2016 Home Office Group Conference

PCS Home Office Group and National Conferences are where the priorities and direction of the union are set for the forthcoming 12 months.

Merseyside Branch submitted these two emergency motions to the conference following the meeting held at 12:30pm, 18 May in The Cross Keys (upstairs), Earle Street, Liverpool:

1. That this Home Office Group Conference notes the content of HO/MB/026/16 & HO/MB/035/16 which outlines that the Home Office are planning to make the ‘moderation’ system significantly worse before apparently ruling these changes out. Based on the impact this system has had over the years on a number of equality strands and; they clearly still have the appetite to attribute detriment within this process. It is noted 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 avenue to have their complaint taken forward. Whether cases will now pass the test based on the possible detriment remains to be seen and of course there are no guarantees.

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 and based on the proposed changes outlined in HO/MB/026/16 before apparently being rowed back on would clearly have made matters worse. However, even if the situation stays the same the route for redress is one that is unacceptable.

The GEC is instructed to look at the PDR appeals process holistically and negotiate with the department to seek to 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 on this issue to members as soon as practically possible and no later than September 2016.

2. This conference notes the content of HO/MB/026/16 & HO/MB/35/16 and the proposed changes to the ‘moderation’ system then a proposed u-turn for 2016-17. These original proposals clearly had the potential to attribute detriment to members who are contractually meeting their obligations and; are deemed within this current process as ‘satisfactory performers’. Conference believes that this threat has not gone away. Whilst these original proposals were clearly making a bad system even worse any potential detriment may have finally give us the opportunity to present a legal challenge.

This is an important issue to members and the original proposals would have clearly raised the stakes for those moderated and therefore the GEC will need to stand ready if/when they come back to this issue.

The GEC is instructed to review the impact of any proposed changes that are made to the PDR system in order to present a legal challenge for those members whom have contractually met their obligations but due to the forced ranking may now suffer detriment. The legal challenge should include data on those who are covered by one or more of the protected characteristics based on the equality data supplied by the Home Office over the last few years.

The conference ran from 23 -24 May. All of those attending from the branch did so in their own time.

Pay

A1 Carried, A2 Carried, A3 Fell , A4 Remitted, A5 (SOC4 - verbal) Withdrawn, A6 (Merseyside Branch motion moved by Karen Bolger) Carried , A7 Remitted

Personnel

A8 (Merseyside Branch motion moved by Mike Richards) Carried, A9 Carried, A10 Carried (Mike Richards spoke in favour) , A11 (Merseyside Branch motion moved by Jacqui Hughes) Carried, A12 Remitted (John Layfield spoke in favour of remission), A13 Carried, A40 (SOC3) (Merseyside Branch motion moved by Mike Richards) Carried, EM2 (Merseyside Branch motion moved by Jacqui Hughes) Carried, A14 Carried, A15 (Merseyside Branch motion moved by Mike Richards) Carried, A16 (Merseyside Branch motion moved by John Layfield) Carried, A17 Carried, A18 Carried, A19 (Karen Bolger spoke against) Remitted

Campaigns

A20 Carried, A21 (Mike Richards spoke against) Carried, A22 Carried, A23 Carried, A24 Carried

Industrial Relations

A25 (Mike Richards spoke in favour) Remitted

Health & Safety

A26 Carried, A27 (Karen Bolger spoke in favour of remission) Remitted

Rules

A28 Carried, A29 (SOC2) Withdrawn, A30 Carried

Distinguished Life Memberships

A31 Carried, A32 Carried, A33 Carried, A34 Carried, A35 Carried

Once again Home Office Merseyside branch had a full delegation to this year’s group conference which they attended using their own annual leave. It is testament to the dedication of your representatives who are taking their own time out to represent your interests. We also had a trainee delegate in attendance who was learning about how conference works.

It was an early start for the branch as they had to meet with the standing orders committee in order to reference back a motion which had been taken off the agenda, as ‘beyond the powers of conference’. The meeting was as part of a process at conference in order for the branch to challenge that decision and if required put that to the conference hall to get back on the agenda.

After a short discussion the SOC had changed their position and the motion on the issue of moderation was back on the agenda. We also discovered that one of our emergency motions had been listed for debate, relating to potential legal action on those who are subject to forced distribution.

Conference began with a report from the Group President, Nigel Buller. The message from the chair centred on the need for organising in the Home Office as a priority. This will be especially key with the challenges that the group will face over the next four years, with the 25% cuts still on the cards. However, the chair noted that it would appear the Departments intention to make these cuts is once again based on the application of new technologies. Furthermore, unlike in previous years it looks like the Department are looking to realise these benefits before slashing staffing and based on the attacks on the compensation scheme this is going to leave members exposed if we don’t rise the challenge.

Special mention was made to the Department and their decision not to give the pay award to those staff on legacy allowances (SDA & AAA). The chair remarked that the Department were living up to their reputation as “The worst department in Whitehall”. The Chair also commented on the fact that it has been agreed to offer a third opt in exercise of which members maybe receiving this offer by the end of the week in relation to those allowances.