Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority

Performance Review Committee Item 7

4 February 2004

Report on a Grievance raised by a Station Cook in relation to the Best Value Review of Catering

Report of the Chief Fire Officer

Contact: Kevin Butcher - SDO Operations - 023 8064 4000 ext 2342

1

Summary

1.1

To advise Members of the outcome of a Stage 2 Grievance raised by a Station Cook in relation to the Best Value Review of Catering, and to make recommendations for the conduct of future reviews.

2

Introduction and Background

2.1

In September 2003, a grievance was raised by a Station Cook in relation to the conduct of the Best Value Review of Catering. This was heard by SDO Operations under Stage 2 of the Grievance Procedure on 28 October 2003.

2.2

The grievance was concerned with the consultation process used during the Catering Review, specifically the employee's view that she was not consulted with directly. The management representative, DO for Policy and Research, confirmed that most of the consultation was carried out indirectly through the Unison representative, particularly at the early stages of the Review, even though the majority of Station Cooks are not actually members of Unison.

2.3

In addition, the Station Cook was concerned that the early correspondence in relation to the Review was sent to her work address, rather than her home address. Unfortunately, she did not receive this correspondence which meant that she was unaware that the Catering Review was underway until July 2003.

2.4

Following consideration of the evidence presented in the grievance meeting, the SDO Operations stated that he recognised that the Catering Review has been conducted in accordance with best practice and has taken account of the legislative requirements for employee representation.

2.5

It is also recognised that the Representative Bodies play an invaluable role in representing employees' views during such reviews and indeed the Service has an obligation to consult and negotiate with them in such matters. It is not the intention of this report to undermine this process, which is both necessary and welcomed by the Service.

2.6

It was accepted however, that the Station Cook would have benefited from being directly consulted about Catering Review process, in addition to the indirect consultation through the Representative Bodies.

2.7

It is also accepted that communicating with employees at their work addresses was not an acceptable method of communication, and that in future all such correspondence should be sent to home addresses. It is encouraging that since July 2003, all correspondence regarding the Catering Review has been sent to home addresses.

2.8

In summary, the SDO Operations concluded that some mistakes were made in communicating with the Station Cook and that this, together with her views about the lack of direct consultation, resulted in the Station Cook feeling undervalued and excluded from the Catering Review process by Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service.

2.9

As part of the resolution of this grievance, it was agreed that a report would be prepared for this Committee, to recommend that for future reviews, correspondence is sent to home addresses, and that direct consultation with employees is considered in addition to indirect consultation through the Representative Bodies.

3

European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998

3.1

The proposals within this report are compatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 and considered in the light of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

Recommendations

1

That for any future Best Value reviews, consideration is given to directly consulting with employees affected, where they are not adequately represented by a recognised trade union, and that all correspondence is sent to home addresses rather than work addresses.

Section 100D - Local Government Act 1972 - Background Papers

The following documents disclose the facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of the report.

None

Note: The list excludes:

(1) Published works

(2) Documents that disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act