2019 AGM

PCS Home Office Merseyside Branch nominations

Branch Executive Committee:

President - Karen Bolger

Vice President - Derek Mellor

Branch Secretary - (1 vacancy)

Assistant Secretary (4 posts) - Dean Barron, Dawn Golder, Emma Mooney (1 vacancy),

Organiser - Phil Mount

Treasurer - Sandra Lee-Boyd

Branch Executive Committee members (13 posts) - Phil Brightmore, Kieran Ferguson, Helen Gilbert, Lindsay Melia, Angharad Moran Y Lasierra, Liz O'Connor, John Pulman, Kris Rowe, Joe Wright (4 vacancies)

Auditor (2 posts) - Paul Darbyshire, David Cain

Delegates to PCS Home Office Group Conference (4 posts) - Karen Bolger, Dawn Golder, Kris Rowe (1 vacancy)

Delegates to PCS National Conference (4 posts) - Dawn Golder, Phil Mount, Kris Rowe (1 vacancy)

All elected unopposed.

PCS Home Office Group Nominations

Home Office Group Executive Committee:

President - James Cox

Assistant Group Secretary - Malcolm Davey, Chris Kelly, Denise Speakman

Group Executive Committee members - Phil Mount*, Rebecca Hunter*, Ian Abbott, Dil Joshi, Malcolm Speechley

Group Standing Orders Committee - Jon Morgan, Andrew Leng

(*Based on Merseyside)

All nominations agreed.

PCS National nominations

National Executive Committee:

President - Fran Heathcote

Vice Presidents - Martin Cavanagh, Jackie Green, Zita Holbourne, Kevin McHugh

National Executive Committee members - Mark Baker, Fiona Brittle, Paula Brown, Clive Bryant, Harvey Crane, Alan Dennis, Felicity Flynn, Jimmy Gill, Angela Grant, Sam Hall, Austin Harney, Kris Hendry, John Jamieson, Tahir Latif, Neil License, Marion Lloyd, John McInally, Kenny McKay, John Maguire, Lorna Merry, Marianne Owens, Ian Pope, Annette Rochester, Alison Roder, Dave Semple, Steve Thorley, Candy Udwin, Karen Watts, Hector Wesley, Paul Williams

Assistant General Secretary - Chris Baugh

All nominations agreed.

Motions relating to Merseyside Branch

Motion 1 (Branch rules change) Carried

That this Annual General Meeting instructs the Branch Executive Committee to amend Rule 3 of the branch Rules to read:

“ All persons who are members of the Union in accordance with Section 3 of the Supplementary Rules of the Union and who are employed by the Home Office in Merseyside, with the exception of members in HM Passport Office and Disclosure and Barring Service shall be deemed to be members of the Branch.”

Branch Executive Committee

Motion 2 (Branch rules change) Carried

That this Annual General Meeting instructs the Branch Executive Committee to amend Rule 17 of the branch Rules to read:

“17 (a)The Officers of the Branch shall consist of a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Organiser, Assistant Organiser and Treasurer. The Officers shall be elected by secret individual ballot of the members of the Branch.

17 (b) A General Purposes Committee shall be established comprised of the Branch Officers that will be responsible for ensuring the business of the branch is progressed in the periods between Branch Executive Committee meetings.”

Branch Executive Committee

Motion 3 (Branch rules change) Carried

That this Annual General Meeting instructs the Branch Executive Committee to amend Rule 19 of the branch Rules to read:

“19 (a) The duties to be allocated to each officer shall be determined by the Branch Executive Committee. The Chairperson, Secretary, Organiser and Treasurer shall render a written report to each meeting of the Branch Executive Committee with regard to the business of the office held. The other officers will submit written reports as required by the Branch Executive Committee.

19 (b) The Chair and Secretary, or other officer delegated by them, may attend any sub-committee meeting.”

Branch Executive Committee

Motion 4 (Branch rules change) Carried

That this Annual General Meeting instructs the Branch Executive Committee to amend Rule 20 of the branch Rules to read:

“The Branch Executive Committee shall consist of the Officers of the Branch and fifteen other members, elected by secret individual ballot of the members of the Branch.”

Branch Executive Committee

Motion 5 (Branch rules change) Carried

That this Annual General Meeting instructs the Branch Executive Committee to delete Para.(C) of Rule 23 and renumber the subsequent paragraphs within the rule accordingly.

Branch Executive Committee

Motions relating to wider issues in the Home Office

Motion 6 (Trigger points) Carried

That this Home Office Group Conference notes the ongoing problems caused by the very low trigger points within the sickness absence policy and the growing proportion of facility time used by reps to advise members, attend hearings, engage in correspondence and struggle with some managers who take the interpretation of the sickness absence policy to mean that a warning should be issued regardless of the circumstances of the case.

