Agenda:

1. Chair’s Opening Remarks - John Layfield
2. Adoption of the agenda - agreed
3. Apologies - Brian White
4. Appointment of tellers - Paul Darbyshire, Roy Brewer
5. AGM 2015 Record of decisions - agreed
6. 2016 Branch Annual Report (follow the links below) - agreed
7. 2015 Finance Report (see part 4 of the annual report below) - agreed
8. Branch Elections - agreed as below
9. Home Office Group nominations - agreed as below
10. PCS National nominations - agreed as below
11. Motions For debate - outcomes shown below
12. Other business - FWH

2016 Branch Annual Report:

• Part 1: Introduction from the Branch President
• Part 2: Report from the Branch Secretary
• Part 3: Permanent Migration & Border Force
• Part 4: Health & Safety and Finance reports
• Part 5: Criminal Casework, Complex Casework & Customer Service Operations
• Part 6: Immigration Enforcement, Asylum and HOPG
• Part 7: Organisation, recruitment and communications

Nominations for Branch posts:

Branch Officers

President John Layfield

Vice President Karen Bolger

Secretary Mike Richards

Organiser Derek Mellor

Treasurer Vacant

Assistant Secretaries Dean Barron, Diane Burton, Emma Mooney (1 vacancy)

Branch Executive Committee Members

Dennis Harty, Christine House, Jacqui Hughes, Philip Mount, Sam Murray, Liz Robinson, Alan Saunders, Toni Walsh-Shiel, Brian White (4 vacancies)

Home Office Group Conference Delegates

Karen Bolger, Jacqui Hughes, John Layfield, Mike Richards

PCS National Conference Delegates

Karen Bolger, Jacqui Hughes, John Layfield, Mike Richards

Branch Auditors

Paul Darbyshire, David Cain

Nominations for Home Office Group posts

Group Vice President Lawrence Dunne, DBS, Sharon Edwards, HMPO Scotland

Group Assistant Secretary

James Cox, Greater London, Clayeon McKenzie, Greater London, Chris Kelly, Greater London, Ann Martin, HQ London, Lawrence Dunne, DBS, Sharon Edwards, HMPO Scotland

Group Executive Committee

Jennifer Kenny, DBS, Denise Speakman, HMPO Eastern, Richard Gillingham, West Croydon, Malcolm Davey, West Croydon, Andrew Leng, East Croydon, Lawrence Dunne, DBS, Sharon Edwards, HMPO Scotland, James Cox, Greater London, Clayeon McKenzie, Greater London, Chris Kelly, Greater London, Ann Martin, HQ London

Nominations for PCS National posts

PCS President Janice Godrich, DWP Clydeside and Argyll

Vice Presidents John McInally, DWP HQ London, Kevin McHugh, HMRC Benton View Park, Cheryl Gedling, Scottish Government, Paula Brown, HSE National Branch

National Executive Committee

Ian Albert, DWP HQ London, Mark Baker, DCLG Bristol & South West, Clive Bryant, HMRC Worthing, Martin Cavanagh, DWP Wirral, Harvey Crane, HMRC Anglia, Alan Dennis, MOD DSg Portsmouth Area, Richard Douglas, NAO, Lawrence Dunne, DBS, Mary Ferguson, DWP Tyneview Park, Jackie Green, MOJ Bradford, Sam Hall, DWP Highlands & Islands, Elenor Haven, Land Registry Croydon, Fran Heathcote, DWP Northumbria, Zita Holbourne, ACAS National Branch, John Jamieson, Registers of Scotland, Mark Leopard, HMRC London HQ, Neil License, HMRC Yorkshire & North Lincs, Marion Lloyd, BIS Sheffield, Dominic McFadden, HMRC Intelligence & Investigation, John Maguire, MOJ Greater Manchester, Lorna Merry, HMRC Bucks & Oxon, Chris Morrison, Commercial Sector Telford Aspire, Marianne Owens, HMRC South Wales R&C, Clara Paillard, CMSOA National Museums Liverpool, Ian Pope, DWP Glasgow, Candy Udwin, CMSOA National Gallery, Karen Watts, MOJ Wessex, Hector Wesley, HMRC Euston Tower

