We’re posting this to update you on what’s been happening in the ICE negotiations, which have now ended, and to ask for your support in the next step!
Nearly two years ago the IWGB submitted a request to the University of London for an Information and Consultation (ICE) Forum, based on the ICE Regulations 2004. We did this because many people were dissatisfied with the current arrangements, in which only UCU and UNISON are formally consulted on behalf of all staff.
The University responded by agreeing with UNISON and UCU that only their reps would have a hand in designing the new forum. The IWGB argued that deal was unlawful. We won the argument in court, twice.
Following the tribunal decision, the University held proper elections. Grades 1-6 elected two IWGB reps. Grades 7-10 elected two UCU reps and one UNISON rep. The reps’ role was to negotiate an agreement whereby the University would inform and consult staff in compliance with the legislation.
Rebecca and I negotiated in good faith. To seek common ground, we suggested that a reformed union recognition agreement, in which all three unions would be represented, could work. We all made a number of positive suggestions for how it might function.
As UNISON, UCU and the UoL weren’t keen on IWGB recognition, we made a second proposal: to create a new ICE Forum constituted on the employee side entirely by elected staff reps.
However, at the final meeting last week we were asked to vote on a joint UNISON/UCU/UoL proposal, written up by Kim Frost. The proposal was to reform the recognition agreement along the lines of our suggestions BUT to exclude the IWGB entirely. Because UNISON/UCU have 3 reps and IWGB only have 2, the proposal passed by a 3-2 majority.
We believe that a proposal that excludes level 1-6 staff’s chosen union is divisive, unjust and counterproductive to good workplace relations. The good news is that the proposal was not passed unanimously, so you now have the power to overturn it.
We are therefore asking for your support for a NO vote in the coming referendum (which opens 17 October and closes 28 October), which will enable us to return to the negotiating table and work out a solution that is fair to ALL staff at the University of London.
Please do let us know any thoughts or feedback you may have (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mark Murphy and Rebecca Dooley (Levels 1-6 Negotiating Reps)
In a bizarre attempt to transfer responsibility for their own incompetence, Kingdom (the company to whom the Royal College of Music, the Royal College of Art and Heythrop College outsource their cleaning services) has threatened legal action against the IWGB after we brought to the attention of college senior management their failure to pay some cleaners for two weeks.
The sorry saga began on 23 September, when IWGB members at the colleges reported that they had either not been paid, or had been paid only a fraction of their normal wages.
Mistakes happen – and so we assumed that all we would need to do would be flag up the issue and it would be resolved.
Instead, two weeks later, and following innumerable complaints and emails from the IWGB, and complacent assurances from Kingdom, many workers have still not been properly paid.
This is a disaster for low-paid workers living from one wage packet to another – indeed, one of our members reported today that she will be evicted tomorrow if she does pay her rent.
However, rather than concentrate on paying their workers, or even answering our phone calls, leading Kingdom managers instead took umbrage at the IWGB’s email to RCA, RCM and Heythrop staff and started texting our General Secretary instead:
“Jason I hope we are the platform you desperately require. I also hope that all information published is indeed factual as if there is just one anomoly [sic] we will be legally pursuing.”
Later, in an email mistakenly sent to all staff (and subsequently ‘recalled’) the same manager stated:
“Kingdom will act accordingly to uphold its reputation as a moral and ethical UK employer.”
Veiled threat or not, we would suggest that the best way to do this is to pay your staff.
The legal boot may in any case be on the other foot, as the IWGB has just written to HMRC presenting evidence of Kingdom being in breach of minimum wage legislation, as well as commencing an ET claim for unlawful deduction of wages.
Hasta la victoria siempre!
Thanks to everyone who came to the packed branch meeting last Friday! One of the main issues under discussion was pay, and this was an opportunity both to bring people up to date and to see what members wanted to do next.
For those who weren’t there, the basic situation is this
- the current NATIONAL pay offer is 1.1% – this has NOT been accepted, but the University has decided to start paying it anyway
- the IWGB has voted YES to strike action
- UNISON voted YES to strike action, but on such a low turnout that they have decided NOT to strike
- UCU still have a LIVE strike ballot, and are currently meeting at a national level to decide what to do next.
The meeting decided quite sensibly that we would be guided by the UCU decision – if they called strike action so would we, BUT we would not strike on our own.
