PCS Members in DE&S and SDA

DE&S and SDA announced the outcome of their reward review this week. This came about because of years of hard work that PCS and the other trade unions put in to change their pay and reward system, although you wouldn’t know it from the announcement. PCS has consistently opposed the divisive pay and reward principles of DE&S and SDA for over five years, particularly their over-reliance on the use of performance for determining pay progression.

We have at last brought them to recognise the reason why their salaries are so uncompetitive with both MOD and the wider market is because of this obsession. Both organisations have now recognised that their existing approach to pay is not fit for purpose and has worsened the very problems it was brought in to fix.

The new proposals seek to achieve:

• Grade minimums aligned to MOD main

• A pay uplift for all staff below the new mins

• A transparent pay system, where everyone understands how their pay will progress

• A future progression system based on skills, knowledge and experience

• Opportunity to increase pay in grade without need for promotion

As a result, we are satisfied that the reward review offer is the best available via negotiation. We will therefore be proceeding to a ballot of all our DE&S and SDA members, with a recommendation to accept the offer.

This offer is separate to the pay award in 2022, which is still under negotiation.

We will let you know when the ballot commences, so please watch out for further communications. Your branch may also be holding a meeting to discuss the offer. If you want to vote in this ballot, please make sure your details are up to date

Only Union members get a vote. Join PCS here

Justin Thomas

PCS DSG Group Secretary

Contact via DSG@pcs.org.uk

DBS – the Work Place Programme (WPP) and the Defence Secretary Speech

PCS members in Defence Business Services (DBS) saw Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace include DBS in his party-political speech to the Conservative Spring conference at the weekend. His announcement that DBS will be moving to Blackpool was premature and unhelpful for two reasons; the negotiations about any potential move are not concluded with PCS yet and the business case for such a move has not been fully submitted.

The Conference Speech

Mr Wallace stated "I can announce today that the new home of the Defence Business Services... ...will be based right here in Blackpool". Members were rightly concerned as were your group officials who took immediate action by contacting DBS’ Senior Responsible Officer for the Workplace Programme on the weekend to require urgent discussions to be held with DBS CEO, Richard Cornish, on Monday. PCS met the CEO and Mr. Cornish also wrote to all staff to say that the speech did not extend the scope of the WPP beyond the Northwest and that this project was still subject to a full business case.

PCS appreciates the speed at which DBS responded to our call for dialogue, the constructive and open nature of it and that this is the DBS understanding of the current position, but the Defence Secretary did not offer these nuances. Again, speeches in Conferences can be generalised and designed to score political points. PCS call on the Minister to publicly qualify his statement and will be asking the PCS cross-party Parliamentary Group to make such a call within the political machinery.

As the situation stands the Defence Secretary has confirmed a decision to consolidate DBS into Blackpool in advance of the completion of the full business case and without the appropriate steps with PCS to Trade Union consultation and engagement as laid out in the MOD Employee Relations Framework Agreement.

Assurances

PCS tabled a set of demands about assurances in March 2021 to ensure members got the best outcomes from the Workplace Programme (WPP). These were tabled when DBS announced that, no matter the outcome of the WPP, Cheadle Hulme would close. Since then, DBS has announced that the preferred option is to consolidate Northwest accommodation at the proposed Government hub in Blackpool. There have been long and detailed discussions with the Project team on your behalf and we are pleased to announce that we have achieved most of the assurances we sought – including importantly the agreement that this would be treated as a non-standard move for all staff. This means that administrative grades and part-time staff will access all mover and fares packages that your union negotiate for you. There will be no unagreed redundancies.

We will send the full transcript of the agreement to members once the paperwork is finalised.

Unfortunately, there was no agreement over those contractual mobility clauses yet – PCS continues to seek the assurance that mobility clauses in contracts will not be triggered by DBS. We will keep working for you on this final key point. To be clear, DBS have not triggered mobility, but have reserved the right to do so. PCS believe DBS must give us the assurance that mobility clauses will not be used to force our members to commute unfair unreasonable distances. We have pointed out that extant case law shows the civil service mobility clause to be discriminatory and to now contravene the 2010 Equality Act

It is disappointing that DBS would not offer this assurance and PCS do not accept the position, so have given notice that we will dispute this via the established Whitley system. We will look to set up ‘mobility waiver surgeries’ at impacted sites once a final decision has been made on the WPP and we will challenge triggering of mobility legally.

What Can Members Do?

• Bring any concerns to PCS. Contact your local reps, the DBS Team or myself.

• Ensure your details are up to date on PCS Digital and include your home/personal email address and mobile phone number.

• Everyone needs a Union at times like these. If you work with anyone who is not a PCS member encourage them to join PCS

• Become a PCS Rep for your workplace and get involved in the Trade Union, all training and support is given.

• When we run the ‘mobility waiver’ surgeries (date to be announced) make sure you come along.

• Ask your MP to add their voice to that of the MPs in the PCS cross-party Parliamentary Group about the Defence Secretary’s speech Ask that the Minister qualifies the scope of DBS that will be looked at and to confirm his commitment to the correct business case process.

Justin Thomas

PCS DSG Group Secretary

Contact via DSG@pcs.org.uk

OMEC the new contract in the MoD Guard Service

Taken from Defender - Issue 1/21 (October 2021)

The trade unions have opposed OMEC from the outset, we continue to do so. We see it as an immoral, shameful attempt by MOD to exploit the Covid situation.

