15 April 2010
S188 meeting on Friday 9 April 2010
The UCU team consisted of David Callen, Stephen McAleer, Malcolm Heywood and Christiane Ohsan
In our last newsletter we reported that the College wanted our views on the various options for changes to contracts put to us. We were committed to producing such a response in time for a 1st April deadline. We were also supposed to meet on the 1st but the college then cancelled. However on 30th March we received reports from reps in Yorkshire and Humberside region that gave us serious cause for concern.
Reps reported that members were losing their jobs and courses were closing. Also management were appointing ‘sessional staff’ on ‘new’ contracts that were still subject to consultation. We raised our concerns with the College and told them that this meant we could not write up our response as planned as we then had to deal with and investigate the new queries from members. We did not get a reply. We then received even more worrying reports from the same region where a manager had issued at least 17 Jobs adverts ring fenced to staff in the Y&H region. Again the matter was raised with the College and we conveyed our reservations about their commitment to consult seriously about contract changes and the S188 process. Management were not at all happy that we had not responded to their proposals and wrote to us complaining that we had not provided ‘constructive input in to the consultation process’ and that we had not provided any constructive thoughts or suggestions on how to deal with the £5m budget shortfall. The College also berated us for being ‘fixated’ on how the finances have been calculated and for not engaging constructively in the process. They informed us that their feedback from staff on their proposals was very constructive and positive. Finally they said that staff were complaining about UCU reps. This was in reply to us explaining why we could not meet the deadline for a response because of what had happened in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.
Before meeting management in a rearranged meeting on 9th April, we wrote and informed management that we would be prepared to recommend to members that they accept contract changes involving 48 days leave and 828 contact hours but with no increase to the working week or no changes to the current sickness pay scheme. We also asked for some other matters to be taken on board e.g. issues regarding DD time/’down hrs’ being done on site and the unannounced lesson observations. We also rejected the use of the new job roles such as Tutor, Assistant Tutor etc.
At this meeting TMC management summed up the situation so far, indicating how frustrated they were with our questions about the finances and saying that they wanted our response to the proposals as they had not had time to read what we had sent them. When asked how our proposals met the £5m savings, we duly repeated what we had written. We explained that once they totted up the ‘savings’ achieved through Voluntary Severance at around £2.5m (their figure) plus their savings made through the management restructure at approximately £360 000 (again their figure), the £5m would then be significantly reduced and the amount needed to be found from contract changes would thus be much less. We then used their own figures to show that our proposals easily helped achieve the target they wanted. We accepted that the curriculum review would have an impact on the final VS application process, believing that out approach was not unreasonable. Alongside suggestions in our pre meeting letter, ideas forwarded within our latest meeting demonstrated the following methods to meet the £5m figure:
n £0.5m savings:Standard contact time fixed at 828 hrs per annum across all prisons
n £1m savings:
48 days holidays + bank holidays per annum across all prisons
n £2.5m savings:
Allowing more people to leave under the voluntary redundancy scheme
(N.B. only 35 have been accepted so far)
n £0.33m savings:
Standardized sickness scheme based on 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay after 4 yrs continuous service (the top of progressive upward scale according to service).
n £1m savings:
Adjustments/corrections on TMC projections on ‘cost of absence’ from their original figure of 4.2 million down to £3.2 million
(We have demonstrated how TMC’s figures on this were inaccurate and should be £1 million less)
This creates a saving of £5.33 million. However adding the £360K already saved through the restructuring of management, savings go up to £5.69 million.
Nevertheless, throughout all of the meetings so far, the College have rejected all of our proposals. For example at the previous meeting we asked that they separate redundancies from contract changes as we believed that the college should deal with VS applications and job cuts arising from the ongoing curriculum review first. We believed that from such a position they could work out their ‘savings’ up till that point. This would then have given a more accurate picture of how near they were to achieving their £5m so that the difference could then be met via changes to contracts thereafter. They refused to consider this option. After all around the country this is what other FE colleges have done when faced with serious budget shortfalls. However for some reason TMC were simply not having it.
At the very end of the meeting on the 9th, they handed us the new contract proposals that you have all now seen. But indeed we know for a fact that your managers were asked a few weeks ago to work out their local structure based on 35days holidays, higher contact hours AND the introduction of sessional staff contracts wherever possible. The reality of the new contacts saves more than £5m. We estimate that with their proposals they would be saving in access of double the £5m savings figure:
n 35 days holidays saves £2.6mn 1080 hrs contact time saves approximately £6m
n The proposed new sickness scheme saves £2.2m
This amounts to a saving of £10.8m, although we believe that the final result would be a lot higher.
It was therefore always their intention to opt for the worst of options for staff. What we find unacceptable is that they accuse UCU of not being constructive when in fact they have turned down everything we have put forward. They only want to proceed on their terms yet they call this ‘consultation’. They berate us for asking searching questions about the figures they produce yet when we use the their figures and their statements as our source, they tell us that things are not as they have actually written them. Many reps have already organised meetings to ask for feedback on the TMC proposals but so far we have not received a single report that anyone supports, welcomes or endorses the new contracts. Those members who have already met have rejected the management position and have decided that they need to take action in defence of decent and professional terms and conditions. We urge you all to organise similar meetings and let us have your views as soon as possible. Whether or not you agree that the college needs to make a saving of £5, your Branch Officers and negotiators have used all arguments possible to try and reach a compromise that would provide the College with these savings. It is therefore the recommendation of the Branch officers and negotiators that the proposals should be rejected. We also advise that if management are not prepared to move, then members should take industrial action.
Going back to January when the College first talked about ‘savings needed’ they told us they had planned to make a profit of £4m on the contract and when briefed by the Director of Finance, he mentioned a small surplus of £2m. The £5m figure then appeared. When we said this should be reduced by £1.1m, achieved through the pay freeze, we were told that this was not possible as this money had already been factored in. (Without the pay freeze they would have been looking for £6.1m instead). When the article appeared in the Guardian, the College told us we had got it all wrong and that they were not looking for profits and that the money they needed was a ’contribution’ towards costs incurred by the College to run the contracts. We are now convinced that although they say they want to avoid redundancies, their intention is and has always been to worsen terms and conditions of employment and drive down the salaries. The move towards the introduction of Associate Tutors and other grades that are not even professionally recognised is further evidence of their intentions. In addition it is notable that there is no reference to sessional staff or sessional salaries in their latest document. Actually we have been told that they want to replace full time and fractional staff with sessional staff, thus driving salaries down.
We meet again on Friday 16th when we will find out more about their VS decisions. At this meeting, we will be able to give TMC feedback on the latest proposals but based on their previous record we are not confident that they will move. We believe members need to back the negotiations with action and demonstrate to the College that they will not stand for this kind of treatment. You are professional teachers and should be treated as such. We do not find it acceptable that your learners should receive their education on the cheap or that you should be treated as less professional than your other FE colleagues just because your students are offenders in custody.
2