16th September 2014
Susan Blundell
Head of HR and Payroll
Floor 2
Number One Riverside
Dear Susan
Re: Rochdale Borough Council Terms and Conditions Proposals.
I am writing in response to the councils proposals to change terms and conditions in respect of all council staff employed on NJC, Soulbury, Youth and Community, Agenda for Change and JNC chief officers as well as staff who have TUPE’d in from other employers. Comments from UNISON are as follows:-
5 Days Unpaid Leave
Reducing employees pay by 5 days is excessive and would lead to losses in the region of £400 a year based on a £20,000 annual salary. This is on top of other proposed terms and condition changes, all of which result in reductions to employees earnings.
No doubt employees will be expected to absorb the backlog of any work which in some cases may necessitate overtime working or for front line service employees the council will need to arrange cover resulting in no overall cost saving. School based staff including kitchen assistants and cleaners will still be required to work as per the contract between the council and individual schools, so it is difficult to understand how 5 days unpaid leave would work in practice in some areas.
All leave whether it is paid or unpaid has to be agreed with the employees line manager. Where requests for unpaid leave are refused it may not be possible for this to be taken in the current leave year. The proposals state that leave will be taken “flexibly during the leave year.” However, some employees do not take all their paid annual leave due to work commitments and where this is the case these staff will be hit by a “double whammy” It would be unacceptable for unpaid leave to be carried forward to the following leave year where unpaid leave wasn’t taken through no fault of the employee. In such cases employees would end up being effectively underpaid which may prompt claims for unlawful deduction from pay.
Reduction of Overtime
Historically overtime was paid at time and half where staff worked over their contractual hours (double time on Sunday) Rochdale reduced the enhancements to time and quarter a number of years ago and now propose to pay no enhancement at all for overtime working. This will mean a further pay cut to those 521 employees who currently work overtime. It’s not known how much each employee will lose as the overtime hours will vary between employees, but in some cases the amount may be significant. In other words employees working overtime will be forced to take a pay cut of up to 25%.
From an operational perspective employees may be less keen to work overtime in the future, resulting in service delivery issues.
Premium Payment – Weekend Working
Historically employees working weekend were paid time and half for Saturday and double time for Sunday. This was to compensate those staff for giving up their weekend for the benefit of their employer. Rochdale Council reduced the enhancements to time and a quarter a number of years ago so significant savings have already been made in this area. It’s therefore a kick in the teeth to the 260 employees currently in receipt of the (reduced) premium payment to propose they will only be paid plain time in the future. The employees currently in receipt of the allowance tend to work with vulnerable service users and there is a real danger that removal of the allowance may result in the removal of goodwill such as agreeing to work at short notice. For an employee earning £20,000 per year it would mean a pay cut of £2.60 per hour. In other words employees working nights will be forced to take a pay cut of up to 25% when working at weekend.
Premium Payments – Nights
Historically employees working nights have been paid time and a third. Rochdale reduced this rate some years ago to time and a quarter and are now proposing to remove it entirely. The employees currently in receipt of the allowance tend to work with vulnerable service users and there is a real danger that removal of the allowance may result in the removal of goodwill such as employees agreeing to work at short notice. For an employee earning £20,000 per year it would mean a pay cut of £2.60 per hour. In other words employees working nights will be forced to take a pay cut of up to 25%.
Shift Allowance
If the council’s proposals are accepted employees working shift will be forced to take a pay cut of 10%.
Bank Holiday payments
Historically employees who worked on a bank holiday would have been entitled to receive double time and a compensatory day off. The council changed this a number of years ago to time and a quarter and a compensatory day off. The latest proposal is to restore double time but NOT provide a compensatory day off. This equates to a 25% reduction in both the overall allowance and pay for those staff who have to work on a bank holiday. Bizarrely the council’s proposals would mean that an employee who, for example, was contracted to work Christmas Day would not be entitled to a compensatory day off, unlike the majority of employees who would still be entitled to a compensatory day off where for example Christmas day fell at the weekend. This is unfair and sends out a signal the council doesn’t recognise certain statutory bank holidays for some of its employees.