As soon as we hear we’ll send updates – but do get in touch at email@example.com with any questions.
See below for the full text of a reply from Director Julie Screaton to Jason’s letter of 8 September regarding the Health Education England job cuts
Dear Mr Moyer-Lee
RE: Response to IWGB open letter (8th September 2016)
We note the open letter posted on your website on 8th September 2016 regarding the proposed restructure of the Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education (PGMDE) support functions for London and the South East. I understand that you represent a trade union that is not recognised by the NHS nor the University of London although I am aware that you have some members within the team who are affected by this change
The NHS is changing how it delivers care to the population of this country. Our ambition is to improve services closer to peoples’ homes and to radically improve prevention to reduce demand on services and improve the health of the nation. To help enable the NHS to successfully transform in this way means we have to deliver the services that administer the support for training and recruitment in the most efficient way possible to allow us to increase the amount of funding we provide for doctors, nurses and other NHS staff to deliver better care. This is part of the wider challenge for the NHS to ensure resources are being used in the most effective way for the delivery of frontline care to patients and communities.
The London and Kent, Surrey and Sussex (KSS) post graduate medical and dental education teams came together in Stewart House at the end of 2015 to create the Healthcare Education Team (HET). This coming together of the teams was an important step in creating a more efficient and cost effective support function to our Post Graduate Deans who oversee the training of 16,000 junior doctors. The London team had worked hard to digitise thousands of papers records to save space. This enabled us to move the KSS team from expensive offices in London Bridge into Stewart House, saving thousands of pounds in rent. Together, the two teams under new leadership have invested months in reviewing their business processes to reduce duplication and save time. Our ability to become more efficient was supported further by the fact that London was the last PGMDE office in England to introduce the intrepid computer system already in place across the rest of HEE, having in place 20 year old technology that was no longer fit for purpose.
The consultation on the proposed changes within the PGMDE team ended on 7th September 2016 and no decisions have yet been made. Engagement with our staff has been ongoing for months and will continue. This along with strong partnership working with our recognised trade unions, notably UNISON, is critical to ensuring we develop better ways of working to improve how the team works, the service we provide to doctors in training and releases resources to the front line of the NHS. Any decision we make on the future structure of the teams will take full account of the impact on our staff and stakeholders, including the minimisation of compulsory redundancies.
After months of negotiating to try and improve information and consultation of employees at the University, yesterday was the final meeting between the five staff negotiating reps and the University.
In the end, the three representatives from Unison and UCU used their majority to vote through a proposal about information and consultation of staff which the IWGB reps rejected as it does not increase representation for ALL employees one bit!
All of our suggestions were accepted, except the key point: that everyone should be allowed to participate in the new ICE forum on an equal basis. The University and the other three representatives have decided that Unison and UCU alone will represent all staff. No other representatives will be allowed into the forum, even as observers.
This final proposal was actually written by University management, not by staff representatives. It’s fairly obvious that a proposal written by the employer doesn’t represent the best deal for staff! Unsurprisingly, it’s pretty much exactly the same as the old consultation arrangements, with some window dressing. The range of voices the University will hear isn’t being expanded at all.
In these negotiations we did everything we could to compromise in order to get a forum that would increase staff participation in a meaningful way. We put forward two different proposals which didn’t exclude anyone, thus extending information and consultation without undermining Unison and UCU’s current position as recognised unions.
However, there is hope! Because the negotiating representatives didn’t agree unanimously, the University’s proposal still has to be ratified by you! It will therefore be put to a ballot in the coming weeks. If you reject it, the University and the staff negotiating representatives will have to get back around the table and negotiate a deal that is fairer to everyone.
You have the power to help us make this change! We’ll be campaigning over the next few weeks, and we will be hoping for your support. We do believe a negotiated solution is possible if you give us a mandate to keep pushing.
The results of the strike ballot over the current pay offer are in, and we can report that the vote was as follows:
Are you prepared to take strike action?
Yes: 66% No: 34%
Are you prepared to take industrial action short of a strike?
Yes: 85.4% No: 14.6%
Turnout was a very respectable 50%, especially given the shortness of the balloting period and the fact that a few members didn’t get them in time!
(In other news, the national HE ballot by UNISON on pay was announced this week – roughly 55% voted YES).