National Standing Orders Committee

Sean Fegan, Registers of Scotland, Fiona McDonald, Scottish Government, Gordon Rowntree, HMRC Stockton & North Yorks

Editorial Board

Tracy Boyce, HMRC Liverpool City

National Appeals Committee

Alan Runswick, HMRC Liverpool City, Vicki Searle, HMRC Birmingham

TUC Delegation

Tracy Boyce, HMRC Liverpool CIty, Sarah Broad, HMPO Southport, Lynn Ion, HMRC North West England

Motions to the Branch

Motion 1 (Workers Beer Company) CARRIED

This AGM notes that the Workers Beer Company (WBC) offers Trade Union branches an opportunity to raise funds for their organisation by providing volunteers (registered with their branches) to work behind the bars that WBC have commercial contacts to operate at. Our branch may apply to be registered with WBC in order to participate and must also verify each person nominated to work a number of allocated shifts per event as appropriate. The WBC will pay the organisation £7.00 per hour worked.

The WBC provides staff for such events as Glastonbury, Latitude and Tolpuddle Martyrs. Volunteers qualify for free entry into the festivals, receive two meals per day from WBC and are allowed access to exclusive secure staff camping and shower facilities. In return volunteers are expected to complete a number of shifts behind the bar throughout the course of the festival. Each shift is usually between 6 and 7 hours in duration.

Applications must come from branches rather than individuals, and an application may be made via their website www.workersbeer.co.uk - the Political Committee of the WBC will consider each application and if approved the branch may be invited to nominate volunteers to work. There is no guarantee that places will be offered as the demand is much greater that availability at some events.

There is no cost to the branch for affiliation to the WBC.

The AGM instructs the branch to register with the WBC and if successful advertise this to all members, as appropriate.

(Philip Mount)

Motion 2 (Honorary Life Membership) CARRIED

That this annual general meeting agrees to bestow Honorary Life Membership of PCS Home Office Merseyside Branch on Martin Kelsey.

(Branch Executive Committee)

Motions to Home Office Group Conference

Motion 3 (Suspensions) CARRIED

That this Home Office conference notes the Home Office guidance relating to the use of suspension outlined in the Discipline policy. Whilst the policy indicates the circumstances that may warrant a suspension, as well an indication that these actions do not indicate guilt, it is clear that the use of this has a major impact on those who are subject to it.

According to the policy the decision to suspend would be made by the Decision Manager (DM), with advice sought from the Shared Service Centre, as appropriate. It is clear that no other authorisation or second pair of eyes is required and the only additional duties are for the DM is to update Adelphi and prepare and despatch the appropriate letters. This process also puts the officer responsible for making a decision on the case at a later stage to potentially pre judge elements at first glance and utilise the suspension mechanism. Also based on the fact that it is a DM’s choice to suspend that this can be taken as low as the EO grade.

For those subject to suspension the impact can be devastating in many ways including increased stress and exacerbates mental illnesses and pressures on family life. Those members suspended often find themselves without any contact from the Department and are in essence isolated, despite the fact that suspension is only a precautionary measure. Whilst the Departments guidance suggests regular reviews of the suspension by the DM this has no impact on pastoral care of an employee.

The GEC is instructed to look at the use of suspension and the rules governing it including the authorisation levels and individuals involved. In addition this review should have a sharp focus on the duty of care to its employees when they are suspended. The GEC is instructed to report back to branches on this by the end of September 2016.

(Branch Executive Committee)

Motion 4 (Moderation appeals) CARRIED

That this Home Office Group Conference notes that PCS are continuing to challenge the PDR moderation system and agrees that this opposition should continue as the current system is unfair and unworkable. However, for the moment members and representatives have to deal with the impact of this policy and we should continue to challenge its inherent unfairness and lack of transparency.

Members who have been unfairly ranked by their line manager/countersigning manager have looked to the guidance for redress. They are informed by the policy that if they cannot resolve any differences with their line manager and/or countersigning manager informally using mediation, they should consider putting in an appeal through the grievance process, providing this meets the restrictive consideration test.