Sickness – Non Payment of the first 3 days
Employees do not go off sick lightly and in many cases come into work where it is clear they are not fit to do so, with the result they infect other employees as well as vulnerable service users. The Council’s proposals will result in increased infection to these groups with the result that in some cases there could be fatalities. In addition the council will be more at risk of receiving personal injury claims where employees seek to recover loss of pay for accidents, including for example where these are deemed to be stress related.
There is also the risk that absences may last longer as employees faced with 3 days loss of pay decide that they may as well stay off until the end of the week to ensure a complete recovery, where as in the past they may have returned much earlier.
Incremental Progression
This proposal if applied would affect 1024 employees over 2 years. Given the average increment is worth between £300 and £800, this represents yet another cut in members’ earnings. A freeze in incremental pay will be seen as an injustice, particularly for those employees who have recently transferred to Rochdale from other Local Authorities. It may result in those employees applying for posts elsewhere.
Essential Car User Allowance
This affects 437 employees and the council’s proposal will mean that if the lump sum payment is removed employees would lose £423 per year. The purpose of the lump sum payment is to compensate employees for purchasing a vehicle which they might not ordinarily have done if they undertook a different role within the council. The benefit to the employer is that it removes the need for them to obtain lease cars as is customary in the private sector which is much more expensive. Motoring costs have escalated in recent years but despite this Rochdale Council reduced the NJC rates a number of years ago and now pay only £0.30 a mile for the first 8,000 miles and £0.137 thereafter. This means that employees are already subsidising the council when they use their cars and in doing so losing money through depreciation and other motoring costs. The removal of the Essential Car User Allowance will only make matters worse for these employees.
If the Essential Car User rates are removed we believe that it would be morally wrong to require employees to use their cars for work purposes. Indeed many of them may not be able to do so due to the loss of over £423 per year and they may not be able to repair or even replace their cars.
Where employees choose or are financially prevented from using their cars the council will lose productivity when these employees travel by public transport. There may also be a risk to the public as employees such as social workers currently use their vehicles to transport vulnerable children and adults, as well as confidential case files. Other Essential Car Users use their cars to transport heavy and bulky equipment, which is not practical to do on public transport.
Supplementary comments
All the councils proposals will result in significant losses to employees should they be implemented. Some employees such as those who work overtime, receive shift allowance, work weekends and currently in receipt of the essential car user allowance will lose more than average which will have devastating consequences on their standard of living. On top of that all employees will lose 5 days pay and potentially more should they be unfortunate to be sick. These cuts if imposed will not make Rochdale a desirable place to work and may result in some employees, particularly those with specific skills seeking employment in other Local Authorities where the terms and conditions are perceived as being much better compared to Rochdale. Some of these reductions also impact on pensionable pay with the result that they will have negative long term impact on pension benefits.
Overall the spending power of local government employees within Rochdale will be significantly reduced which will have a negative impact on the Rochdale Economy.
I would be grateful if you could provide me with a list of employees who currently fall into the above categories in order that I can consult them over the proposals, after which I will write to you again to confirm any additional points that have been flagged up.
For the avoidance of doubt UNISON are not in a position to agree to changes that have such detrimental effect on our members’ terms and conditions and which move away from part 2 of the “Green Book”. If the council seeks to impose these proposals it may result in calls from our members to take Industrial Action. I think we can both agree this is something that is not in anyone’s interest. However UNISON are committed to continued dialogue over the proposed changes.
UNISON therefore urge the council to reconsider its proposals.