We need to decide at this week’s branch meeting whether we will now proceed with strike action given this mandate. Any strike action will coincide with national UNISON / UCU action.
It’s vital we get feedback from everyone, so please make a special effort to come – 12.30pm, Friday 23 September, IHR Lower Mezzanine Room, 3rd Floor Senate House – come to 3rd floor reception and we’ll come find you, or give Danny a call on 07783719479 if you get lost!
IWGB member and HEE employee Joseph Parrott has written to local MP Keir Starmer to request his help in the ongoing campaign against the HEE cuts – see Joe’s full letter below.
Dear Sir Starmer
My name is Joseph Parrott and I am currently working at Stewart House, Russell Square in your constituency. I work for Health Education England (HEE), the organisation responsible for the recruitment and training administration of junior doctors. We have recently finished a consultation period where HEE are proposing to cut 41% of staff members. The scale of these cuts could seriously jeopardise patient safety, junior doctors rotas are already at crisis point, and cutting the people responsible for administrating their training and recruitment is only going to further exacerbate the problem. No risk or equality assessments have been carried out so it is impossible to tell how these cuts are going to affect the service that we provide. We are already working at close to full capacity and management are at this moment having to hire temporary staff to cope with the next phase of implementation.
Please see 2 links below to 2 separate responses from Trade Unions that represent staff members at HEE and spells out in more detail the concerns that staff members hold.
I am currently involved in a campaign to stop these cuts and we were hoping to gain your support with this. Would you be willing to do any of the following in support of our campaign?
– Release a press release stating your opposition to the cuts.
– Tweet in support of the campaign
– Submit questions regarding HEE cuts to the Oral Health Questions in parliament.
I understand that you must be very busy and I would be more than happy to draft any of the above if you or your office does not have time to do this.
These cuts are facing London and the South East so I am planning on writing to all MPs whose constituents will be affected by these cuts. I have also written to my own local MP Chuka Umunna.
I look forward to hearing from you.
As you know, we’ve been trying to negotiate better information and consultation for all staff for months now, having spent over a year forcing the University to accept that things have to change. Staff in Levels 1-6 especially have clearly expressed that they don’t feel properly consulted about what goes on here and have twice voted for IWGB reps to represent them in trying to get a better deal. Staff in Levels 7-10 are represented by reps from UNISON and UCU.
Our job is to negotiate what the forum for information and consultation would be like. We’ve met regularly with the University and put forward detailed proposals and constructive ideas to make sure that everyone can be fully involved, and we’ve kept you updated about this as we promised at the start.
The good news is that all negotiating reps and the University agreed with nearly all of the ideas we suggested. Principally, we have proposed that the appropriate forum is a reformed JNCC which has an online portal, allows staff to submit agenda items, minutes and reports back on the meetings properly and runs open meetings for staff. The only difference in our positions is that the University, UNISON, and UCU don’t want the IWGB to be a full member of this forum, instead relegating your reps to mere “observer” status. Obviously we cannot accept a forum where the union Levels 1-6 have chosen to represent them has inferior status so in an effort to reach consensus we have proposed a second option: to establish a separate forum for information and consultation, constituted on the employee side by 4 reps for Levels 1-6 and 4 for Levels 7-10, all democratically elected (see the attached for details).
If the University and Levels 7-10 reps ram through their preferred option despite our protestations and offer of an alternative, then by law the option would have to be put to a vote of all University staff. We think this would be costly, time-consuming, and easily avoided. However we will continue to push for a fully functional and participative forum in which Levels 1-6 have an equal seat at the table. This is what you have elected us to do.
The next meeting is this Friday – please let us know any thoughts or questions by emailing firstname.lastname@example.org.
It has come to the IWGB’s attention that new employees of Cordant and Nurture are being employed on statutory minimum terms and conditions.
We wrote to the Vice-Chancellor and received a reassurance that this was not the case, but having looked into the matter further it is clear that either the University is lying, or it is ignorant of what its own contractors are up to!
See below for Kim Frost’s reply to our original email, and Henry’s response…
If you are on, or know of anyone on, a contract at the University of London which only offers statutory minimum holidays and sick pay let Henry know immediately at email@example.com.
Many thanks for your reply, and for your confirmation that the University is committed to maintaining the enhanced sick pay and annual leave allowances for outsourced staff.
I would like, however, to flag up three major issues with this.
