Background

In MB/003/2024 PCS detailed issues arising from a circulated EO Job Description, that

failed to accurately reflect the amended EO role, and membership concerns about that role.

Following a Jobs Evaluation and Grading ( JEGs ) exercise on AO and EO roles in FNORC

there have been many concerns at the job content of both grade’s work, and in particular

formerly EO tasks that would now be undertaken by AOs.

Meeting with FNORC Senior Management

PCS met with senior managers in FNORC on 15th March 2024 and explained our position

on the amended AO and EO job roles.

• PCS had been unable to attend the JEGs exercise on the FNORC AO and EO job

roles, as the Department had failed to provide PCS reps with up-to-date training.

• In PCS’ absence the Department had amended the AO role, meaning that many

functions previously carried out by EOs would now be carried out by AOs.

• Members’ meetings and feedback from Croydon and Merseyside had shown the

strength of feeling amongst the AO grade, and their belief that they would now be

undertaking out of grade work.

• PCS believed that AO and EO work was distinct, with Aos’ primary task being to

gather information, whilst EOs made decisions and applied credibility tests.

• As a result of all the points above PCS formally told the Department that we

could not agree or support the changes made to the FNORC AO job content.

• The absence of PCS from the JEGs process meant that in our view the agreed

process between employer and TU had not been followed

• Therefore any decision on grading was not in our view valid.

• Furthermore until PCS are properly JEGs trained and able to take part in the

JEGs review of AO job content we cannot accept the revision of their Job

Roles.

In response the Department stated that

• In their view the JEGs review of AO functions was undertaken as per policy and

therefore valid.

• PCS had been invited, but unable to attend

• They had been unaware that PCS representatives did not have up to date JEGs

training.

• It was not FNORC’s responsibility to provide JEGs training to PCS reps ( though it

was the Home Office’s responsibility ).

• In their view the AO role ‘has not changed.’ (Clearly this differs from the view

expressed by the AO members involved)

PCS Advice To Members

In order to provide PCS with the evidence we need to argue that the AO grade content now

includes out of grade work, we need members to continue to identify tasks that they

consider should not be undertaken by AOs, and feed this information back both to PCS and

the Department.

Conclusion

PCS has contacted Central HR with a view to arranging a trade union specific JEGs course,

in order that we can take part in the JEGs process from an informed and appropriately

trained position. Only then will we be able to determine properly whether the new AO job

content amounts to out of grade work or not. Meanwhile 400 new AOs are being recruited,

and the next phase of FNORC’s restructuring plans continues unabated; all of which is

unsettling to members.

One final aspect to consider is the current usage of 67 IMA AO’s in order to provide them

with ‘meaningful work’. This is clearly an interim arrangement before the employer transfers

them to their core role within IMA. In PCS’ opinion introducing new staff, training them, only

to move them out to a totally different unit, is not the best way to assist staff in accepting

and understanding new structures and working practices. As above, we encourage

members to feedback any issues and difficulties with their new working arrangements.

Stephen Taylor

Assistant Group Secretary

Pete Curtis

GEC member