Archived decisions

Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority

Finance and General Purpose Committee

23 October 2008

South East Regional Control Centre Staff Terms and Conditions of Service

Report by Director of Human Resources

Contact: Geoff Howsego 02380 626762 [email protected]

 

This Item has been added to the agenda with the agreement of the Chairman under Section 100 (b)(4) Local Government Act 1972 submitted as a matter of urgency by reason of the need for the Authority to present it's views to the South East Regional Control Centre Board of Directors (via it's representative Cllr Roger Price) which meets on 7 November 2008.

   

1

Summary

   
 

The issue of what Terms and Conditions of Service (T&C's) the staff within the South East Regional Control Centre (SERCC) has recently been debated within the region. Views from the various Fire & Rescue Authorities have been sought. Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service (HFRS) need to be assured that the future provision of services from the SERCC both meet our operational requirements and that they remain affordable. We want to be confident that the organisation continues to operate best possible practice as an employer; is positively responsive to the demands of its customer authorities; and, that it will continue to reflect our own values and aspirations as an `employer of choice'. To this end it is considered preferable that the SERCC puts in place locally agreed terms and conditions of service for the employment of its staff rather than adopt nationally determined `Grey' or `Green Book' conditions.

   

2

RecommendationError! Bookmark not defined.

   

2.1

That the Authority's representative on the SERCC (Cllr Roger Price) is requested to take forward the following as the Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority's (HFRA) position and urge the board of directors to adopt the same:

   
 

    a. That the SERCC adopt locally created and determined T&C's that are separate from Green and Grey Book T&C's and are not aligned to a national bargaining forum.

   
 

    b. That the SERCC management team be urged to prioritise the engagement of their own professional HR resource outside of the SERCC Project Team.

   

2.2

That, if agreed, the Local Authority Controlled Company (LACC) Board should be formally advised of the Authority `s views at the next meeting.

   

2.3

That the HFRA be made aware of the action taken at its next meeting.

   

3

Background

   

3.1

In compiling this report we have referred to a document (ref 07/08) proposed by the project team that was to have lead to a submission to the LACC Board. Whilst the paper in its original form was not placed before the LACC Board it did signify the thoughts and assumptions made by the SERCC Project Team. This being the case, it remains a concern to HFRS that the direction of travel may coloured by this even though the submission to the LACC Board has been modified.

   

3.2

The following provides a synopsis of the key issues that have been identified:

1. The original position taken in the paper advocated adopting Grey Book T&C's.  These are the most expensive and least flexible.  They would continue to require the SERCC to be tied to national pay awards and the SERCC management team would be unable to change anything locally. The FBU has a very clear stance that they will not agree to changes within the existing Grey Book T&C's. This also has a risk management consequence in terms of resilience in the event of industrial action.

2. The modified position as a result of feedback from FRS is that the recommended solution is to adopt Green Book T&C's. Whilst these are less restrictive than those contained in the Grey Book, they remain nationally agreed and controlled. They would therefore continue to require the SERCC to be tied to national pay awards and, as with Grey Book, the SERCC management team would find it challenging to change anything locally that moved significantly away from the national T&C's. Effectively the LACC Board, for whom a major cost will be the salaries of their staff, would be beholden on national machinery for any substantive changes in T&C's. This would reduce the flexibilities of the organisations to manage their own affairs and maintain a modern and attractive employer. The role of the trade unions in this would also be critical with the recent industrial action being taken by Unison being an example.

3. There was a perceived benefit mentioned in the paper of taking an expedient route to determine future appropriate terms and conditions of service for staff by adopting an existing national scheme.

4. Concerns were raised that the staff in the SERCC would initially have potentially differing T&C's and pay levels in the same organisation and that this would create a risk of equal pay claims.  Whilst it is true that an individual could submit a claim for equal pay, there is a very clear and well established defence in that this difference is due to the Transfer of Undertakings and Protection of Employment (TUPE) legislation.  In order to defend any equal pay claim, you must have a 'objective justification' for the difference. The TUPE transfer provides this and is therefore the organisations defence in law (ie they are in that position due to complying with another piece of employment legislation).