PCS is confident that OMEC will be scrapped as recruitment and retention rates fall off the proverbial cliff. Although PCS worked hard for two years to oppose OMEC as it only affected "new employees" it could not be stopped. But OMEC would also affect any existing shift workers seeking promotion (very few do now) and anyone who relocates to a different MGS unit-unless it is caused by unavoidable circumstances such as a site closure e.g., Stirling, which is due to close very shortly. There is also the impact from rostering on all the staff as MGS struggle to make OMEC work.

One of the only concessions we were able to get from them is that all existing permanent employees who were in place prior to OMEC being imposed will be exempted and allowed to move into shift working positions on "legacy" Terms and Conditions. PCS argued that those staff would simply be changing their working patterns and should not be considered "new" employees. PCS also insisted on getting that commitment in writing, offering some protection for our non-shift working members at larger sites such as the Clyde and Abbey Wood. If permanent shift work becomes available (albeit it must be at the same location) then they will not be subjected to the dreadful 48 hour a week, flat rate OMEC terms.

This is of little comfort to Fixed Term Appointment employees such as yourself and I honestly do not know if such scenarios have even been discussed at national TU engagement level (I have not been involved in those discussions for a couple of years now), but I will certainly make some enquiries and will get back to you as soon I can find out.

In years gone by, I would have said - with a degree of optimism- that we could have appealed to MGS Head Office's sense of justice and urged them to take into consideration the fact that the efforts of you and your colleagues will, without doubt, have been the main reason for them securing the new business at Lossiemouth on a permanent basis. Unfortunately, everything to do with OMEC has an air of mean-spiritedness about it and there is something of an entrenched attitude. PCS needs reps in MGS at all our sites, we need you to contact us with your issues on OMEC and we need to get organised to recruit new and existing guards into our union, so we are in a strong position to fight off OMEC.

PCS response to DE&S and SDA Pay Offer

The pay system is divisive, discriminatory and damaging; it is a 3D assault on your pay. DE&S and SDA management have issued a statement about your pay for 2021. PCS has taken part in the pay talks this year with the DE&S and SDA pay team, along with the other trade unions. 

We do not feel that there have been meaningful negotiations on pay and we are disappointed that the progress we made in 2019 and 2020 has not been reflected in this year's pay settlement. In those years there was a considerable effort to make the pay system fairer and reduce the influence of performance on the consolidated outcomes. Now we are right back to the bad old days of 2018. There has been an absolute return to the notion that performance related pay is the only show in town, when we all know that this is unfair. The pay system is divisive, discriminatory and damaging; it is a 3D assault on your pay. 

Performance-related pay divides staff and sets person against person. It has discriminatory outcomes for women; carers; black, Asian and minority ethnic staff; part time staff; younger and older workers and people with disabilities. People in these groups have been shown over the last 5 years to have outcomes significantly below the averages for DE&S and SDA staff, with a greater percentage of staff with protected characteristics in the bottom two performance categories than compared to the numbers working for DE&S and SDA.

DE&S and SDA management have made it abundantly clear that they are completely wedded to this system on what we can only assume to be ideological grounds; presumably with an acceptance of the inherent unfairness that goes along with such pay systems. This, we believe, is not a good look for a government organisation. PCS rejects the notion that there should be a pay freeze for the public sector. There is money available, and it should be used to properly reward hard-working staff that have done their jobs all through the crisis. Instead, the government has allowed DE&S and SDA to offer a consolidated and pensionable increase of £250, but only for those earning less than £24,000 (with arrangements to protect those earning up to £24,249 from being overtaken). All other money is to be distributed as a non-consolidated and non-pensionable payment, but only to those with a box 3 or above performance rating.

DE&S and SDA have made available £12.54 million and £3.15m respectively from their operating cost budgets to fund these ‘bonus’ payments. This equates to 2.8% of the DE&S pay bill and 3.2% of the SDA pay bill. The DE&S figure is significantly lower, as DE&S rebased their OGSM targets last year making them significantly ‘more challenging’ to achieve, with a resulting reduction in ‘bonus’ payments this year. Although those who receive a ‘bonus’ will welcome it, the reality is that this takes staff no closer to their pay benchmark and adds no value to their pension pot. And although both organisations have invested significant sums into pay this year, their salary levels (and particularly their band minima) will fall still further behind both the MOD and private sector competitors.

PCS will be putting this offer to our group executive committee next week, with a recommendation to reject the offer out of hand. With inflation rising (CPI 1.6%, RPI 2.9%) and household bills taking off, it does not meet our pay expectations and is still discriminatory, divisive and damaging to all.

What you can do

• Keep your contact details up to date

• Look out for emails about the pay campaign and share them

• Attend pay meetings when they are called

• Invite your colleagues to join PCS and attend any open meetings

• Check the PCS website for updates and latest news

• Become a workplace rep or activist for PCS

We have been holding meetings on pay across the union and will do so to discuss these pay offers for affected branches. If you would like to take part in a meeting, contact dsg@pcs.org.uk.

6 May 2021

Pay 2020 - DE&S

Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) have held pay talks with the unions and today issued the best and final offer, this will be put to your Group Executive Committee on Wednesday. After that there will be a decision by the National Disputes Committee (NDC) on whether or not to ballot on this offer, this is in accordance with the rule book and the NDC is comprised of Lay reps as well as Full time staff, the majority of which are elected by you.