Yours sincerely
MAUREEN HOWARTH
BRANCH SECRETARY UNISON
cc Linda Fisher
Councillor Richard Farnell
Please read UNISON’s response to HR re proposals
16th September 2014
Susan Blundell
Head of HR and Payroll
Floor 2
Number One Riverside
Dear Susan
Re: Rochdale Borough Council Terms and Conditions Proposals.
I am writing in response to the councils proposals to change terms and conditions in respect of all council staff employed on NJC, Soulbury, Youth and Community, Agenda for Change and JNC chief officers as well as staff who have TUPE’d in from other employers. Comments from UNISON are as follows:-
5 Days Unpaid Leave
Reducing employees pay by 5 days is excessive and would lead to losses in the region of £400 a year based on a £20,000 annual salary. This is on top of other proposed terms and condition changes, all of which result in reductions to employees earnings.
No doubt employees will be expected to absorb the backlog of any work which in some cases may necessitate overtime working or for front line service employees the council will need to arrange cover resulting in no overall cost saving. School based staff including kitchen assistants and cleaners will still be required to work as per the contract between the council and individual schools, so it is difficult to understand how 5 days unpaid leave would work in practice in some areas.
All leave whether it is paid or unpaid has to be agreed with the employees line manager. Where requests for unpaid leave are refused it may not be possible for this to be taken in the current leave year. The proposals state that leave will be taken “flexibly during the leave year.” However, some employees do not take all their paid annual leave due to work commitments and where this is the case these staff will be hit by a “double whammy” It would be unacceptable for unpaid leave to be carried forward to the following leave year where unpaid leave wasn’t taken through no fault of the employee. In such cases employees would end up being effectively underpaid which may prompt claims for unlawful deduction from pay.
Reduction of Overtime
Historically overtime was paid at time and half where staff worked over their contractual hours (double time on Sunday) Rochdale reduced the enhancements to time and quarter a number of years ago and now propose to pay no enhancement at all for overtime working. This will mean a further pay cut to those 521 employees who currently work overtime. It’s not known how much each employee will lose as the overtime hours will vary between employees, but in some cases the amount may be significant. In other words employees working overtime will be forced to take a pay cut of up to 25%.
From an operational perspective employees may be less keen to work overtime in the future, resulting in service delivery issues.
Premium Payment – Weekend Working
Historically employees working weekend were paid time and half for Saturday and double time for Sunday. This was to compensate those staff for giving up their weekend for the benefit of their employer. Rochdale Council reduced the enhancements to time and a quarter a number of years ago so significant savings have already been made in this area. It’s therefore a kick in the teeth to the 260 employees currently in receipt of the (reduced) premium payment to propose they will only be paid plain time in the future. The employees currently in receipt of the allowance tend to work with vulnerable service users and there is a real danger that removal of the allowance may result in the removal of goodwill such as agreeing to work at short notice. For an employee earning £20,000 per year it would mean a pay cut of £2.60 per hour. In other words employees working nights will be forced to take a pay cut of up to 25% when working at weekend.
Premium Payments – Nights
Historically employees working nights have been paid time and a third. Rochdale reduced this rate some years ago to time and a quarter and are now proposing to remove it entirely. The employees currently in receipt of the allowance tend to work with vulnerable service users and there is a real danger that removal of the allowance may result in the removal of goodwill such as employees agreeing to work at short notice. For an employee earning £20,000 per year it would mean a pay cut of £2.60 per hour. In other words employees working nights will be forced to take a pay cut of up to 25%.
Shift Allowance
If the council’s proposals are accepted employees working shift will be forced to take a pay cut of 10%.
Bank Holiday payments
Historically employees who worked on a bank holiday would have been entitled to receive double time and a compensatory day off. The council changed this a number of years ago to time and a quarter and a compensatory day off. The latest proposal is to restore double time but NOT provide a compensatory day off. This equates to a 25% reduction in both the overall allowance and pay for those staff who have to work on a bank holiday. Bizarrely the council’s proposals would mean that an employee who, for example, was contracted to work Christmas Day would not be entitled to a compensatory day off, unlike the majority of employees who would still be entitled to a compensatory day off where for example Christmas day fell at the weekend. This is unfair and sends out a signal the council doesn’t recognise certain statutory bank holidays for some of its employees.