Firstly, there is no need for an ‘appropriate qualifying period’ before new permanent staff ‘transfer’ to the enhanced allowances.
The Cofely contract which included the enhanced allowances makes provision for a qualifying period – it stipulates that staff qualify for more holidays / more sick leave depending on service.
This is the same as a University of London contract, and is normal practice. It does not make sense to say that staff will be issued with one contract when they commence employment, and then be given a new contract x months later – nor does this provide any guarantee to the employee that this second contract will in fact be supplied.
Secondly, as you will see from the attached contract, which has been issued to a permanent Cordant employee on the University of London contract, you will see that in practice NO MENTION is made of the enhanced allowances (indeed, the contract is of questionable legality full-stop, omitting as it does information relating to pay rates, holidays and sick leave; for these latter two, it simply refers employees to a ‘handbook’).
In other words, Cordant are employing staff on the University of London contract on statutory minimum terms and conditions.
Either the University is aware of this, in which case it is in breach of the commitments you express below, or it is not, in which case Cordant is in breach of its contract with the University.
Thirdly, you will doubtless be aware that Nurture have taken over the landscaping contract. Staff in this area were previously on Cofely contracts with enhanced sick pay and annual leave allowances, but new staff working for Nurture here at the University of London have also been issued with statutory minimum contracts.
This is clearly unacceptable, and unless within a week from today we are given a clear commitment that this situation will be investigated and rectified immediately, we will have no option but to publicise the fact that the University of London’s actions are drastically different from their public boasts.
Henry Chango Lopez
—– Original Message —–
“Kim Frost” <Kim.Frost@london.ac.uk>
“Vice Chancellor” <Vice-Chancellor@london.ac.uk>, “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>, “firstname.lastname@example.org” <emma.burns@rbscom>, “Steven.Fogel@eu.kwm.com” <Steven.Fogel@eu.kwm.com>, “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Paul.Layzell@rhul.ac.uk” <Paul.Layzell@rhul.ac.uk>, “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Kim Frost” <Kim.Frost@london.ac.uk>, “Chris.email@example.com” <Chris.firstname.lastname@example.org>, “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Wed, 24 Aug 2016 13:39:22 +0000
Cordant – new contracts of employment
Dear Mr Lopez,
The Vice-Chancellor has asked me to reply to your email of 16 August.
All permanent staff working for Cordant on the University of London contract are entitled to the same enhanced sick pay and annual leave allowances as the existing staff who were recently transferred to them under TUPE from our former contractor.
I understand that all new permanent employees on the University of London contract will be offered employment on a standard Cordant contract and after the appropriate qualifying period will then be given the enhanced T&Cs, including enhanced sick pay and annual leave entitlement. This matches the practice under the previous Cofely contract.
Casual summer season cleaning staff employed for a fixed period have always under the previous Cofely contract been employed on statutory T&Cs and this will continue.
I hope this reassures you that the employment practices of our contractors have not changed and that the terms and conditions offered remain very competitive.
With best wishes
Director of Human Resources
University of London
32 Russell Square
Tel: +44 (0)20 7862 8029 Web: www.london.ac.uk
Please find below a letter from IWGB General Secretary Jason Moyer-Lee to HEE Chief Executive Ian Cumming
Dear Professor Cumming
My name is Jason Moyer-Lee, and I am writing in my capacity as General Secretary of the IWGB trade union.
As you know, yesterday marked the end of the consultation period for HEE PGMDE staff over a proposed restructure which if introduced will see a 41% head count reduction.
Over the last 6 weeks it has become clear what an unmitigated and unnecessary disaster these proposals represent. Each day new stories emerge of the shortage of doctors and dentists. The continuing junior doctors dispute is already massively disrupting this year’s recruitment. And yet you have chosen this moment for a 41% cut in staff, predicated on the introduction of barely tested technology and ill-defined new working structures.
I say chosen because the most astonishing thing is that this has not been forced upon you. Most NHS Chief Executives, when asked by the Secretary of State to make 30% budget cuts by 2020, would have vehemently argued the case for their organisation and its funding. You decided instead to implement the cuts by March 2017, and to weight them so that the impact fell disproportionately on frontline staff.
Let me therefore be clear – if these proposals go ahead, they will have a calamitous impact on HEE employees, NHS trainees and patient safety. And you will be held publicly accountable for this.