It remains unclear how the department justified the reduction in trigger points from 12 to 6 days but this conference expresses concern that as more and more members are expected to work well beyond age 60 with increased prospects of longer term conditions developing or lengthier recuperation periods after illness, those members are treated detrimentally in having only 5 days a year available for illness before a formal hearing is triggered on the 6th day of absence.

It is also likely that older members will develop more disability-related conditions. Given that “12” increasingly appears to be the unofficial maximum of any uplift in triggers allowed for disability-related conditions it is doubtful that those who need to work into their late 60’s will be able to do so without being disproportionately subject to warnings and a higher chance of dismissal than younger staff.

This conference instructs the Group Executive Committee to conduct a study and equality impact assessments based on age and related conditions with a view to documenting and evidencing a case to be put to the department to review the trigger points and how they are applied.

Karen Bolger (Branch President)

Motion 7 (Sick absence - discretion) Carried

That this Home Office Group Conference notes motion A12 was carried by the 2018 conference which instructed the Group Executive Committee to look at the sickness absence discretion policy which gives line managers authority to use discretion to discount absences. Conference understands that the GEC has written to the employer to request talks but that no progress has been made in starting discussions nor has anything yet been reported to members and branches.

In addition to the issues contained in motion A12, this Conference now notes that some managers are increasingly applying an unwritten policy which dictates that if a member has had discretion applied to their case that they cannot expect to be granted discretion again in the same 12 month period.

In light of this new turn of events Conference instructs the GEC to redouble its efforts in seeking talks with the employer and to treat this issue as a priority following the close of conference given the lack of progress since the original motion was carried at 2018 conference.

Karen Bolger (Branch President)

Motion 8 (Personnel policy - abortion) Carried

That this Home Office Group Conference notes the absence of any mention of the word “abortion” in any of the Home Office personnel policies. This is not unusual given that this seems to be the case in many large organisations across the UK. Abortion is always a controversial issue but whether individuals agree with abortion or not, it should be catered for within Home Office policy.

This conference notes that the lack of a clear policy has meant that workplace personnel decisions, particularly regarding time off, are being taken without consistency or transparency and believes that it is essential that a policy is now put in place. The policy should not allow for “discretion” as such decisions could be influenced by an individual’s own views on the matter. For example, miscarriage is catered for under “pregnancy-related” and this is where the issue should sit.

Conference also takes the view that it is paramount that there should be no questioning around the reasons for having the procedure when consideration is given to whether any related absences should be disregarded under the policy as medical proof of the procedure and after effects should be sufficient.

This Conference instructs the Group Executive Committee to seek negotiations with the Home Office with a view to establishing policy on how such cases should be dealt with in future and for managers to be offered training as necessary.

Karen Bolger (Branch President)

Motion 9 (Second jobs) Carried

That this Home Office Group Conference notes that increasing numbers of people are working evening shifts in the department as a second or even third job. Some work full-time jobs in the private sector and an evening shift in the public sector. Others work a full-time day job within Civil Service departments such as DWP and HMRC then work an evening shift in, for example, Euro Casework. There are members working full-time for the Home Office who have part-time jobs of an evening and weekend in the private sector.

Conference agrees that it can be no coincidence that the number of our members employed in second jobs just to make ends meet is a direct result of the continuing pay cap and austerity measures imposed by this Government.

To ascertain the extent of this problem and to provide evidence to support PCS pay campaigns, the Group Executive Committee are instructed to:

• conduct a survey of members to see how many have 2nd jobs and the reasons for that second job;
• conduct the survey in such a way as to identify the variants, eg to establish that if a member has 2 jobs that they are both in the public sector or one in the private and one in the public sector;
• commence the survey as soon as possible after this conference and report the results to members and branches.

Karen Bolger (Branch President)

Motions relating to the national union

Motion 10 (National rules change) Carried

That this Annual Delegate Conference instructs the National Executive Committee to delete standing orders A35 and A36 of Appendix A of the PCS Rules and to renumber the subsequent standing orders accordingly.

Branch Executive Committee

Motion 11 (National rules change) Carried

That this Annual Delegate Conference instructs the National Executive Committee to delete Appendix B of the PCS Rules and to renumber the subsequent appendices accordingly.

Branch Executive Committee

Emergency Motions accepted at the discretion of the Branch President (Branch rule 7)

Motion 12 (Neurodiversity and the Guaranteed Interview Scheme) Carried

That this Home Office Group Conference notes the that current online situational judgement test used by Home Office in the job application process to sift out applicants discriminates against those with disabilities applying under the Guaranteed Interview Scheme (GIS).

