Members' Briefings

You can find the archive of previous Members' Briefings here: DBS PCS Branch Members' Briefings Archive. MBs from the current year and last year are below. They're in date order with the most recent at the top.

Date: 30th January 2026

Ref: DBS/MB/02/26

PCS DBS Branch Annual General Meeting 2026

Summary: Details of the DBS Branch Annual General Meeting 2026. Call for motions and nominations for BEC and non-BEC positions for 2026

In accordance with its Constitution and to meet the requirements of the timetable for the PCS Home Office Group and National conferences, the PCS DBS Branch AGMs will be held on:

26 February 2026

(Times and specific arrangements will be confirmed at least 14 days before the meetings)

Purpose of Branch AGM

The AGM gives all PCS members the chance to:

Establish union policy and practices for the coming year by submitting motions to the AGM for discussion and debate
Elect your Representatives to the Branch Executive Committee and make nominations for the Group and National Executive Committees
Elect Delegates to your annual Group and National Conferences

a. Motions

Motions are the vehicle by which members can influence union policy and activity for the next 12 months at a local, Group and National level. They can cover any subject that members feel the union should take a position or action on and are not just restricted to workplace matters (for instance, social and international affairs).

Before being published and debated, all motions are checked by the Branch Executive Committee (BEC) to ensure they are legal and within the union’s rules, are clear in intent and are not covered by existing union policy.

Once submitted, the BEC will put them into the following categories:

Branch

These are motions concerned solely with DBS-related issues. These will be debated at the Branch AGM and, if passed by members attending, will become DBS Branch Policy.

Group

These are motions which relate to wider Home Office issues and fall within the responsibility of the Group. If debated and agreed by DBS members at the AGM, these will be referred to Home Office Group Conference for consideration and debate. If agreed at the Group Conference, they will become the policy of the incoming Home Office Group Executive Committee (GEC).

National

These are motions concerned with the running of the union nationally or calling on PCS to take a national stance or position. These motions still need to be debated and passed at the AGM, but will then be submitted to this year’s PCS Annual Delegate Conference (ADC). If passed by ADC delegates, they become national PCS union policy.

i) Assistance for members in drafting motions

If you have an idea for a motion but don’t know how to go about drafting it, please feel free to get in touch with Jordan David for advice and assistance.

ii) Deadline for submission of motions

The deadline for receipt of motions is 3pm on 5 February 2025. Any motions received after this will only be accepted for ‘emergency’ issues which could not have been foreseen before the deadline.

Motions should be submitted using the attached annex (DBS/MB/03b/26) and sent by email to dbspcs1@dbs.gov.uk.

b. Elections and Nominations

In addition to motions for the AGM, PCS DBS Branch members are invited to submit nominations for Branch, Group and National positions.

The positions on the DBS Branch Executive Committee (BEC) for the coming year are:

Branch Chair
Branch Secretary
Vice Chair
Organiser
Assistant Secretary
Treasurer
Ordinary BEC Member

(N.B. Seat Reservations. Certain seats on the BEC will be reserved for members in Liverpool or Darlington should members in either location be otherwise under-represented following the normal process of nomination and election).

In addition to the BEC positions, nominations are also sought for the following non-BEC roles:

Branch Women’s Advisory Committee (x6)
Union Learning Reps (x4 Liverpool, x2 Darlington)
Health and Safety Reps (x4 Liverpool, x2 Darlington)
Branch Auditors (x2 Liverpool, x2 Darlington)

Nomination forms (DBS/MB/03a/26) and a brief description of the duties for each post (DBS/MB/03b/26) for the Branch positions are attached with this briefing. Nomination forms for the Group and National positions, which list the posts up for election, are also attached (DBS/MB/03d/26 and DBS/MB/03e/26 respectively).

c. Conference Delegates

As part of the call for nominations to branch positions, nominations are also sought for the DBS branch delegation to PCS Home Office Group and PCS National Conference as follows:

Delegates to PCS Home Office Group Conference.

Home Office Group Conference takes place 18th to 19th May 2026 (3 places)

Delegates to PCS Annual Delegate Conference

The ADC takes place 19th May to 20th May 2026 (3 places)

The deadline for receipt of nominations is 3pm on 5 February 2026.

Any nominations received after this deadline will not be accepted. Please send your nominations to: dbspcs1@dbs.gov.uk.

Given all that is happening within the DBS and at a national level, there has never been a more important time to get active in the union.

Please help to shape and inform PCS policies and actions for the coming year by submitting motions to the AGM.

Please consider putting yourself forward for one of the BEC or non-BEC posts and help PCS to become an even stronger and louder voice in the DBS, better able to defend and protect your interests in the coming year.

In solidarity,

PCS DBS Branch Executive Committee

Date: 12th January 2026

Ref: DBS/MB/01/26

Stand by, or I shall use this tool against you

Summary: The new version of the Prod Tool is now live. The employer has agreed to provide written assurances that the tool will not be open to abuse, but PCS has yet to see these assurances.

Now is the Winter of our Discontent…

Members in Application Management will recall that on 10 October 2025, PCS issued MB 09 25 ‘For the love of Prod’ which outlined what we knew at that point about the upcoming introduction of a new version of the Prod Tool, our engagement with the employer to date and an invitation to complete a survey that would help us to understand your views on this issue.

Since then, we’ve been quiet, which we appreciate has been incredibly frustrating. Our quietude has reflected the employer’s unwillingness to commit to anything meaningful in our discussions, which has made it very difficult to update members on what’s been happening over the past three months. On a few occasions the employer appeared to be open to working constructively with PCS to address your concerns, only to rescind that offer at the eleventh hour.

It's fair to say we’ve grown sick of being given the run around. PCS hasn’t wanted to risk throwing away an amicable solution with the employer while there remained a glimmer of hope that they would listen to reason (even if, at times, that glimmer appeared to have flickered out). Now, at last, we feel we’re in a position to provide an update without risking the outcome.

When we mean to build, we first survey the plot, then draw the model…

We received an excellent response to the survey issued in October, which not only allowed us to gauge the strength of feeling among you but also gave us some insight into the nuances of other, widespread issues in the area.

The outcome of the survey led to the creation of a report which ran to a whopping 18 pages, which we duly dispatched to the employer on 12 November.