This process has already begun. The IWGB is a small union, albeit one with a rapidly growing membership in HEE. However, as those who witnessed our 3 Cosas campaign at the University of London will testify, we are capable of making plenty of noise. We have campaigned vociferously against these cuts from the outset, and will continue to gather signatures, alert stakeholders and protest at recruitment events. Should it come to industrial action we will back staff all the way.
Rest assured that this campaign will continue until any plans for compulsory redundancies are dropped. Now is the time to step back from the precipice and stand up to Mr Hunt. You can fight for a reasonable funding settlement for HEE and avoid being remembered as the man who destroyed NHS education – and we will be right behind you.
Dr. Jason Moyer-Lee
Our branch secretary Catherine Morrissey has responded to the earlier email from KIm Frost re the implementation of this year’s pay award.
See her email, and Kim’s below:
You may have noticed it’s the annual ‘attempt to disrupt HE pay strikes’ email from Kim!
It now seems a permanent fixture of the HE pay negotiations that the employers make an insultingly low offer, unions object, the employers increase their offer by an even more insulting amount (this year the figure is 0.1%) and rush to ‘implement’ this generous increase in the hopes that employees will be fooled into thinking that’s that.
Well, not this year!
Don’t let Kim’s email fool you – the pay dispute is not over, and action can get us a better offer! None of the unions have accepted the offer of 1.1%, so the pay dispute is still live.
If we want more, we have to push for it – so please, vote yes for strike and return your ballot papers straight away!
If anyone hasn’t received a ballot paper yet, please contact me or Danny for help.
Secretary, University of London IWGB
I am writing to update you on the outcome of this year’s pay negotiations.
The University and Colleges Employers’ Association (UCEA) made a final pay offer providing a 1.1% increase on base pay at points 8 and above, with more on lower points, at the end of April and the dispute procedure of the national negotiations concluded in mid-May.
We believe that this is a fair final pay offer; it exceeds inflation, compares favourably with pay awards elsewhere and rightly targets larger increases to those on the lower pay rates. We have therefore accepted the recommendation of UCEA that institutions should now implement the award. The final pay offer is available here.
I am therefore writing to let you know that we will be implementing the award of 1.1%, with more on points below point 8, in September pay and backdated to 1 August.
Director of Human Resources
University of London
32 Russell Square
Tel: +44 (0)20 7862 8029 Web: www.london.ac.uk
IWGB members and other affected staff have submitted a series of Freedom of Information requests to Health Education England as a result of the ongoing PGMDE consultation process whereby 41% of staff stand to lose their jobs.
The requests, which are due responses in the next couple of weeks, are below. We hope you will agree that they are questions well worth asking, and that the responses should be extremely interesting!
If you would like to submit an FOI yourself, just contact email@example.com.
Under the Freedom of Information Act can you provide how much HEE London and Kent Surrey and Sussex (KSS) spent on agency staff in the financial year 2015/16?
Under the Freedom of Information Act can you provide the equality impact assessments HEE London and the South East have carried out in relation to their current restructuring proposals?
Under the Freedom of Information Act I would like to request the expense that the new IT Systems for HEE London and the South East is estimated to cost after all new systems have been implemented?
Under the Freedom of Information Act I would like to request evidence that the proposed 41% headcount staff reduction at HEE London and the South East will improve the service that the organisation delivers.
Under the Freedom of Information Act can you provide the contingency plan that HEE London and the South East have in place if the new structure that they are proposing results in a deterioration of the service that the department provides?
Under the Freedom of Information Act can you provide the rationale for reaching 30% cost savings by April 2017 when the organisation is not required to make these savings until 2020?
Under the Freedom of Information Act can you provide the rationale for implementing cost savings for HEE London and the South East first rather than any other HEE region?
Under the Freedom of Information Act can you provide risk assessments that have been undertaken by HEE London and the South East on the impact the new proposed structure will have on patient safety?
Under the Freedom of Information Act can you state exactly which external stakeholders you have informed of the ongoing consultation and expected 41% headcount reduction in staff?
Could Health Education England disclose all relevant emails, meeting minutes and other information relating to the decision which led to Ian Cumming’s letter to the Trust Chief Executives dated 15 February 2016 (https://www.hee.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/documents/IC%20Letter%20to%20Chief%20Executives_150216.pdf)?