This DE&S pay deal will offer 2.25% consolidated pay across the board plus non-con corporate bonus ranging between 6.6% and 3.5% from level 5 (B) to Level 1 (E).

This should deliver between 5.5% & 5.75% for all staff and there will be more for some. PCS continue to challenge the distribution of cash, which still offers those at the top of the shop an unfair slice of the pie; they are already rewarded with higher salaries for their knowledge and skill.

It should be noted that there is no individual performance element in DE&S and there is a pay rise for all staff including those who may have been forced into performance improvement. PCS have long argued and campaigned to shelve Performance Management and we will continue to do so. It is a pity that Covid 19 will take the credit for disposing of the discriminatory, divisive and detrimental system; PCS do not want to see it back.

Talks with UK Hydrographic office (UKHO) opened last week and in similar fashion PCS laid out what we expect based on the national pay claim, we have given the employer some ideas of areas in which we would like to see changes and stressed that we want to see something for everyone in these difficult times.

In general with all pay this year we are looking to get an above inflation rise for all staff, break the link between pay and individual performance, put as much

PCS has made four interim demands to help staff who are facing challenging times during the coronavirus pandemic, many of whom are key workers carrying out essential work.

They are:

• An immediate across-the-board, above-inflation pay increase for all staff

• A 2% reduction in pension contributions

• No changes to the civil service redundancy scheme

• A moratorium on office closures and redundancies.

The concession on redundancy pay meets one of those four demands. A meeting with the Cabinet Office took place on 18 May 2020, to discuss pay, pension contributions and office closures.

Your negotiators have raised the subject of pension contributions with all three employers, the decision rests with the government yet the employer needs to raise it with the cabinet office as we all keep the pressure up for pensions justice.

Pay in DE&S should set an example for all bargaining sectors in Defence. It has been a hard battle against the DE&S pay principles in the last four years, yet finally there is light at the end of the tunnel. That light needs to extend to all pay offers.

Justin Thomas - PCS Defence Support Group Secretary

2019 Pay Negotiations in Defence Equipment and Support and Submarine Delivery Agency concluded 

PCS members thumbs up (just) for pay in DE&S and SDA 

In a tight vote, PCS members have narrowly accepted a one year pay deal in Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) and the Submarine Delivery Agency (SDA). PCS balloted members on the pay offer to reflect the work that the union had done by our negotiating team over the last two years to shift the employer's stance on pay. PCS was able to recommend acceptance, because the offer was better than the previous two years; there was a reduction of the impact of PAR outcomes on consolidated pay and a fairer distribution of pay across all grades. The deal is by no means perfect but it does demonstrate enough movement towards the union’s position, so it was put to our membership. 

The pay offer represents a multi-layered approach from both organisations, seeking to get as many people toward the benchmark pay level for their job level as possible. PCS is resolutely opposed to benchmarks, yet the two-year struggle to get the employer to recognise the need to have elements of pay progression has been justified. Both employers have seen staff vote with their feet. PCS has worked with the rest of the trade union side to attempt to move DE&S pay in a fairer direction, with less of it tied rigidly to performance and more money being aimed at addressing the structural flaws in the system. This inherent unfairness will need to be addressed in further talks with management in the coming months. 

PCS is part of a Reward Review process through which we hope to achieve even more fairness and progression in the DE&S pay system. In this pay round we have been tackling the twin problems of the Performance Management system (and how it contributes to low pay), plus the significant discrimination inherent in the whole system. At the outset PCS's aim was a fairer distribution of the money and a genuine distribution of the performance without guiding or forcing. The offer we got is the best achievable through negotiations. 

DE&S and SDA changed their performance management approach this year 

They have done away with forced distribution, relative assessment and calibration. This was a significant victory for the unions:

•  Rating 1 – at least 2% to 3.9%, depending on gap to market

•  Ratings 2 & 3 – between 1.1% to 3.3%, based on both performance and gap to market 

•  Rating 4 – 1% 

•  Rating 5 – no salary increases. 

The simple place to start is with Grads and Apprentices as they get a flat raise of 2% across the board. There will be no salary increase for those rated 5, this box marked 5 group is far smaller this year. All the other employees will share the 2% of the pay bill, divided across Levels 1 to 5 on the basis of the performance outcomes. 

PCS has no desire to see anything like this in next year’s deal, PCS negotiators feel that with a better distribution curve this year we are in a much fairer place. This is all referring to consolidated pay. 

•  Box 4 marked members will get a minimum 1% of salary in DE&S and SDA.

•  In Box 1 you get 3.9% of salary for those who are the furthest from the market for their role. For example, an individual that receives a Rating 3 performance outcome, and is 12% below benchmark, will receive a percentage increase between 2.2% and 2.3%. 

•  The majority will receive a salary increase of 1% to 2% as DE&S claim that most are currently paid at or above the market benchmark. 

•  The next addition to pay (if in box 3 or above) is the 2018/19 achievement against OGSM measure you will need to refer to the table in the announcement for the percentages. 