Mediation in itself has in many cases been found to be a useless method to attempt to resolve a challenge against a box marking which is usually out of the control of the immediate line manager.

However, if mediation proceeds and fails then the only method for redress is via an appeal, via the grievance policy. Often the case doesn't pass the ‘test’ and this leaves members with no venue to have their complaint taken forward. Considering the equality impact of this process, based on the Home Office’s own statistics, this is deeply concerning.

Even if an appeal does manage to get past this restrictive test then it is usually dealt with by a party which has no independence at all and has usually been complicit in the decision making process. This is a deeply unsatisfactory process.

The GEC is instructed to look at the PDR appeals process holistically and ensure that a satisfactory route for redress exists, as well as a suitable level of independence so members can be reasonably confident that they will receive a ‘fair hearing’. The GEC is instructed to report back on this issue to members as soon as practically possible and no later than September 2016.

(Branch Executive Committee)

Motion 5 (Review of triggers) CARRIED

This Home Office Group Conference notes that since the latest attendance management policy was enacted in 2014 we have seen a sustained attack on reasonable adjustments for staff with Disabilities. This has been especially prevalent on the tolerance levels for members who have been recognised under the Equality Act 2010 against their trigger point calculations.

Conference notes that many Departments in the Home Office (excluding HMPO at that time) had incorrectly raised triggers under the previous sick policy using a ‘one size fits all formula’, which uplifted many members whom had disabilities, trigger points to a ‘maximum’ of 24 days on 12 occasions. This was not done based on the needs of the individuals.

Therefore, upon the introduction of the latest absence management policy in 2014 the Department saw this as the green light to slash members’ tolerances using this formula and cutting them to a ‘maximum’ of 12 days on 6 occasions. Many members started off at an even lower point after this cut.

Further to this we have now also seen the quarterly reviews going even further by using markers such as absence history to dictate what the new tolerance should be, not the medical information that is available at the time. We are aware that many areas in Liverpool are not following the published guidance on review of triggers and that HRAs have provided advice to line managers suggesting they can reduce immediately without referring for OHS. This has resulted in tolerances being lowered even further and in some cases they have been stripped back to standard triggers taking no account at all of the disability.

Conference calls upon the GEC to focus in on this area as a matter of urgency with a view to tightening up the guidance that governs this area of the policy.

As part of the understanding of the damage that has already done to our Disabled members the GEC should obtain data on the number of staff who are covered under the Equality Act in the Department and the adjusted days they currently have in place.

Conference believes that this raw data will go some way in proving that since 2014 trigger points are being deliberately suppressed and will inform the negotiating position. Conference also instructs the GEC to look at the legal position on this matter and progress accordingly if talks on this area are not satisfactory. To report on progress by end of October 2016.

(Mike Richards)

Motion 6 (Sickness absence) CARRIED

This Home Office Group Conference notes that since the introduction of the latest absence management policy in 2014 The Home Office has made a welcomed return to having ‘line managers’ consider the case for discretion, if trigger points have been breached and an exception doesn’t apply. This is opposed to the previous system whereby a case would be put to a head of unit to decide whether a warning was appropriate or not via Directors discretion.

However, conference is dismayed to learn that in many of our major areas of the Department the authorisation to make the call on discretion has been taken out of the ‘line managers’ control. This is against the published policy on such matters. This deliberate and calculated move by local Departments has been taken as part of the broader attack on members when they have the temerity to fall ill and require time off from work. The move to either senior individuals or groups has been coated in expressions such as ‘consistency panels’ or that it is to offer support and advice but it is clearly designed ultimately to take control and make the decision. However, what is clear is that in some cases branches have seen written evidence such as authorisation forms and e-mails outlining this contradictory position.

Conference calls on the GEC to collate evidence from branches and ultimately members, whether anecdotal, or if obtainable in writing that this shady process is on-going. Conference then instructs the GEC to meet with the Department to discuss this matter and seek a way forward to ensure that their own policy in this area is followed correctly and ‘line managers’ have control on this issue back were it belongs and report back on progress by end of October 2016.