It would be impractical to list every outcome from that report here, but some notable headlines include:

38% of members were unaware that Application Management intended to introduce a new version of the Prod Tool, with the 27% of members having found out from managers and 34% finding out from word-of-mouth.
Only 14% of members have a favourable view of the current Prod Tool and Hourly Reports, with 30% being indifferent and 57% having an unfavourable view.
No respondents stated that they believe the new version of the Prod Tool and 20-minute Reports will have a positive impact on their experience at work, with 56% of members stating it will have a negative impact (the remainder stating it would have no impact, or they were unsure what impact it would have).
58% of members believe that the new version of the tool will cause them increased stress and anxiety.
Only 40% of members stated that their hourly range figure was mutually agreed between themselves and their line manager.
When asked to rate the workplace culture in Application Management on a scale of 1-10 both when they first joined the area and now, there was a decline of 1.53 score points, or 23.6% over time, with this figure increasing the longer someone has worked in Application Management (rising to a reduction of 1.91 score points or 31.5% for members who’ve worked here for more than 10 years)
41% of members believe that micromanagement is a widespread issue in Application Management.

So stumblest on my counsel…

In our view, the outcomes of the survey are deeply concerning. In contrast to the original introduction of the Prod Tool in 2019, where staff participated in focus groups, were given a 3-month amnesty when the tool first went live and a Code of Practice was drawn up to guide managers in how the tool should be used to manage performance, this time the employer appeared to want to slip the new version by staff as quietly as possible. Given that staff were learning about this new tool from all corners of DBS, it should be expected that there would be considerable anxiety among staff about the imposition of a tool they knew next to nothing about.

We had expected, therefore, that the employer would be eager to enter into conversations with PCS to try to assuage these concerns and reassure staff that the new tool would not be open to abuse for micromanagement purposes.

The employer did not see things this way, however, and in place of the consultation meeting we had requested on 01 October, PCS was invited to an ‘update meeting’ on 17 November (5 days after we provided the survey outcomes to the employer).

At this meeting, the tool was effectively pitched to us, showing off all of its wonderful new features – except for the one element that we believe is likely to be open to abuse (the 20-minute reports). At this meeting, we were told that the 20-minute functionality would only be used to address quality issues and, when we reiterated staff concerns that these reports could be used as a stealth tactic to pressure staff into completing more work than they are able to without risking quality, we were met with an emphatic shaking of heads. Local management assured us that simply wouldn’t happen.

Following the meeting, we asked the employer to enshrine the commitments we’d received at the meeting in writing. The employer… simply refused to do this. The employer didn’t even suggest alternative wording that would accurately reflect their position, something that we would have been able to share with you at the time.

At this point, we insisted, for what felt like the thousandth time, on formal consultation on the introduction of the new version of the Prod Tool. Finally, 57 calendar days after we originally asked, we were given a response to our request for consultation, and the answer was no. We received this answer only a week before the tool was to be implemented.

At this point, PCS believed that nothing could be achieved by working with local management alone and we escalated the matter to Ian Johnston as director for Operational Services. Ian promptly arranged a meeting for 10 December, giving us the chance to outline our concerns and to reiterate our recommendations.

This is the night, that either makes me or fordoes me quite

While the employer still hasn’t engaged PCS in formal consultation, the meeting of 10 December was more constructive than any of our engagement with the employer to-date (though at this point the new version of the Prod Tool had been live for a week). While we accept that the new version of the tool has notable benefits for line managers, consolidating five previously disparate reports into one location, we were clear that our objection was how the 20-minute report functionality would be used.

We reiterated the need for a Code of Practice to ensure that the tool should not be used to:

pressurise staff into completing more cases than they are able, or to
challenge staff for inconsistent output from one 20-minute period to the next.

Further, we requested the employer issue an unequivocal statement condemning the practice of micromanagement, emphasising that everyone benefits when agents are respected and trusted to complete their work according to the working pattern that suits them.

The employer has committed to producing a statement to be issued to all staff in Application Management and stated that they would run this by us first. We have now been waiting more than a month to see this draft wording, but to be fair there have been three public holidays since 10 December. We met with senior management on 08 January and, again, reminded them that a statement needs to be issued with robust assurances to address staff concerns. We have been told the employer intends to issue something later this week.

In addition to the statement, the employer has committed to holding regular meetings with PCS while the new version of the Prod Tool beds in. These meetings provide us with the opportunity to raise any concerns brought to us by members about how the 20-minute reports are being used.

If you have any concerns about how the reports are being used, please contact the branch. The employer has stated that they expect the 20-minute reports will only be used in exceptional cases where granular detail is required – if this is the case, then we would expect managers would only feel the need to access these reports once in a blue moon. If that isn’t the case, then we shall have to tell the employer that things haven’t petered out in accordance with their expectations.

As a final reminder:

Your hourly range is to be mutually agreed between you and your line manager for PDR purposes. If you feel your hourly range is set too high, your manager should be open to revising it.
Your hourly range is an indication of your average performance across the year and is not a target that you need to hit every single hour. Your output will naturally fluctuate over time (not least because of the dreadful system issues) and your maximum output should not be treated as an aspirational standard, unless you choose to increase your hourly range.
Line managers should not be challenging you on individual hours of work, unless they have a reasonable belief that there is a persistent issue (e.g. errors commonly made at the same time of day). Managers should not be questioning staff about isolated hours of relatively low output.
Your reps are always on hand to talk to you about how your performance is managed. Similarly, reps are always available to line managers who may wish to discuss how they have been asked to manage staff performance. We appreciate that any pressure that may be felt travels vertically. PCS advice is available to every member and is completely confidential.

Get in Touch

Members are already well aware of the PCS Inbox address, but you can always press ‘reply’ to one of our emails if you are not sure. If you ever need an out of hours service, you can contact us on Gmail: pcsdbsbranch77@gmail.com.

In solidarity,

PCS DBS Branch Executive Committee

Date: 23rd October 2025

Ref: DBS/MB/11/25

THE RESULTS ARE IN!

Summary: We’ve been waiting with bated breath for the result of the Employment Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that AOs in DBS are paid more than National Living Wage.

