UNISON response to the communication from Corporate Leadership Team regarding ECC Pay and Reward
Unison is disappointed with this communication from ECC regarding the new pay and reward strategy, as we perceive it to be a deliberate attempt to divide the workforce. We believe that this is not just a ‘pay and reward’ strategy, but a strategy to cynically restructure the workforce pay and conditions and reduce ECC’s financial liability. The high volume of responses expressing concern to Unison as a result of this communication from ECC is an indication of the anger being felt in the workforce, not just by members of Unison.
As you know, those members of staff who refused to sign up to move on to performance related pay are about to have their contracts of employment compulsorily changed to move them on to performance related pay. Unison is advising members that they should accept this compulsory change “without prejudice” and that, once this action has taken place, Unison will be instructing Thompson’s Solicitors to act on their behalf to seek to challenge this arbitrary action.
We are concerned about the introduction of this pay and reward strategy, as recent research has shown that the effectiveness of any pay system depends on many factors. There are problems inherent in all performance related pay schemes:
-
Staff motivation and morale – A wide range of research has found schemes to be less effective than expected. In the public sector this is frequently due to cash limits making rewards for high performance ratings too small to motivate staff. Problems of poor training for managers and inadequate communication with staff have had a negative impact on staff morale. Studies of NHS managers in 1997 and 1998 showed that performance-related pay did not contribute to improve performance but did cause jealousies between staff and undermine morale. (Dowling and Richardson, 1997, Marsden and French, 1998).
-
Fairness -- Because performance related pay systems are based on appraisal of the individual worker, often by their line manager, bias and personal favouritism can influence the result of pay reviews. Instead of motivating workers, performance pay can "undermine performance of both the individual and the organisation by undermining team work, encouraging a short term focus and leading people to believe that pay is not related to performance, but to having the ‘right’ relationships and an ingratiating personality". (Jeffrey Pfeffer, Harvard Business Review, May/June 1998)
-
Discrimination – Recent research found that performance based pay systems often discriminate against women because: the appraisal process is subject to gender bias and stereotypes; women’s skills are often undervalued by their managers (and by women themselves); women—especially those working part-time -- have fewer opportunities for training, and managers are less likely to correctly assess women’s training needs. (M.T. Strebler, M. Thompson, P. Heron, Skills, Competencies and Gender; Issues for pay and training, IES Study 333, 1997). Performance pay may run counter to the development of objective, gender- neutral job evaluation schemes which are being introduced to achieve equal pay for work of equal value. A study by the Institute of Personnel and Development, found that almost two-thirds of employers had no provision for monitoring sex and racial discrimination in their performance related pay systems.
Rest assured, therefore, that Unison will continue to monitor this new strategy, and oppose any innovations that might prejudice the majority of ECC staff. We must counter this divisive strategy and ensure that it is not allowed to benefit the few at the expense of the many.
As a separate issue we will keep an eye on the suggested one-year pilot regarding ‘voluntary benefits’ – which turn out to be shopping vouchers. A derisory offer in our view, based on a very wrong premise that shopping is as important to our members as their pay and conditions; especially as there is no likelihood that these will amount to anything like the value of the famous ‘John Lewis Vouchers’ enjoyed by some of our MPs !
Mick Mahoney
Unison
20 February 2010
Performance Related Pay
Variation of Contract to Local Pay and Conditions Bands 5 & 6
As you may be aware, UNISON has been in negotiation with Essex County Council for some time now over the above issue.
Just recently the Regional Officer, Noel Devlin and I met with Kier Lynch, Director for HR and Customer Excellence, to discuss the implications of the changes being enforced, and these discussions are ongoing.
However, UNISON's position remains that we do not agree with the proposed changes and continue to recommend that employees should not accept the variation to contract.
Discussions are taking place with our legal advisors with a view to challenging the legality of this draconian action and we will keep you informed of developments. To date they are advising that no action can be taken until the period of "statutory consultation" regarding "contractual notice" has begun.
Mick Mahoney
Branch Secretary
26th January 2010
Questions have been asked of ECC and here are the responses so far.
The letter contains the statement "if you do not reply to this letter, ECC will begin period of statutory consultation followed by contractual notice. ECC will then issue you with a new contract of employment (rather than a variation) with effect from 1st April 2010"
Q. What form would the consultation take?
A. While the constulation process will largely be with the trade unions, individuals will also be invited to participate and ask questions etc
Depending upon the numbers involved, this consultation will be either for 90 days or 30 days. This will then be followed by 3 months notice of the contract change.
Q. Are you saying you will be terminating my contract on 31st March and if so, on what grounds?
A. As a result, if you do not accept a variation by agreement, as is currently being offered, following consultation your current contract will have to be withdrawn and replaced immediately with another one with the revised grading structure (all other issues remaining the same). In view of the above timescales, this will happen around July.
Q. Please confirm what difference, if any, will result in my not accepting the variation in contract to join the PRP scheme? What form will the consultation process take and how long will it take?
A. Essentially there would be no difference between accepting a variation now or waiting until later. Accepting now would mean we could send you a minor variation to contract letter. Following consultation and notice, we would have to withdraw your current contract of employment and replace it immediately with a revised one.
The consultation period will be either 30 days or 90 days depending on the numbers involved. This would be followed by a further 3 months notice of the change of contract. Consultation will be with the trade unions, but also with the opportunity for individuals to be involved and to ask question etc.
Q. It seems that February 5th, as implied in the correspondence sent out by HR, is not infact the final date that acceptance must be given before making ones contract of employment null and void. It has been stated to my colleagues that there is in fact a statutory 90 day consultation period to go through, followed by a further 90 days before acceptance would need to be submitted. This gives a total of 180 days (6 months) before the acceptance form needs to be submitted.
This is what colleagues were told in a formal discussion here at County Hall with HR representatives. The same was also mentioned in documentation received from UNISON, and their advice is that we should not sign yet and wait until the two 90 day periods have elapsed to ensure that there is no change in what is proposed.
It appears that the information that has been sent is not giving the "whole picture" hence the feeling from all of us that the original letter was threatening and worded in such a manner as to construed as an ultimatum.
A. The preferred approach is for ECC to achieve a variation of contract with the agreement of employees, but it is recognised that some employees will not wish to follow this approach. As a result, if ECC wishes to complete the project (which it has been communicating since late 2007), it has to commence a statutory process.
In effect, there had to be a "closing date" for the current phase in order to start the statutory processes. As the stautory processes differ slightly depending upon how many employees are involved, we had to know how many would accept the variation by agreement first. It is very likely that this will require 90 days consultation followed by 90 days notice.
This does not mean, however, that we will not accept requests to vary by agreement after this Friday (5th Feb); as you point out, we will continue to accept these for the whole of the statutory process.
Hopefully, the consultation process will enable many employees who have specific questions to feel happy to accept a variation by agreement.
There was no intended "threat" in the letter - it was trying to set out the 2 phases of the project and give employees a choice.
Q. It would be really useful to have a "frequently asked questions" list including all of those queries you have received this past couple of days so as it can be discussed at length amongst ourselves.
A. I think the suggestion of some amended Frequently Asked Questions is a good idea, and I will like into this asap.
If you ask any questions, please can you let us know the answers and we will add them to this page. Also, if you have any comments, please visit our Blog Page.
Thank you
|