Attention all University of London members! Ballot papers are being posted out to your homes today over this year’s ridiculously low pay offer. Please vote as soon as you can!
This is the sixth consecutive year of low-ball offers, meaning in real terms our pay is going down. The employers’ offer is an ‘increase’ of 1.1%, although all unions had made a claim for 5% to make up for previous years and many vice chancellors enjoyed average rises of 5–6% last year. HE institutions have plenty of money – they just don’t want to spend it on staff pay.
We know our members feel strongly about this, so we need a good, strong result to show the employers that we mean business. Please vote yes to strike action over pay!
Your ballot paper includes two possible modes of action: strike and action short of strike (which would be things like refusing to stay late or do things not in your JD). Please vote yes for both. This gives us more options when it comes to taking action.
A full-day walkout is the most likely, as we aim to support similar actions that will be taken by the other HE unions (also balloting now). If we all act together, we can make a show of force to make the employers think again!
Please vote yes for action – a strong result in the ballot is vital to show that we want a better pay deal and we’re prepared to fight for it!
As always, any questions or comments, please feel free to email Catherine – firstname.lastname@example.org.
Health Education England (HEE) employees, based in Stewart House at the University of London and involved in the current consultation process, which threatens to reduce posts by 41% among staff who recruit and train junior doctors, have issued a series of key demands.
- No compulsory redundancies.
- Current staff to be retained to oversee transition to new technologies.
- No selection process.
- Full risk assessment audit to be conducted.
- Full equality impact assessment to be conducted.
The consultation period closes on the 7th of September, and it is clear that HEE management have been shaken by the degree of opposition to their plans (a petition against them already has nearly 500 signatures), which would see the workforce cut by more than two-fifths on the back of plans which some staff have described as ‘back-of-an-envelope stuff’.
‘It’s astonishing that such a massive decision,with such potential catastrophic effects on doctor numbers and patient safety, should have been made with no proper risk assessment’, said one employee, who did not wish to be named for fear that this would count against them in the forthcoming selection process.
Over 10,000 trainees are currently looked after by just 180 staff – but this number is set to fall to just 111 if the proposals are adopted.
Health Education England claim that these cuts have been forced on them by reductions in the NHS Education budget – but while other regions are delaying implementation until 2020, the London Region have set March 2017 as the date by which the new structure will take effect.
The IWGB is fully supporting its members as well as other affected staff. One member told us: ‘We have to fight this. London is being used as a guinea pig – if they get away with it here, the same cuts will happen across the rest of the country’.
Staff plan to target stakeholders such as the British Medical Association as part of their campaign, and have not ruled out strike action.
For further information please contact Danny at email@example.com.
The IWGB today notified the University of London that it would be formally balloting its members for strike action as part of the ongoing pay dispute.
The current pay offer is a desultory 1.1%, well below the national average.
Members should receive a ballot at the end of next week – please email firstname.lastname@example.org if you don’t – and we urge you to vote YES to strike action. We have received an effective cut in income of 14.5% since 2009, and the branch believes that only by withdrawing our labour can we demonstrate what it is worth.
We have been in consultation with other unions, so should the ballot be positive any strike action will take place in conjunction with UCU and UNISON, probably at the start of October.
You will need to return the ballot by 20 September! More info to follow!
IWGB members and supporters were out leafleting this lunchtime outside University College Hospital, as we continue our campaign against the proposed 41% cuts to PGMDE staff at Health Education England.
We got plenty of support, and loads more signatures on our petition against the cuts, which has now been signed by more than 400 people – https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-job-cuts-at-health-education-england.
We will have a full update on campaign plans on Friday at the monthly branch meeting so please come along and find out how you can help!
Any questions please email email@example.com .
Below is the letter we have just sent to the University, having discovered that some new Cordant workers are being issued with contracts without sick pay and with minimal holidays. Any questions firstname.lastname@example.org.
Dear Sir Adrian
My name is Henry Chango Lopez, and I am President of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, the union which represents the majority of the outsourced workers at the central University of London.
As you will recall, following the IWGB’s 3 Cosas Campaign, from November 2013 all outsourced workers at the UoL had new contracts introduced, which guaranteed them a minimum of 25 days holiday and sick pay of up to six months depending on length of service.
The University at the time made a public commitment that all contractors would adhere to these minimum conditions.