5. Another concern was about creating a two-tier workforce. Whilst it is accepted that having an organisation with significantly different T&C's would be undesirable, the differences between transferring staff are understood to be relatively small. It has now been established using the assessments under the reasonableness criteria, that the staff from HFRS and West Sussex FRS (WSFRS) will transfer under TUPE to the SERCC. We are currently carrying out an analysis of the 2 sets of T&C's to establish what the actual differences are. All control room staff from the remaining FRS in the SE Region will not be transferring under TUPE, as it would be `unreasonable' to expect them to travel to the SERCC facility in Fareham from their current locations. It is therefore accepted that there will be some differences in T&C's for staff, and this can be managed locally. The key has to be to ensure that these are broadly comparable and therefore reasonable in all the circumstances.

6. It is estimated that around 50 of the staff compliment will be from the existing FRS staff from HFRS and WSFRS. Of that number, 13 from the HFRS contingent are currently on temporary contracts. These will cease on the day before the transfer of contracts to the SERCC would occur. Whilst it has been made very clear by Matthew Goodwin, the SERCC Director, that there will be jobs for these people in the RCC and indeed he is keen to employ them, they would not transfer under TUPE. Using the revised staffing model (which requires 85 staff), this would therefore mean that 55% of the workforce could be on the new SERCC T&C's from day 1 of the service going live. (Note 1 at the end of the paper provides more detail)

7. If there was a strategy to migrate all employees to the new T&C's over time, there would be even more 'protection' for the organisation.  For instance the steps that might be taken include the following:

    a. All new (non-TUPE) employees at the point of set-up would be engaged on the new T&C's;

    b. All subsequent new appointments would be would be engaged on the new T&C's;

    c. All promotions would be offered on the new T&C's, including those who will be promoted immediately on transfer into a post higher than their existing one;

    d. All subsequent changes to individuals contracts (ie someone asking to reduce or increase their hours) would require a move to the new T&C's;

    e. Offer staff the opportunity to transfer to the new T&C's voluntarily (this can be an attractive option where there are benefits in the new T&C's over the old ones);

    f. Buying staff out their existing terms and conditions of service.

If a proactive approach was taken, there would be a decreasing number of people on the 'old T&C's in a relatively short period of time.

7. After 3 to 4 years the TUPE protection within the SERCC would no longer apply, and people could be moved onto the local T&C's.  How that is done is important and should reflect the values of the organisation.  In the public sector that would be based on profitability & competitive edge, for the SERCC that might of course be different.

8.  The SERCC Project Group stated maintaining Grey Book T&C's would attract experienced staff, and assumingly the same argument would be transferred to Green Book T&C's. Those staff that will be transferring will be doing so under TUPE and will therefore be protected under their existing T&C's.  Arguably, others in the region will be unable to transfer due to the distances involved as defined under the `reasonableness criteria'.  If any existing control room staff wanted to be employed in the new SERCC it is assumed that they would already be motivated to do so. Locally agreed initiatives such as relocation packages can be put in place and are common practice in many organisations, including HFRS.

9. An initial investigation with the National Joint Council (NJC), which determines the Green Book pay and conditions for staff under Green Book T&C's, has revealed that it is an extremely remote possibility that nationally RCC's will be afforded their own bargaining group. They will therefore be integrated with all other Green Book staff. This will leave this highly specialised staff group as a very small minority nationally and therefore probably limited opportunity to influence any outcomes at a national level and therefore very little opportunity for the SERCC to adjust their T&C's locally, without either locally varying those national T&C's or by going into dispute.

   

3.3

Having considered the needs of HFRS at the point of cut-over to the SERCC and beyond, the adoption of locally created and determined T&C's would best meet our objectives. This should be our recommended position. If local T&C's were created, they can be modern, flexible, locally determined and cost effective. This would give the SERCC management team greater control over the way the organisation works, its culture, how flexible is, its ability to be customer focused and its costs.

   

3.4

The adoption of local T&C's gives the potential for greater flexibility, allows more scope for efficiency and effectiveness in the future, and they would less susceptible to nationally prescribed trades unions' doctrine. They are also less likely to get caught up in national disputes which do not directly affect them. This would more readily enable the management team to introduce their own culture, benefits and flexibility for staff.