PCS would have preferred a fairer percentage distribution 

This was the best achievable and is not consolidated pay. Then after all this is accounted for there is an additional consolidated award to address those employees whose salary is furthest from the market after the application of the main pay award. This additional award will be 0.5% of the pay bill in DE&S and 2% in SDA for example, in DE&S an individual whose salary is 12% below benchmark after the main pay award, will receive a percentage increase between 2.0% and 3.0%. In addition, staff whose salary is below the market benchmark for their role profile will receive a further consolidated increase for 2019 to move them closer to the rate for the job. For our members working for SDA, they will apply up to a further 2% of pay bill, amounting to £1.3m, this is specifically to address those whose salary is notably lower than their peers in the Defence Nuclear enterprise. Salaries of qualifying staff will be moved up to the acceleration point, which is at least 7.5% above SDA existing band minimums. In addition, 93% of staff (i.e. all those in boxes 3, 2 and 1) will receive a non-consolidated bonus for 2019 

The application of this award means hat 99% of DE&S and SDA staff will receive a consolidated pay increase of at least 1% in 2019, whilst those below their market benchmark, who are not box 5 performers, could receive additional consolidated increases of between: 

•  1% – 5% if they are box 4 performers

 •  3% – 7.9% if they are box 1 performers 

•  2% – 7.3% if they are box 2 and 3 performers (the vast majority of staff). 

In addition, all box 3, 2 and 1 performers will receive non-consolidated bonuses of between 2.1% and 13.4% of salary (2.3% and 14.6% in SDA) depending on level and box marking. This means a box 3 performer in DE&S, at their benchmark, would receive a consolidated increase of 2% and a non-consolidated bonus of between 2.1% and 6.7% of salary depending on their level (2.3% and 7.3% in SDA). 

The offer was cleared by the GEC as the best achievable through negotiation and then proceeded to a ballot of affected members with a recommendation to accept. By a slight majority that is what the membership agreed to. This is a pay position in both organisations that needs to be built on across the following years to ensure our members get the reward they require to match the effort they put it. The rest of the Whitehall should take note.

New PCS DE&S Performance Management Toolkit

Now available to assist DE&S Members, the DE&S Performance Management Toolkit (September 2018) is PCS guidance for members on how to grieve against the outcome of the Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) performance management system. 

PCS are encouraging all members to raise a grievance where procedures have not been complied with or where there are grounds to suggest that members have been discriminated against on the grounds of a protected characteristic.

See direct link here: PCS DE&S Performance Management Toolkit

Or see toolkits page here: PCS Members' Toolkits

Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) and Submarine Delivery Agency (SDA) 2018 pay offers received 

PCS Defence Sector group has received the pay offer from DE&S for 2018 and the GEC has rejected it.

The offer:

• Comes nowhere close to meeting the demands of our PCS 2018 pay claim

• Represents a further year of real terms pay cuts for a large proportion of our members, with inflation increasing (CPI 2.5%, RPI 3.2%) Plus:

• The rejection of our legitimate dispute of Performance Management which entirely underpins this divisive pay process.

• The judicial review launched by our union over the Treasury pay guidance.

Group president Chris Dando said

 “After the disappointment and surprise of last year's DE&S pay deal we have been clear with DE&S in talks since March, that we require a removal of the punishing Performance Management system. PM causes the injustice in the DE&S pay offer; coupled with the Pay Principles and below inflation increase in the pay bill, it is no wonder that DE&S staff are flocking to join PCS.”

The PCS campaign on pay continues; we call on PCS branches with DE&S members to hold meetings in all workplaces, to give us your feedback. We will be entering into early talks with DE&S over PM. We want to hear your views and discuss how we end PM once and for all.

Full details of the offer can be downloaded as a pdf.

DE&S Update - Performance Management

Chris Dando - PCS Defence Sector Group President and Justin Thomas - PCS Industrial Officer met with the new DE&S CEO Sir Simon Bolland on the 2 July 2018 as part of the Trade Union Side (TUS) delegation. The meeting was to discuss the dispute over performance management from last year's pay deal; it was necessary for the TUS to enter a formal dispute over the way our members had been disadvantaged by Performance management and related pay, especially as a result of discrimination inherent in the system. 

Sir Simon had already raised the point that Performance Management was taking up too much time and costing the organisation too much; he pledged in his town hall meeting to cut the process by 50%. That is a procedural change and not the complete scrapping the TUS is looking for. 

PCS can see no justification to maintain a scheme that is disruptive, divisive, expensive, discriminatory, demotivating, subjective and time consuming. Our message to the CEO is that there are better ways to do this; we urged Sir Simon to look at the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) model that has been really successful in changing the perception around performance. VOA do continual necessary small scale interventions and quarterly meetings, this is used to support staff and to identify the tiny percentage of people who are genuinely in need of performance improvement. These staff can then gain the help they need to improve and not be shocked at the close of the reporting year. VOA do not want the staff to fail, they do not want to look for an underclass in the workplace and they do want everyone to be good at what they do.

The TUS are still awaiting a response from the Permanent Under Secretary of State, Stephen Lovegrove regarding the dispute on performance management. However the best response from a PCS perspective is to join PCS, vote in the Pay Ballot and to get your colleagues to join and vote too!

Justin Thomas - PCS Industrial Officer

Performance Management Outcomes - Forced or Guided Distribution? (DE&S Members only)

PCS as part of the Trade Union side at DE&S have long raised concerns about the continued use of Performance Management (PM) and its use of a guided distribution scheme in order to decide members pay awards as part of 2017 pay.

As members are now receiving the outcomes of these assessments we’re growing increasingly alarmed by the growing number of members who’ve reported being assessed in the bottom 30% along with some of the reasons that members are being advised that they find themselves there. Members who have exceeded their objectives and delivered exemplary work for DE&S are now disgusted to be told that their performance needs improvement. Our members voted to accept the DE&S pay offer because they believed management’s assurances that the performance management system would be fair.