The Tribunal

As detailed in DBS/MB/08/25, PCS has long held the belief that DBS members’ annual salary is calculated on 42 hours a week. This meant that we also believed that AO pay was dropping below the National Living Wage, or Minimum Wage as it is more commonly known. This is currently £12.21.

After years of arguing with the employer, PCS members from DBS submitted a claim to the Employment Tribunal and bravely faced the employer in court in early July 2025.

The Evidence

We submitted many, many pages of evidence in relation to our claim, and this included some documents that many members will be familiar with, such as:

payslips pre-Metis which detailed ‘conditioned hours’ and ‘FTE hours’ as 42 gross
payslips showing that ‘plain time’ was calculated using 42 hours
confirmation from the employer that all DBS contracts are 42 hours gross, which comprises of a 37-hour net working week with an additional five hours of lunch breaks included in the working week.

We also submitted evidence that most members will not be as familiar with, such as:

pay calculations from 2013/2014, 2015/2016, 2017/2018, 2018/2019 and 2019/2020, which all refer (in various ways) to working hours being 42
a written answer from the Secretary of State for the Home Department documenting average hourly pay in CRB in June 2008. The figures appear to have been calculated on the basis of 42 hours.

The Judgement

Ultimately, the Judge agreed with the employer that no one in DBS, CRB or ISA has ever been paid on a 42-hour basis, and as such there was no evidence that AO colleagues are being paid less than National Minimum Wage. You’ll be able to read the full judgement in a few days on the Employment Tribunal website, so we won’t give you any additional spoilers.

What Now?

Thankfully, PCS was not in a position where we had anything to lose no matter the outcome of the Employment Tribunal. Members could only win, or as the case turns out, be in exactly the same position as always.

It cannot be considered a disappointment that members are being paid above minimum wage, and it was right that we went to court to ensure that you were not being paid less than the legal minimum.

PCS has nothing but praise for the members who spent months thinking about the Employment Tribunal process, gathering evidence, attending meetings, and ultimately attending the tribunal and waiting for the outcome.

Your Branch will never shy away from protecting your rights, no matter how many sleepless nights it gives us.

Please reply to this briefing should you wish to discuss anything further with us, we have hours of anecdotes and years of work to share!

In solidarity,

PCS DBS Branch Executive Committee

Date: 15th October 2025

Ref: DBS/MB/10/25

VOTE YES!

Summary: You have received a ballot paper to vote to retain the current PCS Political Fund. Your Branch Officers urge you to tick YES and return the paper by 05 November 2025.

Political Fund

The PCS political fund provides members with a strong campaigning voice in parliament and gives us the ability to campaign on vital issues like pay, jobs, privatisation and equality. It also supports our vital anti-racist, anti-fascist work, of which PCS is at the forefront of the trade union movement.

Without the political fund we would be legally unable to spend any money on political

campaigning activities.

Trade unions are legally required to hold a ballot every 10 years to retain their political fund. The Political Fund does not cost members any extra money.

Members’ Meeting

Hear more about the Political Fund and why it is so important to vote yes, at our meeting on Wednesday 22 October 5pm. https://pcs.zoom.us/j/92203886753

This meeting is on Zoom and cannot be accessed on your work laptop. You will need to use your phone, or other internet enabled device to join.

If you have not received a ballot paper, you will need to request one via PCS Digital,

https://mypcs.pcs.org.uk/. Reply to this email if you need help in doing this.

In solidarity,

PCS DBS Branch Executive Committee

Date: 13th October 2025

Ref: DBS/MB/09/25

FOR THE LOVE OF PROD

Summary: A new productivity tool is being launched in Application Management. PCS is seeking your views on this change prior to consultation with senior management in the area.

The Prod Tool cometh

Over the past fortnight we have seen a flurry of emails and Teams messages from members in Application Management about the impending introduction of a new productivity tool in the area, which you’d been hearing about in team meetings and read about in ‘TIN’ meeting minutes, entitled 11 September 2025 and named 12 September.

Plans for a new productivity tool was news to us – to their credit, senior management in Application Management have been very proactive in informing PCS about proposed changes in the area for the past couple of years. Concerning the new prod tool however, there has been a deafening silence, at least until we made an issue of it.

When PCS initially corresponded with senior management in Application Management, we were told that the new productivity tool:

does not affect the agreed average output levels
is an improved version of the one currently used but uses the same data
gives you a greater level of accuracy, which you requested
eradicates the unpopular ‘red’ hours at the beginning, end and lunch of each day
has not been finalised or agreed

PCS is clear that such a change requires consultation with the recognised trade union, a request that senior management has noted and has committed to speak with us (although a date has not yet been confirmed).

Importantly, we were also told that you had not been spoken to about the new tool. This felt somewhat surprising given the number of members who had already raised concerns and documented information in the afore mentioned minutes. We highlighted these confusing messages to the Executive Director for Operational Services.

Depending on the order you read your emails, by now you’ll likely have read the email from Georgia sent on Friday afternoon. If you’ve not read it yet, read it now, we’ll wait…

The email provides a helpful brief overview of the new tool, which hopefully has gone towards ending some of the speculation. Some might speculate that had this amount of information been shared in team meetings, members might have been feeling less anxious.

What the email does not provide is full details of the tool, however this is to be expected at this point, given that the tool hasn’t been finalised.

Prodding up the past

Members who were around in the dark days preceding the covid pandemic will recall that the introduction of the current Prod Tool and hourly performance reports (HPRs) in 2019 caused quite a stir.

At the time PCS had several reservations about the introduction of the new tool especially with regards to accuracy and the manner in which it would be used to monitor staff performance.

Greek scholars familiar with the riddle of the Ship of Theseus may argue whether or not the new version is the same Prod tool or an entirely new creation, but what is certain is that the new tool will provide a breakdown of agents’ output in 20-minute intervals, rather than the one-hour intervals currently used.

As such, it is possible that the new tool will be more accurate, which could be welcome. Although, as in 2019, we remain on high alert that the reports could be a stealth manoeuvre to encourage staff to increase their output beyond their capacity, risking staff wellbeing and the quality of decision-making.