Whilst the Home Office requests details of an applicant’s disability within the application form, there is no attempt by the Home Office prior to the sifting process to ascertain what adjustments may be required to ensure that the sift process is equitable. By its’ very nature the online test is unalterable and cannot take into account any adjustments an applicant may require owing to their disability. While the Home Office does indicate that those applying under the GIS require a lower pass rate than others to progress to interview neurodiverse applicants require a series of specific adjustments to address their disability. The general adjustment currently employed cannot hope to meet those specific needs.

Conference further notes that the pass score of the sift test for those applying under the GIS is not published despite Civil Service Commission advice that the GIS should be transparent and state clearly the minimum standard require to gain an interview. As such, the Home Office application process and GIS does not ‘guarantee’ an interview as the name suggests and, for the reasons described above, discriminates against those with a disability.

This conference instructs the Group Executive Committee (GEC) to seek talks with the Home Office with a view to ensuring that the advice of the Civil Service Commission is followed; that the GIS is transparent; that details of required adjustments are sought prior to the sift; and that the application process is reformed so that those applying under the GIS are only considered for exclusion at a later stage in the application process where reasonable adjustment can be properly taken into account. The GEC are further instructed to monitor the Success Profile application process in the Home Office to ensure that there are no discriminatory aspects of the system.

Branch Executive Committee

Motion 13 (Neurodiversity, Success Profiles and Strength based Interviews) Carried

That this Home Office Group Conference believes that the strength-based interview element of the new Success Profile job application process is discriminatory against those with specific disabilities. The strength-based interview element of the Success Profile application asks an initial baseline question, for which the applicant cannot prepare, to establish the manner in which an applicant naturally responds to questioning. This response is then used to indicate the level of authenticity to additional questions, for which the applicant may have prepared.

This conference is of the view that the process is discriminatory to neurodiverse applicants as, owing to their disability, they may react differently to questions depending upon their level of preparedness. This variation is not due to a lack of authenticity, but to their specific disability or a “learnt behaviour” to enable them to function within a work environment.

The Group Executive Committee (GEC) are instructed to seek revisions to the interview aspect of the process to cater for this issue or to exclude neurodiverse applicants from this stage of the application process completely so ensuring it is equitable and non-discriminatory.

Branch Executive Committee

Motion 14 (Neurodiversity and the Guaranteed Interview Scheme. NB. This is Motion 12 reworded so that it is suitable for submission to PCS National Conference) Carried

That this PCS Annual delegate Conference notes the that current online situational judgement test used by government departments in the job application process to sift out applicants discriminates against those with disabilities applying under the Guaranteed Interview Scheme (GIS).

Whilst details of an applicant’s disability are requested within the application form, there is no attempt prior to the sifting process to ascertain what adjustments may be required to ensure that the sift process is equitable. By its’ very nature the online test is unalterable and cannot take into account any adjustments an applicant may require owing to their disability. While, for example, the Home Office does indicate that those applying under the GIS require a lower pass rate than others to progress to interview neurodiverse applicants require a series of specific adjustments to address their disability. The general adjustment currently employed cannot hope to meet those specific needs.

Conference further notes that the pass score of the sift test for those applying under the GIS is not published despite Civil Service Commission advice that the GIS should be transparent and state clearly the minimum standard require to gain an interview. As such, the application process and GIS does not ‘guarantee’ an interview as the name suggests and, for the reasons described above, discriminates against those with a disability.

This conference instructs the National Executive Committee (NEC) to seek to ensure that the advice of the Civil Service Commission is followed; that the GIS is transparent; that details of required adjustments are sought prior to the sift; and that the application process is reformed so that those applying under the GIS are only considered for exclusion at a later stage in the application process where reasonable adjustment can be properly taken into account. The NEC are further instructed to monitor the Success Profile application process to ensure that there are no discriminatory aspects of the system.

Branch Executive Committee

Motion 15 (Neurodiversity, Success Profiles and Strength based Interviews. NB. This is Motion 13 reworded so that it is suitable for submission to PCS National Conference) Carried

That this PCS Annual Delegate Conference believes that the strength-based interview element of the new Success Profile job application process is discriminatory against those with specific disabilities. The strength-based interview element of the Success Profile application asks an initial baseline question, for which the applicant cannot prepare, to establish the manner in which an applicant naturally responds to questioning. This response is then used to indicate the level of authenticity to additional questions, for which the applicant may have prepared.

This conference is of the view that the process is discriminatory to neurodiverse applicants as, owing to their disability, they may react differently to questions depending upon their level of preparedness. This variation is not due to a lack of authenticity, but to their specific disability or a “learnt behaviour” to enable them to function within a work environment.

The National Executive Committee (NEC) are instructed to seek revisions to the interview aspect of the process to cater for this issue or to exclude neurodiverse applicants from this stage of the application process completely so ensuring it is equitable and non-discriminatory.

Branch Executive Committee