   

3.5

Simply adopting existing Green Book T&C's may not be in the long term interests of the customers the SERCC will serve. The issue of expedience, could in part be an issue of work loads and having people available in post with the requisite skills, knowledge and experience to identify the long term benefits and be able to plan the route to realising them. We would therefore also want to urge the SERCC management team to prioritise the engagement of their own professional HR resource outside of the SE RCC Project Group to provide dedicated support to the SERCC Director at this critical time.

   

4

Contribution to Corporate Aims and Objectives

   
 

Having an operationally effective and cost efficient RCC in the SE Region is an essential element of us achieving our ambition of being the best performing FRS in the country. More than that, to have any performance less than our current standards of efficiency and effectiveness would result in a reduced service and poorer value for money for the people of Hampshire. It is therefore essential that the T&C's as one of the fundamental building blocks for the future stability of the SERCC are fully considered now and that shorter term expedience does not cloud the vision for the future.

   

5

Risk Analysis

   

5.1

Failure to put in place sustainable employment systems that are locally controlled could lead to increased costs for the constituent authorities with no alternative provider of the service.

   

5.2

Adopting of Grey Book or Green Book conditions of service could potentially and unnecessarily expose staff of the SERCC to involvement in disputes and/or industrial action over national conditions of service and pay negotiations which do not directly involve them. Recent industrial action taken by Unison over the pay uplift for Green Book staff is such an example.

   

5.3

Aligning the T&C's of the SERCC with national bargaining forums will lead to lack of local determination, an inability to influence it's own future direction and is likely to be biased by the larger staff groups as Control Room Staff will not have their own bargaining group.

   

5.4

Having staff within the SERCC on Grey Book conditions may impact on the resilience of HFRS in the event of any dispute involving operational staff. This may be either in a local, regional or national context. Adopting of Grey Book conditions could potentially align the staff group to operational firefighters and thus embroil them in any industrial action initiated by the Representative Bodies (RB's) of that group. If all, or the majority of other RCC's nationally are also on the same national T&C's and their staff in the same RB (s), the resilience of the whole system is likely to be adversely affected.

   

6

Resource Implications

   

6.1

Human Resources

   
 

Not applicable for HFRA.

   

6.2

Physical Resources

   
 

Not applicable for HFRA.

   

6.3

Information and Communications Technology Resources

   
 

Not applicable for HFRA.

   

6.4

Financial Implications

   
 

Currently there are no identified implications, but the risk in paragraph 5.1 above could give rise to a potential financial risk for the future.

   

7

People Impact Assessment

   
 

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

   

8

Consultation

   
 

This issue has been briefly discussed with the Human Resources Director for Kent Fire and Rescue Service (Ann Millington, chair of the Regional HR Development Group). Her very clear view was that she would see any move to align the SEFRCC staff with a national negotiating body would be a mistake. Her view is consistent with the concerns raised in this report: that an independent locally determined set of terms and conditions would be the most beneficial option.

   

9

Conclusion

   
 

The paper that was submitted to SEFRCC (ref 07/08) identified the SERCC Project Teams preferred approach to establishing the T&C's for the SERCC.  This and the subsequent revised position, was based on the proposal that adopting existing national T&C's would be the best solution. HFRS identified a number of issues and can not agree that this would provide the best solution for us as a customer of the SERCC. Contrary to the letter sent to Communities and Local Government (CLG) on behalf of the SE Region, HFRS do not believe that there is an alternative provider for control centre operations available to the FRS's in the SE. Our clear view is that constructing bespoke new pay, terms and conditions that are locally determined would be the best course of action.  It is also recommended that the professional HR expertise be engaged by the SERCC management team to help them in this critical stage of the creation of new organisation.

 

Note 1:

The estimated number of people required to staff the SERCC given the revised shift proposal is 85. This represents an increase of 10 over the original budgeted figure of 75 (although this had a caveat of +/- 10%).

Of this number approximately 50 will be drawn from HFRS and WSFRS. Of that number, 13 from the HFRS contingent are currently on temporary contracts. These will cease on the day before the transfer of contracts to the SERCC would occur.

It might be assumed that around 38 staff will transfer with preserved rights under TUPE. This represents 45%, therefore 55% of staff would be on the new T&C's. If the lower original staff figure of 75 is used, the figure is 51% would have preserved rights under TUPE and 49% would be on the new T&C's.

 

Background Information (Section 100D of Local Government Act 1972)

 

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; and (2) documents that disclose exempt or confidential information defined in the Act.