Helpfully, for PCS of now, PCS of the past achieved a number of assurances that the reports would not be used to penalise staff or impose artificial consistency on individuals with varied output patterns, we expect that these assurances will remain the same in relation to the new tool.

Also, helpfully for PCS now, PCS of the even past-er past, (2008 to be more precise) have retained and maintained a copy of the benchmark agreement. Although the benchmark has been subsumed by the term ‘output levels’, the agreement with PCS remains in place and we expect that this agreement will continue.

As a reminder:

output levels are not to be used as an individual performance target
output levels are not to be used as a minimum or maximum acceptable standard
line managers will maintain a supportive approach so to effectively manage total performance and assist in the development of all staff in Application Management

Prod Tool 2.0

The employer’s position is that the changes will be beneficial to staff. PCS welcomes beneficial changes and will not seek to stand in the way of progress which improves our members’ time at work.

PCS does not yet however know enough about the new tool and the way in which this will be managed, to know if we agree that the changes will be beneficial. As soon as we know, you’ll know. Well, there’ll be a bit of a delay because writing a briefing takes time, but you get the gist.

We don’t yet know when the employer plans to introduce the new version of the tool. In the meantime, PCS would like to know your view to help shape our views ready for us to talk to the employer.

PCS has created the following survey to canvass your view on the new tool:

[Please access our survey here]

Please complete the survey by COP Friday 24 October.

All responses received will be anonymous, unless you add your name or a significantly identifying comment, however, we will never share any identifying details with the employer.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

In solidarity,

PCS DBS Branch Executive Committee

Date: 14th July 2025

Ref: DBS/MB/08/25

PCS Members v Disclosure and Barring Service

Summary: PCS believes that since April 2023, AO members’ wages have been dropping below minimum wage. After years of trying to resolve the issue, PCS members took DBS to Employment Tribunal.

Where’s my money?

Members will know that PCS believes that in April 2023, and April 2024, the AO spot rate fell lower than the National Living Wage, also known as Minimum Wage. In addition, PCS believes that AO members are currently being paid less than the legal minimum. This belief comes from our understanding of how hourly wages should be calculated, there’s more on that below.

No, really, where’s my money?

PCS began writing to the employer on this issue in 2022, and we’ve been unable to understand the employer’s position. So, we turned to members to ask for help. Brave and determined members sacrificed almost a year of their sanity to become embroiled in this issue, submitting grievances, engaging in the investigations and preparing appeals.

After months of engaging in the grievance process, our plucky members remained of the belief that they were being paid less than the Minimum Wage so, supported by local PCS reps, they decided to take the matter to an Employment Tribunal.

The Employment Tribunal

Finally, after years of letters getting increasingly longer, grievances and appeals, PCS members (the Claimants) met DBS (the Respondent) in the Tribunal. For two days last week, the members fought against the employer for your right to be paid at least the legal minimum.

From the Claimants, the Judge was presented with witness statements from the members, and the Branch Chair, and from the Respondent a witness statement from one DBS Expert. A bundle of around 1000 pages was also shared with the Judge.

None of us ever want to be in an Employment Tribunal, even those of us who like to engage in healthy debate would rather not face the employer’s barrister hinting that we are unreasonable people just because we take an interest in our pay, but the members faced the challenge robustly and with determination.

We had hoped, that after three long years of arguing and presenting evidence, that we’d now be in a position to tell you the outcome of last week’s Tribunal. However, having heard the evidence and looked at the hefty bundle the Judge explained that he didn’t think the case was as simple as the Respondent had suggested, and given that the issue had been unresolved for a significant period of time, he was going to have to give it some in-depth consideration. As such, we will not get a conclusion on the matter before the end of August, and potentially long after that.

Should the Judge agree with us and find that AOs have been paid less than Minimum Wage, we’d expect the AO members’ spot rate to increase as necessary to reflect this. Should the Judge agree with the employer and find that AO spot rate was at least Minimum Wage, we’d expect nothing to change.

We know that members will have many questions about the impacts of either outcome, but until we hear from the Judge, any answers would be mere speculation.

Whatever the outcome, your determination in not letting this issue rest and fighting for what you believe in, forced the employer to explain their position to a Judge. You showed that you were not prepared to go away quietly and accept a potentially unfair position. The employer knows that you will challenge them in the future, and you will take this challenge as far as necessary, no matter how long it takes.

Background

We know that we’d normally offer a full explanation at the start of a briefing, but given how patient members have been while waiting for a resolution on this matter, now we are finally able to share news, we didn’t want to have to make people wade through a quagmire of frustration to reach that news.

Feel free to continue reading if you want more information.

42 Hours

The employer has been clear that all DBS contracts, including those issued by ISA and CRB are 42 hours gross, 37 hours net, with 5 hours of breaks included in the working week. PCS agrees with this position.

PCS believes that even if 5 hours of breaks are not taken, that they are paid, leading to annual salary being calculated on a 42 hour week. DBS disagrees with this position.

If we look at pre-Metis payslips, they show that conditioned hours (the hours in your terms and conditions) are 42 gross, and that FTE salary is 42 hours. In addition, overtime, which is paid on a “time” basis (double time, time and a half + premium) was paid on a 42-hour week until earlier this year when the employer imposed a new rate based on 37 hours.

If salary is, as we think, calculated on the basis of 42 hours, the AO spot rate has been dropping below minimum wage part way through the year. If salary is calculated on 37 hours as stated by the employer, then the spot rate does not drop below minimum wage.

April 2023

On 17 November 2022, Jeremy Hunt, Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that from April 2023, National Living Wage was going to increase to £10.42 an hour for anyone aged over 21 years old. Given PCS are firmly of the view that DBS salary is paid on a 42-hour basis, we wrote to the employer with our expectation that the AO spot rate would increase to at least £22,757 to avoid wages dropping below the legal minimum.

You’ll all be aware that this increase did not happen. As such, PCS believes that the AO spot rate dropped 13p an hour below the legal minimum.

April 2024

On 22 November 2023, Jeremy Hunt, Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that from April 2024, Minimum Wage was going to increase to £11.44 an hour. AO pay should have risen to at least £24,985 but this did not happen, and pay dropped 46p an hour under the legal minimum.

Why has it not been sorted?