What’s PCS view?

We’ll be meeting DE&S and asking them to explain why it appears that so many staff are concerned by their performance management outcomes and what they intend to do to address our concerns. PCS has previously warned DE&S that continuing with this form of PM would be detrimental and will therefore be using this evidence to argue firmly that the organisation should move decisively away from guided or forced distribution, moderation and performance related pay.

What you can do

We would like members who are concerned about their performance management outcome to contact us with the circumstances by sending an email to dsg@pcs.org.uk  and consider raising a grievance. Guidance on raising a grievance can be found on the link to our Performance Management toolkit on the Defence Sector group website here.

Our voice will be strengthened in our efforts to end the unfair performance management regime in DE&S if we are speaking on behalf of the majority of staff. Please help us achieve that, by speaking to any staff who are not members of our union and persuade them to join.

You can join PCS here online.

Chris Dando - DSg Group President                                           

Howard Barr - DSg Industrial officer

Performance Management  Update

Members will be aware that PCS has conducted a long running campaign against the grossly unfair Performance Management system. MoD was one of the first departments to bow to the evidence of its massively discriminatory outcomes and the huge waste of resource expended in its operation.

On 7th December four departments- MoD, DWP, HMRC and Home Office all briefed staff that they were abandoning the discredited performance management system. The same day the Cabinet Office issued a framework document regarding performance management. It is not a requirement that departments withdraw from the current hated system. Therefore it is for PCS to press the employer to encourage them to abandon this flawed process. Through patient and persistent challenge of its rationale, logic and fairness PCS has successfully engaged with MoD management and achieved the ending of the current system.

Cabinet Office Framework

The core principles contained within the framework are:

•   No requirement to operate quotas from 2017.

•   No requirement to operate relative assessment.

•   No need to link performance and pay.

•   Any new system must deal with differences in performance outcomes for those with protected characteristics.

•   There is still an emphasis on skills and behaviours.

•   There will be no other Cabinet Office documents released further to the principles framework.

This gives MoD a greater degree of flexibility to work with PCS to come up with a system not tied to ill thought out CSEP products.

Negotiations

Our union has been heavily engaged in talks with MoD management over a replacement system and the implications for the last year of the current scheme. So far we have agreed with management the broad principles of a new scheme:

•   Reporting structures are to be based on line managers and be closer to the job holder.

•   That the emphasis should developmental as opposed to quantifying performance per se.

•   That the role of team work be recognised.

•   That in year recognition replace bonuses at the year end.

•   That any new system be fair and transparent.

•   That those with protected characteristics can have confidence in the new system.

•   That it is simple to operate for both managers and their staff.

•   That developmental aspirations need to be supported by adequate funding lines.

We are now engaging in detailed negotiations on the proposal to replace the current end of year bonus scheme with a scheme to deliver in year payments that will also encompass the current special bonus scheme.

What next?

PCS is calling a meeting of the four groups undergoing negotiations to share best practice and further ideas. In the meantime the MoD trade unions will be continuing to discuss and explore what a new system will look like and how it will be implemented. PCS will advise you further as negotiations progress. The successful termination of the old performance management system is a timely reminder of the difference trade unions can make to worker’s lives.

What can you do?

•   Share the news with colleagues.

•   Support the union when called to do so.

•   Participate in your branch structure.

•   Become a PCS advocate (ask your branch secretary for more details)

•   Ask colleagues who are non-members to join PCS - we are even stronger with more staff from MoD in the union.

Paul Bemrose - Group Secretary

Performance management survey

From Defender Magazine - Issue 4/2016

The results of the MoD staff survey on performance management (PM) have been published and they make remarkable reading.

Those surveyed, over 8000, overwhelmingly rejected the current PM system and clearly expressed their dissatisfaction with its many unworkable and unfair features.

•  86% strongly disagreed/disagreed that PM was a fair and effective assessment tool

•  87% strongly disagreed/disagreed that PM’s distribution of bonus was fair

•  75% strongly disagreed/disagreed that PM was an effective indication of development needs

Told you so

Findings such as this are off the scale and confirm what many of us have known since PM’s inception. As we look forward to the new MoD appraisal system being revealed it may be impolite to say ‘told you so’, but after almost 4 years of PCS highlighting the damage that the current PM system was doing to all involved, and imploring the department to

think again but only being faced with calls to stop undermining the brave new dawn, then PCS representatives and members can be forgiven for their impoliteness on this occasion.

To be fair the MoD deserve credit for publishing the data; just a pity the survey was not conducted much earlier and a lot of grief and money could have been saved. The signs are positive though for the new appraisal system setting up for 2017/18. Better late than never!

Performance Management - Member's Update

The defeat of the performance management systems is a key demand of our union. The system is divisive, demoralising and fundamentally unfair. The system is deliberately designed to make work feel isolating and destroys team working. It imposes unacceptable workload burdens on managers. PCS, in line with policy passed at successive annual delegate conferences, is using a range of tactics to force the employer to scrap the current discredited system.  

This briefing updates members on the progress made by PCS in negotiations towards our demand for an end to the performance management system. The briefing also provides information on a series of performance management trials that have been commissioned by the employer. Finally, the briefing sets out important information for members with protected characteristics who wish to challenge their box marking via a legal challenge by PCS in response to evidence that the performance management system is discriminatory.