(Mike Richards)

Motion 7 (HR complaints) CARRIED

That this Home Office Group Conference notes that a procedure exists on Horizon to complain about the service received by the Shared Service Centre. This procedure has escalation and resolution. However, it is also noted that no such procedure exists for the advice provided by HRAs in the field. There are many examples of advice being offered by HRAs in NW region which is contrary to published guidance. In these instances the only option available for complaint is the grievance procedure. Clearly this is not the correct vehicle for a complaint. the lack of a viable complaints procedure means that HRAs can be unaccountable for their actions.

This motion therefore instructs the GEC to commence negotiations centrally to address this issue and push for either a similar process to that adopted for the SSC or a widening of the current procedure to include HRAs as well as the SSC. The GEC is instructed to report back on progress of those negotiations by the end of September 2016.

(Branch Executive Committee)

Motions to PCS National Conference

Motion 8 (Attacks on PCS) CARRIED

That this annual delegate conference notes the scale of the attacks launched on PCS over the past period specifically designed to smash our union as an effective campaigning organisation and as a voice against austerity. While avoiding any sense of complacency it is accurate to say the Tories have failed in their objective. No other union in Britain nor internationally has ever recorded such a quicker rate of sign-up to Direct Debit following the forced removal of check-off arrangements for the deduction of union subscriptions. Full credit must go to PCS activists and members for their response to this attack but also to the left leadership of PCS at national, group, regional and branch level.

While recognising the tremendous solidarity from sister unions, not least of all UNITE, conference also notes that some union leaders disgracefully attacked PCS when it was most in need. It was argued that PCS had brought these attacks upon itself by refusing to accept “reality” and our insistence on campaigning against cuts and privatisation.

Conference instructs the NEC to:

• In light of the TU Bill which contains the threat of check-off removal for all public sector unions to offer our help and expertise to all and any unions facing this threat whether they stood by us in our time of need or not. Solidarity is the corner-stone of our movement and PCS will never compromise that principle whatever others do.

• Build the strength of our union by developing the principles and priorities set out in the PCS organising strategy and especially by building workplace organisation, including by the widening of our activist base through the PCS Advocate role.

• Continue to develop the building of anti-austerity alliances throughout the trade union movement and in wider society based on our policy of no cuts and privatisation and an Alternative to austerity.

(Branch Executive Committee)

Motion 9 (PCS strategic review) CARRIED

That this annual delegate conference notes the Strategic Review agreed at ADC 2015.

The scale of attacks upon the conditions of PCS members and the targeting of PCS through cuts in facilities and the removal of check off require the union to review how our organisation’s resources and democratic structures can best equip us for the fight ahead.

Conference agrees that the outcome of the SMR should be the subject of the widest debate in PCS and reiterates the following democratic principles:

a) A membership led union with the workplace branch at the heart of the structure

b) Democratic accountability of reps at all levels

c) Conference as the policy making body of the union

To ensure the Strategic Review is open, effective and democratic Conference agrees:

1. The democratic power of the NEC, GEC, Branches and ADC are fully protected.

2. Proposed changes that impact on the Rulebook are put to ADC for endorsement.

3. Groups will continue to set their bargaining, campaigning and organising priorities in line with Group Conferences and GEC decision.

4. Dispersal of staff and work to Nations and Regions must also ensure Regions fully engage members and reps through the Regional Committees, Town Committees, regular briefings, training of reps, building links with other unions, equality/young members/green networks, intervention at TUCs, Trade Councils and campaign activities across the regions and in communities.

5. Consultation to include written submissions and the fullest opportunity for discussion and debate amongst lay structures.

6. To continue consultation with the staff trade union GMB and a commitment to no compulsory redundancies.

The review of organisation, resources and structures to be carried out under the direction of the NEC but any changes must carry the agreement of ADC for PCS to build our organisational and bargaining power as part of the wider fight against austerity.