PCS and DBS have been unable to resolve this issue, and as we have been unable to reach an agreed position, we needed someone to arbitrate on the matter. Members suggested ACAS could arbitrate but DBS did not agree. As such, the only route left was an Employment Tribunal. Once we have that tribunal decision, we’ll know how many hours pay can be calculated over, and when, or if, salary is dropping below minimum wage.

Finally

We know that you’ve been frustrated at the lack of news on this matter, and we’ve been frustrated that we haven’t been able to communicate with you about it. Your patience has made what has been a stressful time much easier by trusting us to get on with it, and for that we are truly grateful.

In solidarity,

PCS DBS Branch Executive Committee

Date: 23rd May 2025

Ref: DBS/MB/07/25

Sign on the dotted line…

Summary: DBS/MB/05/25 outlined that the employer refused to negotiate with PCS over plans to offer remote and hybrid contracts. We were (briefly) consulted and we gained some reassurances.

Can you touch your toes?

From shatterproof rulers and hotel cancelation policies to elastic bands and pizza, flexibility plays an important role in life, and given that we spend the majority of that life at work, the opportunity to work flexibly is incredibly important.

The Employment Rights Act 1996, gave employees a statutory right to request flexible working, this was a change to the previous legislation which only applied to parents of children aged under 17/18 depending on their circumstances.

Various changes have been made to the legislation over time, and the most recent changes to the legislation came into play in April 2024. These changes meant that employees could make a statutory working request from the first day of their employment (and not have to have a qualifying period of employment), that two requests instead of one, could be made each year, there was no requirement to explain how the arrangements would work, and that employers needed to make a decision on the request (including any appeal) within two months.

Of course, DBS has had to comply with the legislation, and many members have made requests to work flexibly. We expect most line managers are very familiar with the process, and while it is not unheard of for a request to be refused, the matter rarely becomes contentious.

Location, Location, Location

The employer is now using the flexible working legislation to allow members to apply to change not only their working hours, and working pattern but also their work location.

This means that members can change, or vary, their contract, to have a ‘remote’ or ‘hybrid’ location. A change in work location is not available to any members who are Geographical Workers.

A remote contract means that members will be working from home (or another UK address) for the majority of their time. Members are limited to 25 office visits per year, with attendance capped at 12 visits for the same purpose (e.g. a team meeting).

A hybrid contract means that members will be working from home (or another UK address) and Stephenson House or Shannon Court. The employer has been very clear that the guidance does not impose a minimum attendance in terms of days required in the office, and this option is not intended to be stringent in relation to attendance.

With any option, you must attend the office, or another location if there is a ‘business need’ for you to do so.

If you want your contractual work location to be ‘remote’ or ‘hybrid’, you need to submit a flexible working request.

(Don’t) Just say No

The employer must meet with you formally before they refuse a flexible working request. As with all formal meetings, we would strongly suggest that you ensure you have PCS representation at the meeting.

The employer can only refuse to agree a flexible working request for the following reasons:

extra costs that will damage DBS
the work cannot be reorganised among other staff
people cannot be recruited to do the work
flexible working will have a negative impact on quality
flexible working will have a negative impact on performance
DBS will not be able to meet customer demand
there’s a lack of work to do during the proposed working times
DBS is planning changes to the workforce

We have already provided the employer with an estimate of how many meetings in relation to flexible working requests that we are likely to be able to attend each week, but we expect that refusal will be the exception rather than the norm.

I can’t stand this indecision

We know that some members are looking forward to submitting a request for flexible working, others have decided that they don’t want to, and some are still deciding.

PCS members are, of course, free to apply for a remote or hybrid contract, or not apply at all. Only you know what will work best for you.

You might want to consider the following points before making your request:

The employer cannot force you to sign a new contract.

The employer cannot change your terms and conditions, including your work location without your agreement, unless changes are agreed through collective bargaining with PCS.

For the avoidance of any doubt, PCS has not agreed to any changes to your terms and conditions in relation to when, where or how you work, and we would never do this without talking to you and securing some compensation where required. Put simply, if there had been a collective agreement to change any of your contractual terms and conditions, you would know about it.

If you do want to change your contractual work location, you will be asked to sign a letter to agree to your contract being varied and if you are happy, you should sign.

If you do not want to change your contractual work location, you do not have to do anything, there is nothing to agree, and nothing to sign.

Members who do not want to change their contractual work location should not be placed at detriment.

If you do not want to change your contractual work location, you don’t have to.

We know that some members have been told that even if they currently work remotely, that they will have to attend the office 4/5 days a week if they don’t apply for a hybrid or remote contract. PCS believes this is not the employer’s official position and it is not reflected in any of the guidance documents available.

Members who attended SLT Q&A on 30 April 2025, will have heard CEO Eric Robinson, state in relation to contractual changes that: “there's no change if you don't apply for something different.”

Further, as recently as today, 23 May 2025, the OneDBS Roundup provided confirmation that for those who do not submit a flexible working request, local, ad-hoc flexibility will continue where operationally appropriate.

PCS has no reason to believe that the employer would remove the current flexible working arrangements which are in place unless there was a business need to do so. We would expect if the removal of the current ad-hoc flexibility ever needed to happen, this would be made clear to you, and would have been negotiated with PCS.

You will not be refused a change to your work location on the basis that it will have a negative impact on your quality or performance, unless you are already aware of a quality or performance concern.

While a flexible working request can be refused on the grounds that it will have a negative impact on quality or performance, PCS has been clear to the employer that we do not expect that a flexible working request refusal would be the first time a member is made aware of any concerns about performance or quality.

An initial request to move to a hybrid or remote contract will not be counted towards the two statutory requests you can make each year.

If you are on a temporary promotion arrangement, both the substantive and temporary promotion applications will be disregarded.

If you have a remote contract and you need to attend the office for personal reasons, you will not be refused.

We know that there are times when members may not be able to work safely at home. No matter where you are working from, the employer still has a duty of care. The employer has reassured us, and PCS has no doubt that, should you need to attend the office, you will not be refused. If you ever feel that you may need this support, please remember that PCS will always be available to listen, offer advice or help you talk to the employer.

What next?

Once members start making flexible working requests, we expect we’ll be able to identify any negative, or positive trends and we will act accordingly.