Progress Made

The Ministry of Defence has announced that it will end the current imposed performance management arrangements and enter into an open and collaborative process to develop a fair and objective system.  This is a significant decision as MoD is the first department to formally announce that it is scrapping the current system. This increases pressure on other Departments to do the same or to explain why they are clinging to a discriminatory system despised by their own staff.

The Cabinet Office have confirmed to PCS that if other departments choose to follow the lead of the MoD that they would not seek to prevent this.

In addition to this PCS has:

•  Forced the employer to publish the data on box markings across Government. The NEC commissioned Keele University to analyse the data highlighting the discriminatory treatment of staff under the system.

• We have conducted a survey of members in which almost 30,000 took part. We have also commissioned Keele University to analyse these results.

• We have published work undertaken by our Ministry of Defence Group highlighting the incredible costs and bloated bureaucratic nature of the system.

• We have undertaken a successful week of action on performance management with thousands of workers engaging with our campaign.

• We have written to every department demanding an immediate suspension of the performance management system and specifically demanding an end to box marking and any link between pay and performance management. To date, and in addition to the announcement made by MoD, 6 departments have announced trials on performance management including the Valuation Office where box marking has been stopped and where pay will no longer be linked to it.

• We have commissioned legal advice for workers with protected characteristics and are actively supporting workers so that they can rigorously assert their rights under the performance management system.

• We have secured support within the NTUC for our bargaining demands and a divided employer faces a common set of trade union demands.       

Negotiations

Earlier this year and as a direct result of pressure from PCS the Cabinet Office provided, for the first time, data on performance management markings from across Government.

PCS has had this data analysed by Keele University.

Our analysis found that the performance management system found potentially statistically significant discrimination arising from the employer’s policy. Some examples are:

• In HMRC workers over 50 are 3 times more likely to find themselves in Must Improve.

• In MoJ BME workers are 3 times more likely to be given a box 3 marking.

• In DFE workers with a disability are 3 times more likely to be given a box 3 marking.

• In DfT part time workers are 8 times less likely to get a box 1 than those working full time.

• In DWP workers with a disability are 6 times less likely to get a box 1 than those working full time.

A similar picture has emerged in each of the departments that we have surveyed. The data paints a disturbing picture of a system that is out of control and wide open to bad practise and discrimination. On the basis of the employers own data PCS has now called upon the Cabinet Office to immediately suspend the performance management system pending an independent review into why the system is discriminatory. We have asked all bargaining areas to write formally – via the department trade union side - to their employer asking for an urgent meeting to discuss the data on performance management. We have provided a model letter to do this that demands:

• The suspension of guided or forced distribution in the department

• A commitment from the employer that any linkage between box marking and pay is suspended

• A commitment from the employer that any linkage between box marking and formal performance measures is suspended

Performance Management Trials

In response to the data and the pressure that PCS has applied the Cabinet Office has announced a number of trials focussed on various elements of the performance management system.  The Trials are in the following areas:   

• In VOA (a trial that PCS has largely endorsed) where there is no box marking or link between performance and pay. We have made some progress in this area with the employer on the administration and desired outcomes from the trial and have agreed a joint working group with the employer to monitor progress. 

• In HMRC, NOMS and VOA there will be a CIPD led study into performance management focussed on improving performance conversations with specific focus on equality and inclusion. There are 7 other organisations participating in the CIPD study including 5 in the private sector.

• In DWP there will be 4 trials covering around 1,500 workers and looking at various aspects of the system

• A trial is proposed in DECC. We do not have any details on this to date.

• A trial is proposed in GCHQ. We do not have any details on this to date.

Each of these trials will last for the duration of the 2016/17 reporting year. Further guidance on these trials will be issued by respective PCS Groups in due course. We should be under no doubt that it is the strategy deployed by PCS backed up by campaigning and critically the preparedness of members to assert their rights under the system that has forced the employer to offer up these trials looking at alternatives to the current system. However, the trials fall short of our demands. As a result of the failure of the employer to suspend the system across the board we now need to consider further action against the Government.

PCS Legal Action

Branches will continue to encourage and provide support to members who wish to appeal against their box mark. We will issue in September a performance management questionnaire that should be completed by all members who have appealed against their box marking. We will use the returns to examine the potential for formal legal action against employers who continue to operate potentially discriminatory systems.

PCS Campaign

The PCS week of action on Performance Management (that began on 27th June) was extremely well supported. As part of the week:

• 35,428 people viewed PCS campaign material on performance management on Twitter

• 24,215 people viewed information on Facebook

• 45,308 members viewed information via the PCS website 

• 298 members contacted their MPs

• Over 8,000 more members signed the PCS PMR petition.

PCS will be presenting our members petition to the Cabinet Office Minister, Matthew Hancock and we will be seeking a meeting with him to put to him both the findings of the Keele University data and also the results of the PCS member’s survey. Almost 30,000 members of our union participated in the survey. 

Defeat Performance Management Systems

The performance management system is rotten to the core. Not only is the system unfair and reactionary but the employer’s own data reveals that it is discriminatory. Through PCS member’s collective resistance to the system – backed up by a comprehensive bargaining, campaigning and legal strategy - we have begun to extract concessions from the employer. We will step up and intensify the pressure on the employer and specifically the few remaining supporters of the system at the top of the Civil Service. Together, we can and will defeat the performance management system. 

Chris Baugh - Assistant General Secretary

Update on performance management

Our union welcomes the announcement by the Permanent Secretary of a wide-ranging review into performance management.