(Branch Executive Committee)

Motion 10 (Trade Union Bill) CARRIED

That this annual delegate conference notes:

Despite Britain already having some of the most draconian laws in Western Europe the Tories want to shackle our trade unions with yet more anti-union legislation.

The Tories want to impose new balloting thresholds for legal strike action that if applied to the election of MP’s would see some 270 Tory MPs presently in the House of Commons unelected.

These new thresholds are being proposed by a government supported by only 24 percent of the electorate.

The Tories also intend to offer employers a licence to break strikes. They will make it legal to use agency workers during industrial disputes to replace strikers.

Restrictions on unions’ right to fund political parties will not apply to the millionaires that back the Tories.

The Tories also plan to effectively criminalise picketing, to restrict union facility time, to lengthen the notice of industrial action to employers to two weeks’ and for unions to be forced to re-ballot after four months.

TUC Congress supported calls for coordinated resistance to the Bill including “the possibility of assisting in organising generalised strike action should legal action be taken against any affiliate in connection with these new laws”. And a pledge to support unions that found themselves “outside the law” if the legislation is passed.

Conference believes:

The Tories have declared war on the trade union movement.

The trade union movement cannot submit to these new laws. The right to organise and use collective action are the most basic civil liberties. We won’t stand by and watch them be destroyed.

We need a massive campaign against the Trade Union Bill, but if it is passed onto the statute book we need to be prepared to defy the law.

Conference therefore instructs the NEC:

• To offer the maximum solidarity to all workers in struggle.

• To work with the TUC, other trade unions, and other anti-austerity organisations to build the widest possible resistance to this latest assault on our right to organise.

• To work with the TUC other trade unions, MPs, TUCG and campaign groups such as the People’s Assembly, Unite the Resistance and the National Shop Stewards Network to organise the biggest possible campaign of meetings, rallies— and action— to defend the right to strike.

• To prepare our members politically and organisationally to defy the law if necessary to preserve our ability to organise effectively against austerity.

(Branch Executive Committee)

Motion 11 (PCS legal advice) CARRIED

This Annual Delegates Conference notes that members join a trade union for many reasons, but clearly a prominent reason is protection. It is with dismay then that this Conference notes that many requests that have gone through to PCS legal for a decision on whether to support a case to Employment Tribunal have received a negative response. This is concerning for 2 main reasons

1. In the case of Home Office Merseyside Branch, we have a number of experienced reps and we conduct our own triage of cases which have the potential for progressing on to ET etc. We do not send frivolous cases which have little or no prospect of success. It is likely that most branches operate in a similar way.

2. Once a negative decision is received back at the branch, it is then up to the volunteer lay reps to deliver that response to the member at a time when they need their union the most. They may have been a member for many years and in so doing have paid substantial subscriptions only to be told that when the need is greatest, the union will abandon them.

Home Office Merseyside accepts the difficult financial position that the union is in. However, it would appear that we have got our priorities all wrong if we are willing to let members down in this way. This motion therefore instructs the NEC to publish statistics on all cases sent for legal advice over the last 2 years coupled with the numbers of those in which we have gone to support and represent at tribunal. The NEC is further instructed to report on those findings by the end of September 2016.

(Branch Executive Committee)

Emergency Motion (Weekend hours) CARRIED

That this Home Office Group Conference is dismayed that Border Force Management has reneged on their agreement as per FAQs 2011 and issued a directive that Christmas Day and New Years Day which occur on a Sunday will attract Weekend hours and not Public Holiday hours. FAQs 2011 was issued to answer queries and allay members fears about signing up to the new agreement. Para 21 states;

23. What do I claim over the Christmas period if Christmas Day, Boxing Day or New Year’s Day fall at the weekend?

If Christmas Day, Boxing Day or New Year’s Day fall on a weekend, any hours worked on those days will attract public holiday premium. Under AHW, you will receive a credit against your annual target hours and your public holiday hours for any hours worked on these days.

Conference calls on the incoming GEC to oppose this disgraceful underhand move by management and use all and every means at their disposal to oppose the use of Weekend hours on recognised Bank Holidays.