Please let us know if you need any support with making a request and ensure you take a rep into any formal meeting.

One last thing

The members reading this briefing are not really the target audience for this, but as stated in DBS/MB/05/25; PCS will reiterate that any new PCS members, who were employed by DBS, or anywhere in the Civil Service before 2020, will be given branch assistance when issues have come to light after the date of joining.

In solidarity,

PCS DBS Branch Executive Committee

Date: 16th April 2025

Ref: DBS/MB/06/25

ELECTION TIME

Summary: PCS NEC ballot papers start to arrive from today with the GEC election to follow. The Branch Executive Committee encourages you to use your vote.

May the 9th be with you

As a union, PCS prides itself on being member-led, which means that members are given the opportunity to influence PCS policy and elect everyone from your local branch executive committee members up to and including the general secretary.

PCS elects its executive committees on an annual basis and as a member you will have the chance to vote for both the PCS Home Office Group Executive Committee (GEC) and the National Executive Committee (NEC).

This year the NEC election period will run from today, Wednesday 16 April until Friday 9 May.

The NEC is the main governing body of the union and is responsible for actioning motions passed at PCS Annual Delegate Conference. The NEC’s make decisions on a range of issues affecting members, including the union’s national demands and the introduction of levies.

The NEC elections are conducted by postal ballot, so keep an eye on your letter box. If you receive any letters with the PCS logo on them, they are almost certainly ballot materials.

Last year the turnout for the NEC elections was 8.6%, meaning only one in twelve members participated in the elections. You don’t have to be a Gallup pollster to realise that this figure is despiritingly low for a union that prides itself on being member-led. Given how important the work of the NEC is, we are strongly encouraging all members of our branch to use their vote this year.

While 13 May seems far away, it will roll around very quickly, so members are advised to vote as soon as they receive their ballot paper.

Following from this, the GEC elections will run from Thursday 24 April until Tuesday 13 May.

The GEC represents all members in the Home Office group, including DBS, HMPO, Border Force and others. Over the years the GEC has supported our branch when we have reached an impasse with the employer and needed a route of escalation.

The GEC elections will be held digitally and you will be sent your ballot via email.

Who to vote for?

As a PCS member you are free to vote for whoever your preferred candidates are in both elections, however it can be daunting placing a vote for a someone that you don’t know much about. The following suggestions may help you decide who to vote for:

1. Branch slate

Members who attended the branch AGM in February will recall that a vote was held to nominate candidates for both the GEC and NEC elections. Branch members put forward a slate of candidates who they believe most closely share the priorities of the DBS PCS membership. Both the NEC and the GEC slates are included as attachments (DBS/MB/06a/25 and DBS/MB/06b/25). As the slates agreed at AGM, the Branch Executive Committee recommends voting for these candidates.

2. Election addresses

When you receive your ballot papers you will also be given an election address for each candidate which will tell you what their priorities are and why they believe you should vote for them. They may also recommend that you vote for other candidates who share their views.

3. Key policies

Some candidates belong to different factions in PCS. While these factions have much in common (we’re all trade unionists after all) they have different views on some key PCS policies. You may find supporters of these factions leafleting outside the office during the election period. Key differences in PCS policy are likely to be highlighted in election addresses as well as factional literature.

Go back to your constituencies and prepare for government

If the message wasn’t clear enough, we strongly, strongly, strongly recommend that you use your vote in the forthcoming elections. The outcome of these elections will have a significant impact on the year ahead for PCS so please do make sure you add your voice to the chorus.

Most importantly – tell your family members not to throw any post with the PCS logo in the bin!

In solidarity,

PCS DBS Branch Executive Committee

Date: 11th April 2025

Ref: DBS/MB/05/25

Employer says “no” – and keeps repeating it

“Consultation and Contracts and Conference – Oh My!”

Summary: Reps are stuck in an eternal loop of frustration, and, more importantly your views are being disregarded. We explain why.

We’re not scared

DBS is facing a busy 2025, and of course, this means that your reps will inevitably end up in past midnight WhatsApp chats, and the hair dye aisle of Asda/The Asda depending on which side of the Pennines you use for your shopping.

This month, despite being only eleven days in, we have a few things that we’d like to tell you, but don’t have enough information to do so. There are so many things happening currently that this MB runs to five pages, so you may want to make yourself a drink before reading further.

Oh-oh – changes to contractual work location. We can’t go over it, we can’t go under it, we’ll have to go through it.

Most members will have heard the employer talking about their intention to offer home working contracts. We know members have a significant amount of interest, and also concern in relation to this.

Section 178(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, sets out the matters on which an employer must negotiate with the Trade Union. The terms and conditions of employment, or the physical conditions in which any workers are required to work are examples of these matters.

Not everyone in DBS has a copy of their contract to hand, but your place of work, either Shannon Court or Stephenson House should be documented as your work location. The employer has been clear that, as you would expect, your location or place of work forms part of your terms and conditions. They have also been clear that to change your work location, you will have to submit a formal flexible working request.

As such, all the evidence points towards the legislative need for DBS to negotiate with PCS, your elected representatives, on matters of your contract.

DBS however, says, “no” to negotiation.

The employer did agree to consult with PCS on the changes, however this ended well before we reached an understanding of what was happening, let alone agreement on any changes.

We were able to confirm, however that a remote contract may not be suited to all roles. When we asked DBS to be more specific and provide a list of which roles were suitable for remote working, they declined, stating that the decision on remote working, which will only be agreed if the job role is suitable, will take individual circumstances into account.

We’ve been struggling to understand the logic behind much of this, even going so far as to ask the Home Office Group President to attend the single meeting that was held, in the hope that he could grasp the concept, and then explain it to Branch Reps, preferably in rhyming couplets, pictures or interpretive dance, but this was of limited help.

Oh-oh – The Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023, and Section 80F of the Employment Rights Act 1996. We can’t go over it, we can’t go under it, we’ll have to go through it.

Despite being unsure of what exactly DBS is planning, we do know what the legislation says in relation to flexible working requests. The key points are as follows:

all decisions on a flexible working request must be made within 2 months
you do not have to give the employer the reason for your request
there is no longer a requirement on an employee to explain the effect of their request on the employer and how that might be dealt with
the employer must meet with you (and your PCS rep) before the request is refused.