Sickness – Non Payment of the first 3 days
Employees do not go off sick lightly and in many cases come into work where it is clear they are not fit to do so, with the result they infect other employees as well as vulnerable service users. The Council’s proposals will result in increased infection to these groups with the result that in some cases there could be fatalities. In addition the council will be more at risk of receiving personal injury claims where employees seek to recover loss of pay for accidents, including for example where these are deemed to be stress related.
There is also the risk that absences may last longer as employees faced with 3 days loss of pay decide that they may as well stay off until the end of the week to ensure a complete recovery, where as in the past they may have returned much earlier.
Incremental Progression
This proposal if applied would affect 1024 employees over 2 years. Given the average increment is worth between £300 and £800, this represents yet another cut in members’ earnings. A freeze in incremental pay will be seen as an injustice, particularly for those employees who have recently transferred to Rochdale from other Local Authorities. It may result in those employees applying for posts elsewhere.
Essential Car User Allowance
This affects 437 employees and the council’s proposal will mean that if the lump sum payment is removed employees would lose £423 per year. The purpose of the lump sum payment is to compensate employees for purchasing a vehicle which they might not ordinarily have done if they undertook a different role within the council. The benefit to the employer is that it removes the need for them to obtain lease cars as is customary in the private sector which is much more expensive. Motoring costs have escalated in recent years but despite this Rochdale Council reduced the NJC rates a number of years ago and now pay only £0.30 a mile for the first 8,000 miles and £0.137 thereafter. This means that employees are already subsidising the council when they use their cars and in doing so losing money through depreciation and other motoring costs. The removal of the Essential Car User Allowance will only make matters worse for these employees.
If the Essential Car User rates are removed we believe that it would be morally wrong to require employees to use their cars for work purposes. Indeed many of them may not be able to do so due to the loss of over £423 per year and they may not be able to repair or even replace their cars.
Where employees choose or are financially prevented from using their cars the council will lose productivity when these employees travel by public transport. There may also be a risk to the public as employees such as social workers currently use their vehicles to transport vulnerable children and adults, as well as confidential case files. Other Essential Car Users use their cars to transport heavy and bulky equipment, which is not practical to do on public transport.
Supplementary comments
All the councils proposals will result in significant losses to employees should they be implemented. Some employees such as those who work overtime, receive shift allowance, work weekends and currently in receipt of the essential car user allowance will lose more than average which will have devastating consequences on their standard of living. On top of that all employees will lose 5 days pay and potentially more should they be unfortunate to be sick. These cuts if imposed will not make Rochdale a desirable place to work and may result in some employees, particularly those with specific skills seeking employment in other Local Authorities where the terms and conditions are perceived as being much better compared to Rochdale. Some of these reductions also impact on pensionable pay with the result that they will have negative long term impact on pension benefits.
Overall the spending power of local government employees within Rochdale will be significantly reduced which will have a negative impact on the Rochdale Economy.
I would be grateful if you could provide me with a list of employees who currently fall into the above categories in order that I can consult them over the proposals, after which I will write to you again to confirm any additional points that have been flagged up.
For the avoidance of doubt UNISON are not in a position to agree to changes that have such detrimental effect on our members’ terms and conditions and which move away from part 2 of the “Green Book”. If the council seeks to impose these proposals it may result in calls from our members to take Industrial Action. I think we can both agree this is something that is not in anyone’s interest. However UNISON are committed to continued dialogue over the proposed changes.
UNISON therefore urge the council to reconsider its proposals.
Yours sincerely
MAUREEN HOWARTH
BRANCH SECRETARY UNISON
cc Linda Fisher
Councillor Richard Farnell