We have been particularly critical of the current scheme, highlighting how its outcomes have been discriminatory particularly against staff with protected characteristics and also pointing out the horrendous cost of implementation. Our union has therefore agreed with the department some fundamental principles underpinning any future performance management scheme:

• A fair, meaningful and transparent PM framework which motivates staff to give their best to Defence

• A framework capable of fairly evaluating and differentiating performance levels through effective and clear objective and goal setting

• A framework which recognises and rewards high performance in real-time

• A framework which supports under performance, equipping managers to robustly manage poor performance where necessary

• A framework based on quality conversations that has constructive and honest relationships between employees and their line managers at its heart, not burdensome process

We believe that this review will see an end to both relative assessment and forced distribution that have caused the current performance management scheme to be universally despised. Our union has been campaigning across the department and the wider civil service to achieve this outcome.

Whilst this is unlikely to lead to the demise of the use of bonus payments within the department, it does give us the opportunity to delink performance from pay.

On that basis, our union is asking all members to participate fully in the programme of work being rolled out to develop a new performance management scheme.We would therefore urge members to:

• Attend any workshops that they are invited to on performance management

• Participate in meetings called by your branch to discuss performance management, or ask your branch to hold such a meeting in your workplace

• Feedback any ideas you have on performance management to dsg@pcs.org.uk

Defence Equipment and Support

The move by the Permanent Secretary only affects performance management within the mainstream MoD, as DE&S has their own performance management scheme.Our negotiators are meeting with DE&S this week and will be pressing them to address our concerns about their scheme by adopting similar principles.

Next Steps

Our ability to negotiate to protect members’ interests over these and other issues will be significantly strengthened if we can demonstrate that our union speaks on behalf of the majority of staff in MOD. You can get involved in this by:

• Helping us to keep in touch with you - update your contact details now

• Helping us to grow our union, by talking to those non-members in your workplace about the benefits of PCS membership

• Getting more involved in your union

Paul Bemrose - Industrial Officer

Chris Dando - Group President

Rob Bowers - Vice President

MOD to scrap Performance Management

The Ministry of Defence has agreed with the Cabinet Office to end the use of the current performance management system that is despised by staff, in a move which has potentially huge implications for the whole of the civil service.

New permanent secretary Stephen Lovegrove has made an agreement with the Cabinet Office to end performance management reviews in the department, including the divisive and unfair forced rankings where employees are individually ranked best to worst, with the bottom 10% labelled poor performing and subject to 'management of poor performance action', which may lead to dismissal on grounds of inefficiency.

The only constraints from the Cabinet Office are that any new system manages poor performance and that the department can have some way of rewarding good performance at the time that it happens.

Performance management systems operating in government departments are discriminatory and unfair. In our recent survey of 27,000 members, more than 60% of members described their overall experience of performance management as ‘mainly negative’.

Welcome move

PCS has welcomed the move, announced last week, which it has been pushing for across the civil service, and is engaged in ongoing discussions with the department about what the new process will look like and the fundamental principles that should underpin any alternative approach.

The fundamental principles proposed are:

• A fair, meaningful and transparent PM framework which motivates staff to give their best to Defence

• A framework capable of fairly evaluating and differentiating performance levels through effective and clear objective and goal setting

• A framework which recognises and rewards high performance in real-time

• A framework which supports under performance, equipping managers to robustly manage poor performance where necessary

• A framework based on quality conversations that has constructive and honest relationships between employees and their line managers at its heart, not burdensome process.

Consultation

Staff are being consulted about the project through staff workshops and other feedback mechanisms.

The change will be effective from performance year 2017/18, although we have a commitment to explore beneficial changes that could take place in the coming year (16/17).

PCS Defence Sector group President Chris Dando said: "We are pleased that the permanent secretary has listened to our union about this divisive and unpopular system and is now entering into an open and collaborative process to develop a fair system. Our union will be participating fully in this process and we would welcome views from members on potential options."

Chair of the PCS Parliamentary group, Chris Stephens MP, has tabled a motion in the House of Commons on behalf of PCS calling for a fair performance management system across the civil service. We are urging members and supporters to contact their MP to urge them to back our campaign.

MoD squanders £100m a year on performance management

"Even hardened trade unionists like myself were shocked when we worked out how much just one civil service department spends on the unfair ranking system"

PCS Defence Sector group President and Chair of the South West Branch Chris Dando writing in the Guardian says that "there is a consensus across the civil service that none of the current performance management systems are fit for purpose and they need a complete rethink."

Read the article here: The Guardian - Public Leaders Network

Performance Management 2016

The performance management system is deeply unfair and discriminatory. The Cabinet Office’s own figures demonstrate this year after year. PCS is demanding that the current performance management system is scrapped and replaced with a system which is fair and equitable. We are continuing to expose the unfair nature of the performance management system and the impact that this has on our members. However, as a PCS member, you have rights that can help ensure you are treated fairly and which forms part of our campaign to ensure the employer negotiates a fair appraisal system with PCS.

10 point checklist we ask every member to follow:

1.  Your line manager must talk to you about your objectives before they are set. You should be asked to agree these and should not feel pressured to agree any objective that you are not happy with.

2.  Ensure that you and your manager agree these are the objectives you will be appraised against once you are happy with your objectives. You should ensure that this agreement is recorded in writing.

3.  Make any equality declarations at this initial meeting and talk through with your line manager what adjustments he/she will be making on that basis. There is an equality           checklist available from your local PCS representative.