In addition, flexible working requests can only be refused for the following very limited reasons:

extra costs that will damage the DBS
the work cannot be reorganised among other staff
people cannot be recruited to do the work
flexible working will affect quality
flexible working will affect performance
DBS will not be able to meet customer demand
there’s a lack of work to do during the proposed working times
DBS is planning changes to the workforce.

In theory this should prevent your choice of contract being refused on spurious grounds or the whims of local management, but PCS remains unconvinced that this will be borne out in practice.

It seems the employer would prefer to steamroll ahead with these new contracts to meet an arbitrary deadline, rather than engage PCS in meaningful negotiations that would tease out any detrimental impacts that their proposals could have, so that these risks to you could then be mitigated.

We were planning on meeting members to gather your views, comments or concerns about any contractual changes, but we simply don’t have enough information to be able to have a meaningful conversation at this point.

No doubt members will find out the full details before PCS does, and then we can meet and you can explain the changes to us, get your rhyming dictionaries ready.

Once again, we find ourselves in a position where the employer has proposed something potentially beneficial for staff but the way in which they’re going about it could have detrimental effects in the long run. All we’ve asked is for more time to discuss this properly and with due deference to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

Oh-oh – DBS all-staff ‘conference’ in May. We can’t go over it, we can’t go under it, we’ll have to go through it.

It may seem odd to include a subsection on the annual DBS all-staff ‘conference’ in an MB about contract changes, but the employer decided to link the two issues when we raised concerns about mandatory attendance earlier this week (suggesting that staff who don’t wish to attend an all-staff ‘conference’ should consider if the as-of-yet unavailable remote working contract is for them, whilst also stating that those on remote working contracts will still be required to attend staff conferences).

Members with long memories will recall that last year PCS issued a survey on members’ views of the DBS staff conference. While many members do see value in attending staff conference, a significant proportion of you indicated that you would choose not to attend if given the choice or would prefer that the conference was hybrid. We reflected this feedback to the employer last year, but no changes were made to DBS staff conference 2024.

The employer does seem to have taken some of your feedback into account this year, particularly around the need to accommodate staff with disabilities and health conditions, and the need to specify whether the meeting is indeed mandatory rather than skirting the issue with vague language like “attendance is expected.”

Unfortunately, the employer’s decision in this area will offer little comfort to those who don’t want to, or can’t, attend the ‘conference’ for one reason or another. We asked the employer to confirm whether staff who don’t attend without prior agreement with line management will be subject to the DBS Disciplinary process, as this isn’t clear in the DBS comms. The employer hasn’t ruled this out, stating that disciplinary action “is an option open for line managers based on their member of staff’s individual circumstances.” It would be wrong however, not to share the employer’s view that it would be disproportionate for PCS to warn members that you could be disciplined for not attending because the all-staff ‘conference’ is about “celebrating the success of DBS of which all staff have played a part in.” So, on that basis, maybe we can be reassured that it’s your party and you can cry if you want to.

Unfortunately, for those members who would like to attend but can’t, the employer will not let you join in the celebrations remotely.

Oh-oh – Lots of new members. We can’t go over it, we can’t go under it, we’ll have to go through it.

You have the legal right to join a trade union at any time. Many of you will know that other unions, and many other PCS Branches, will only provide assistance to members when issues have come to light after the date of joining. This makes sense because it stops current members being placed at detriment by the Branch running low on capacity and, members who join in this way often cancel their subscription after using a rep’s time and energy to get what they want.

Our branch has not previously felt the need to put this restriction in place, and it worked quite well when we are all in the office, with potential new members often making the polite decision to speak to reps before they joined to check that they could be represented.

Our Branch is reluctant to place any restrictions on representation and we don’t want anyone to suffer a detriment. After an influx of new members joining because they already had a problem, and were needing immediate assistance when halfway through a dog-eared case (it is much easier to give better representation when PCS are involved from the very start), we are going to place

some limits on representation. If we don’t do this, the members who have been paying subs, and not using branch reps as roadside assistance, may begin to suffer. Reps will also suffer, because no one wants to do a bad job. We know that some members will not like this approach, and Branch Officers have not taken the decision lightly, and we’ve tried to make it as fair as possible.

If you’ve read this far, you’ll be able to anticipate how busy your reps are likely to be if the employer starts refusing requested contract changes.

We know that, especially during Covid, we didn’t attend as many inductions as we would have liked, and as such, colleagues who joined DBS from 2020, and who were not previously working in the Civil Service, may not be aware of the union (despite the employer mentioning us in comms).

Considering the above, any new PCS members, who were employed by DBS, or anywhere in the Civil Service before 2020, will be given branch assistance when issues have come to light after the date of joining.

We are not placing any other time limits on members, if everything is rosy when they click that join button and 3 days later, they are accused of gross misconduct, we’ll be there (assuming that the allegation was unforeseen).

There is a caveat to this, at least for now, if a potential new member contacts the Branch, either through a rep, or via the inbox, and tells us what’s going on and what help they need before they join, then the branch will try to find them representation once they have joined. All we are really asking for is a bit of notice and a bit of understanding that no one has 100% facility time, all reps

are already dealing with multiple personal cases, and we have not yet learnt how to add extra hours into the day, or clone ourselves (very remiss on our part, we agree).

So, a plea, if you know someone who is likely to join PCS only if they need us, or you can see the way something is heading, please give them a shout and tell them to talk to us while there is still time for us to help.

Into bed. Under the covers.

That’s it, enough to consider for now. As always, you know where we are if you need us.

In solidarity,

PCS DBS Branch Executive Committee

Date: 20th February 2025

Ref: DBS/MB/03/25

PCS DBS Branch Annual General Meeting 2025

Summary: Details of the DBS Branch Annual General Meeting 2025. Call for motions and nominations for BEC and non-BEC positions for 2025

In accordance with its Constitution and to meet the requirements of the timetable for the PCS Home Office Group and National conferences, the PCS DBS Branch AGMs will be held on:

Friday 28 February 2025 at 12:00 – 13:00 and 18:00 – 19:00

Purpose of Branch AGM

The AGM gives all PCS members the chance to:

Establish union policy and practices for the coming year by submitting motions to the AGM for discussion and debate
Elect your Representatives to the Branch Executive Committee and make nominations for the Group and National Executive Committees
Elect Delegates to your annual Group and National Conferences

a. Motions

Once submitted, the BEC will put them into the following categories:

Branch

These are motions concerned solely with DBS-related issues. These will be debated at the Branch AGM and, if passed by members attending, will become DBS Branch Policy.

