the formal process will not stop whilst the appeal is being considered even though the minimum trial period is less than nine weeks). Yet the appeal rights constitute nothing more than compliance with ACAS procedures, and are already provided in practice within DCLG (it would be unwise for the Department to go to Tribunal without having first followed the ACAS code).

Imposition

PCS representatives were informed by HR management on 28 March that the new PPP would be imposed despite the lack of agreement.  Yet the current poor performance provisions are contractually incorporated into individual contracts of employment which the Staff Handbook says may only be varied by agreement.  It is unclear to us how such an action fits the Departmental values.  It is of concern to us that ‘how’ we do things will be so important in future performance management, but is not an impediment to the unilateral removal of contractual rights. 

PPP and PMR

The imposition of these draconian new PPP is taking place alongside the introduction of a new PMR system which seeks to introduce greater differentiation, and envisages up to 15% (from the previous guideline figure of 5-10% for Not Achieved) of staff receiving the Development Needed marking.

A misguided view of priorities

In recent years very few non-SCS staff have in practice been subject to the existing poor performance procedures (only eight members of staff in the last three years).  This is how it should be because when exceptionally a member of staff is clearly struggling, maximum effort should first be made to bring them up to speed. 

Yet the Department has insisted on putting a great deal of resource into this issue whilst ‘sitting on’ making improvements to the rights of staff with reasonable adjustments (despite this affecting a much larger number of colleagues), failing to progress in good time the harmonisation of former GO Network staff, and so on.  This is a clearly misguided view of priorities which impacts on other more important work. 

Going Forward

PCS intends to hold membership meetings in London, Hemel, Hastings and other regional sites later on in April in order that representatives can hear the views of members directly. We will continue to insist on the retention of members’ contractual rights whenever they are alleged to be ‘poor performers’.  Unfortunately this will make at least some cases less well defined.  We suspect that the management message that it should be easier to dismiss staff coupled with the unilateral removal of their contractual rights will lead to further criticism of senior management in the next Staff Survey.    

See the PCS website for more information

Pensions circular for members

Also the PCS general secretary responds to the fourth final offer and lack of negotiations

New Additional Paternity Leave (APL) provisions

PCS has been in negotiations with HR over the implementation in DCLG of the new law on Additional Paternity Leave, which applies to all employees regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity and covers adoption. PCS submitted a great many amendments to HR’s draft documents and the final provisions may be found at https://intranet.communities.gov.uk/documents/our-people/leave/doc/2089345.doc.

Accrual of annual leave (A/L) whilst on sick leave provisions

PCS has similarly been in long term negotiations with HR over implementing certain ECJ rulings on the right to accrue annual leave while on sick leave. You are legally entitled to continue to accrue paid annual leave entitlement during long term sickness absence. The final DCLG provisions may be found at
https://intranet.communities.gov.uk/documents/our-people/leave/doc/2089315.doc

Right to accrue annual leave whilst on Maternity Leave

We expect to receive shortly management proposals concerning the right of staff on maternity, adoption, and paternity leave to continue to accrue their annual leave. Again this follows an ECJ judgement. In the interim HR has confirmed that staff who are on or commence maternity, paternity or adoption leave will accrue their normal leave entitlement.  HR has also confirmed that staff on Maternity, Paternity and Adoption Leave have the right to accrue Public and Privilege holidays and that this right dates back to October 2008. The HR Service Centre have therefore been instructed to apply accrual of Public & Privilege holidays to all current and future Maternity, Paternity and Adoption Leave cases and has been in contact with staff who have taken and completed maternity, paternity and adoption leave since October 2008 to notify them of their retrospective leave entitlement.

ERDF PDT review

Without any prior warning to PCS, management has announced a review of the locations of ERDF PDT regional offices (overwhelmingly staffed by former RDA colleagues who moved to DCLG HQ last summer). PCS is of course worried that such a review may once again result in staff being placed at risk of redundancy if they are unable to relocate to a new office for domestic reasons. TUS has now written to HR and ERDF PDT management seeking consultation on this and other important ERDF PDT issues and we are keeping the affected members informed.