4.  Refuse to accept objectives around your ‘behaviours’ or other subjective measures unless you are happy with them and understand them – you have the right to be appraised   fairly and objectively.

5.  Ask your manager which other members of staff are in your peer group for appraisal. You need to know who you are being assessed ‘against’. If you do not believe that this  group is fair you should raise this.

6.  You are entitled to a mid-year review meeting with your line manager. If at your mid-year review point your line manager suggests that you are in danger of being in the          bottom category then you should agree, in writing, the steps that you need to take to ensure that this isn’t the case with the commitment that if the terms of the             ‘improvement plan’ are met that you will not be placed in the bottom category at the year end.

7.  Insist on regular meetings with your line manager to review the progress being made. Submit all evidence regularly and diligently to demonstrate how you are meeting your    objectives.

8.  Appeal if you are placed in the bottom category at the end of the year and the process described above has not been strictly followed. The policy on performance management  states that nobody should find themselves in the bottom category unless the process described above is followed. It is important you challenge it in writing and/or through a formal appeal/grievance. A model grievance letter is available from your union.

9.  If you are a line manager you should appraise staff strictly in line with the policy. The employer cannot compel you to forcibly distribute markings if it means a breach of the     existing policy. Indeed, in some areas to do so will be a potential disciplinary offence.

10. If you believe that your markings have been wrongly amended by a validation or cluster group you must speak to PCS about this as soon as possible.

Are you a Line Manager?

The performance management process places many line managers in a difficult position, as well as creating additional workload and pressure. Line managers need protection and support in dealing with a discredited system of appraisal.

See the Line Managers' Guide

• Being a member of PCS gives you support and advice on performance management. See the PCS Defence Sector Performance Management Toolkit

• Please contact your local representative for further advice or email organising@pcs.org.uk

• If you are reading this and not a union member – Join PCS pcs.org.uk/join or call our membership department on 0800 317 464.

£98 million – the cost of performance management

Article taken from Defender Magazine (4/2015). Defender is the magazine of the PCS Defence Sector group & is issued four times a year. Next edition February 2016.

Our union’s objections to the current performance management system are well documented. We contend that it undermines morale, discriminates against numerous groups and raids a pay pot already too small.

What a waste

What is also increasingly clear is the unsustainable amount of time and resources needed to even half deliver performance management as the department’s own guidance dictates. This time and resources equates to £98 million annually to administer the current system in the MoD. This is a conservative figure arrived at through extensive work undertaken by our union. Everyone reading this will know the heart-sinking feeling when objective setting, mid-year reviews or the end of year meeting time comes around. Whether you are a job holder, line manager, reporting officer or counter signing officer, you know that hours and days you can ill afford to spend are to be directed at fulfilling your reporting requirements. Whether justifying yourself in an absurd forced ranking beauty contest and/or trying to compare apples and oranges amongst your staff the consensus is clear – what a waste of time.

In the MoD performance management:

• Costs £98 million to administer £17.5 million bonus money

• Takes over £5 in administrative costs to distribute every bonus £1

• Costs approximately £2,370 per member of staff to administer

• Over the next five years, will cost almost half-a-billion pounds to administer.

What difference does it make?

Given this major cost and pressure on resources the MoD has an obligation to establish the tangible benefits of PM. Our union accepts that there has been an increase in the submission of reports, and this is welcomed, but other than this what can the department claim as beneficial? Many of our members responsible for staff tell us that this process takes over their working day at the key three points in the reporting year. We are all aware of the line management chain shutdown that can occur in May (objectives), October (mid-year review), and particularly the following April (end-year review). Instances of managers being locked away for days on end dealing with dozens of PM reports are common. The daily business of the MoD takes a back seat as panic sets in and reporting deadlines loom. It is not even clear that the up to 25% of staff who gain a bonus payment are overjoyed with the arrangements either. Very few staff can count on a bonus every year – jobs change, reporting officers change, circumstances change – and many members have reported feeling uncomfortable on receipt of a bonus and how relations with their colleagues can deteriorate in an atmosphere of resentment and feelings of unfairness.

Rip it up

So presently we have an appraisal system that takes huge amounts of time and effort to run, the vast majority of staff are unhappy with, Managers, especially, resent the admin involved and results in negligible benefits for the business. A member acting as a countersigning officer summing up the current performance management system said: “It has not increased productivity, improved team cohesion or demonstrated any other positive benefit related to the output of the section. If it has I have not seen any evidence of it.” 

At a time when the MoD is looking for massive staff cuts, we ask that they look first at ending this performance management scheme. Be honest, accept that it is a failed experiment and look at what can be done with the PM component of the pay pot, and savings made from not having to administer the system, to give all staff some financial comfort in these frozen pay times. No sensible organisation would persist with the equation that sees excessive time and resources thrown at a setup that returns lower morale, discrimination, inconsistency and at times genuine bad feeling. Rip it up and start again.

Examples of discrimination in MoD

• Disability: 15.2% (instead of 25%) of Disabled staff receive a Box 1

• Religious persuasion: 11.3% (instead of 5%) of non-Christians receive a Box 3

• Ethnicity: 16.9% (instead of 25%) of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic staff receive a Box 1

• Age: 10.6% (instead of 5%) of staff between 60 – 64 years of age receive a Box 3

• Part Time: 11.6% (instead of 25%) of Part Time Staff working between 16 – 23 hours receive a Box 1

• RDP: 29% (instead of 5%) of Staff in the RDP receive a Box 3