Group

National

i) Assistance for members in drafting motions

If you have an idea for a motion but don’t know how to go about drafting it, please feel free to get in touch with Jordan David for advice and assistance.

ii) Deadline for submission of motions

The deadline for receipt of motions is 3pm on 27 February 2025. Any motions received after this will only be accepted for ‘emergency’ issues which could not have been foreseen before the deadline.

Motions should be submitted using the attached annex (DBS/MB/03b/25) and sent by email to dbspcs1@dbs.gov.uk.

b. Elections and Nominations

In addition to motions for the AGM, PCS DBS Branch members are invited to submit nominations for Branch, Group and National positions.

The positions on the DBS Branch Executive Committee (BEC) for the coming year are:

Branch Chair
Branch Secretary
Vice Chair
Organiser
Assistant Secretary
Treasurer
Ordinary BEC Member

In addition to the BEC positions, nominations are also sought for the following non-BEC roles:

Branch Women’s Advisory Committee (x6)
Union Learning Reps (x4 Liverpool, x2 Darlington)
Health and Safety Reps (x4 Liverpool, x2 Darlington)
Branch Auditors (x2 Liverpool, x2 Darlington)

Nomination forms (DBS/MB/03a/25) and a brief description of the duties for each post (DBS/MB/03b/25) for the Branch positions are attached with this briefing. Nomination forms for the Group and National positions, which list the posts up for election, are also attached (DBS/MB/03d/25 and DBS/MB/03e/25 respectively).

c. Conference Delegates

As part of the call for nominations to branch positions, nominations are also sought for the DBS branch delegation to PCS Home Office Group and PCS National Conference as follows:

Delegates to PCS Home Office Group Conference.

Home Office Group Conference takes place 19th to 20th May 2025 (3 places)

Delegates to PCS Annual Delegate Conference

The ADC takes place 20th May to 22nd May 2025 (3 places)

The deadline for receipt of nominations is 3pm on 27 February 2025.

Any nominations received after this deadline will not be accepted. Please send your nominations to: dbspcs1@dbs.gov.uk.

Given all that is happening within the DBS and at a national level, there has never been a more important time to get active in the union.

Please help to shape and inform PCS policies and actions for the coming year by submitting motions to the AGM.

In solidarity,

PCS DBS Branch Executive Committee

Date: 20th January 2025

Ref: DBS/MB/02/25

Members’ Pay Meetings

Summary: The 2024/2025 pay offer will be imposed on members. This is your chance to meet with us and share how you feel about the pay offer.

How Much?

Members will be aware that the Civil Service Pay Remit 2024/2025 allowed the employer to spend up to 5% of their pay bill on the 2024/2025 award.

You will have seen a communication from the employer informing you of their intention to spend 5% available to fund:

6% consolidated increase for AO making a spot rate of £25,419
Between 9.1% and 3% increases for EO – Grade 6
An extra day annual leave for colleagues with one year’s service
More than 13% increase to your contractual overtime rate
More than 13% increase to your contractual Higher Responsibility Allowance

What Next?

We want to meet with members to discuss your views on the pay award.

You can meet with us online only on 23 January (12 noon or 6.30pm) or 29 January (12 noon). In person meetings in Shannon Court are on 28 January (12.30pm or 6.30pm).

You only need to attend one meeting and you do not have use your flexi.

The links for the online meetings are in this email.

In solidarity,

PCS DBS Branch Executive Committee

Date: 2nd January 2025

Ref: DBS/MB/01/25

AND so '24 becomes '25

Summary: The 2024/2025 pay talks continue. PCS will share news with you whenever we can.

What’s the story?

Anyone who has worked in the DBS, or any Civil Service department for more than 12 months will be very well aware of the Civil Service Pay Remit, and that no pay talks can even begin until after the Remit for the year is published.

You might be one of the people who has all the past Remits printed out and stacked next to the bed, one of the people in WhatsApp groups which explode when the Remit drops, one of the people who just takes a casual look a couple of days after it is published, or someone in between.

Regardless of how invested you are in the Pay Remits; you will undoubtedly know (even if just because you read DBS/MB/15/24) that the Remit this year wasn’t published until the end of July.

And?

Pay for 2024/2025 is not yet settled. PCS and DBS are bound by the Pay Negotiations Framework which means that we are bound by confidentiality until a final offer is issued.

This means that only updates that PCS and DBS can share are in relation to:

“The process – e.g. the fact that the negotiations have commenced; the likely length of the process; the fact that negotiations have broken down (if this should happen).”

Of course, PCS can also share our own pay claims and priorities with you.

We know that some members find it frustrating when you don’t hear much from us in relation to pay, but in

reality, it is because there just isn’t much to say most of the time. If there was any juicy gossip (there never is) we couldn’t tell you anyway. You need to be able to trust your representatives, and as such, we refrain as much as possible from speculating about timescales, especially when money is involved.

When will we get our money?

The short and honest answer is, we don’t know. There are too many variables for PCS to feel confident in providing you with a date. We can be confident however, that we will endeavour to negotiate on the best deal we possibly can. We are also confident that we will not cut corners at the risk of consolidated pay awards, just for speed. Time is money.

Although to some newer colleagues, it might feel like these pay talks have taken an eternity, in reality, we are in a similar position to usual.

We’ve drawn a handy reference table which shows that on average, it takes eight months between the publication of the Pay Remit and the award being paid. Averages, however, are just that, and as much as we might like to use averages to predict the future, if they worked like that, we’d have won the lottery by now.

Of course, there is no doubt that due to two awards being made in 2023, it feels like a very long gap between now and October 2023. While our wages feel frozen, bills certainly have not been.

What Next?

As always, we will keep you updated as much as we can.

In solidarity,

PCS DBS Branch Executive Committee

PS – Happy New Year

Google Sites

Report abuse