31 DCLG HQ staff still at risk of redundancy

There are now just 31 AO-G6 colleagues who wish to continue working but are facing redundancy later this year. Over the coming period natural wastage, ill health of staff and maternity leave will create vacancies that will have to be filled. In any case DCLG staff are already too often working under excess pressure following the earlier departure of many colleagues. The decent, proper thing for Senior Management to do, for the sake of the “at risk” colleagues and those selected into the permanent structure but working under excess pressure, would be to anticipate the inevitable future vacancies and therefore confirm that the remaining 31 colleagues will not be made redundant. 

Hundreds more staff to leave

In any event, hundreds more colleagues will leave DCLG HQ on voluntary exit between now and the end of next October. Yet PCS is receiving a lot of reports, including from SCS colleagues, that teams are already struggling to cope with the demands placed upon them. 

Staff Outside of London

The 31 staff at risk of redundancy include colleagues outside of London who were selected into the permanent structure but were told that they would have to work in London  (from the NW of England, for example!) or be at risk of redundancy. Yet as of today, over 15 weeks after these colleagues were told they would have to work in London, the Department is still unable to tell us what London based work the colleagues would be allocated despite repeated requests from PCS and affected members. Just how Senior Management know that this unidentified work could not be done from regional offices is a mystery but the fact that affected staff have been placed at risk of redundancy in the absence of such information has caused upset and stress. In any event PCS cannot see why Senior Management cannot parcel up packages of work that could be done remotely. 

Women on maternity leave removed from risk of redundancy

The department’s original list of staff at risk of redundancy included a number of women who were on maternity leave and had a legal right of return. These staff have been removed from the surplus list at PCS’ instigation.

More information on the PCS website

Further information on the proprosed programme of action and ballot arrangement on the PCS website

The Department wishes to introduce a radically different PMR system which will reduce transparency and consistency, make the system more opaque and burdensome, and greatly increase the number of staff at risk of being subjected to poor performance procedures. We urge members to read our attached comments. 

PCS has spent many years identifying and challenging the appraisal inequalities in DCLG and its predecessor departments. Our actions have included identifying the inequalities in the first place; submitting repeated complaints to equality bodies; collecting petitions; submitting legal challenges; publicising the issues within and beyond the Department; complaining to various Secretaries of State; pushing for constructive alternatives. We did so when the Department year on year was in denial of the problems and to a large degree continues to be so. It is our considered opinion that the current proposals include a much greater differentiation in performance assessments and pose an increased risk to equal treatment. 

In the light of the latest Staff Attitude survey and all we know about the PMR system any changes should instead focus heavily on:

• Improving the provision and quality of individual and team training, coaching, and career development to promote individual and corporate capacity and quality assistance and advice in career choices;
• Reducing the burden of the “backward looking” exercise that is involved in evaluating the past year’s performance;
• Improving the capacity for more smartly identifying future work objectives and requirements;
• Ensuring that staff and resources are in the right place at the right time in a way that has the confidence of staff.

Management’s proposed system – whilst radically different from the current PMR assessment – does not fundamentally address these issues. It would instead introduce very sharp and unhelpful changes which will not address the problems currently experienced. It is the wrong system at the wrong time.

PCS does not accept that these proposals reflect staff feedback in any significant way. Our considered view that staff’s concerns lie elsewhere is based on the fact that:

• We are a multi-grade union whose members are both managers and managed;
• We receive a great deal of membership feedback across the grades;
• We undertake a great deal of PMR related case work.

Indeed the latest Staff Attitude survey makes it clear that DCLG staff are particularly perplexed about the lack of development opportunities and the way in which senior management delivers change.  A genuine attempt to address the first concern would presumably help to improve perceptions around the second.