However, it has come to our attention that new employees working for Cordant are being issued with contracts (see attached) which provide no sick pay AND only the statutory minimum holiday allowance.
Can you confirm for me that the University maintains its commitment to the 2013 levels of sick and holiday pay for outsourced workers it so publicly announced, and that it will take immediate steps to end this practice on behalf of its contractor?
Henry Chango Lopez
You might have seen in the Guardian and elsewhere that Deliveroo drivers have called a strike over proposed changes to their contracts, pay and conditions.
Currently drivers earn £7/hour + £1/delivery. Deliveroo want to ditch the hourly rate, and move to a piece rate system, where drivers would only earn £3.75/delivery.
Many riders are now joining the IWGB, and our Couriers branch has been helping conduct negotiations with management (see more details here – https://iwgbclb.wordpress.com/2016/08/14/deliveroo-strike-update-3/ – or on Twitter (https://twitter.com/IWGB_CLB)).
The riders are holding daily pickets from 5 until 7 every day on Torrington Place (just up by Waterstones) and so it would be great if people could come along and show their support!
Just as Health Education England is proposing massive redundancies among the very staff who recruit and train junior doctors, the NHS is facing a critical shortage of both A and E doctors and GPs.
IWGB members and other affected staff have been working for last couple of weeks on a response to the PGME integration proposals, which if implemented will see a devastating 41% cut in staff!
Whether you work in HEE or not, please do get in touch with Danny (email@example.com) if you want to help fight these cruel and unworkable proposals.
We’ll be seeking to work with other unions and affected groups – the next step will be to ramp up the publicity campaign to start informing NHS staff and patients of the potential impact of these changes…
We just wanted to quickly summarize why we think you should vote No to the University’s proposals this week.
Lower-grade staff deserve a voice too
Grades 1-6 staff voted for IWGB to represent them in negotiations but the University proposes to cut IWGB out from now on – that can’t be right!
Staff can do better
If we say no to this plan, we can then design a forum that includes everyone – UCU, UNISON, and IWGB – everyone will be properly represented, and we can resolve this issue for good.
You can vote with confidence
The Electoral Reform Services are running this ballot, not HR. No one here will ever see how individuals voted. Please vote NO to prevent this unfair plan – your vote is secret!
IWGB General Secretary Jason Moyer-Lee is profiled in the Guardian today, talking about the gig economy and the IWGB’s efforts to combat it.
He’s also promoting our crowdfunding drive – https://www.crowdpac.co.uk/campaigns/216/iwgb – through which we’re trying to raise much-needed funds to both keep the union running and expand its activities. Please donate if you can and share this widely!
What with the excitement of ICE and the damp squib that was UNISON’s national pay ballot result, it’s possible to forget that IWGB members actually voted to strike over pay back in September!
However, due to UNISON’s decision not to take action we felt that members should decide whether or not to act on our mandate. At the last branch meeting members discussed it and decided we would only take action if UCU, another of the national pay bargaining unions, chooses to strike again this autumn. If they do so we will support them.
UCU won’t meet to make their final decision until this Friday, but legally we have to give one week’s notice of any action we take and that would not allow us enough time, as the time limit is 28 days from the ballot result. I’ve therefore written to Kim Frost to ask to extend the dispute period to give us this flexibility. We’ll see how that goes down!
If he refuses, there’s option B (also approved by members at the meeting): we can call for very short action – even just five minutes! – which would be enough to keep the ballot live without anyone losing pay. Obviously that’s a last resort and we’ll keep you posted.
As always, if you have any questions or comments, please just contact me (firstname.lastname@example.org)!
En Toynbee Hall se ofrecen clases gratuitas de Inglés para mujeres mayores de 16 años interesadas en mejorar su Inglés hablado y escrito. Los horarios de las clases son Lunes, Martes, Miércoles y Jueves.
La dirección es: Toynbee Hall, The Community Centre, 52 Old Castle Street, London, E1 7AJ
El curso abarca habilidades de escritura y aritméticas, manejo de idioma para situaciones cotidianas. También se ofrecen en Toynbee Hall clases de computación.
Para inscribirse por favor mande un correo a email@example.com o preséntese personalmente en la recepción.
Más información (en Inglés) se encuentra aquí: http://www.toynbeehall.org.uk/deesha-english-classes.
Some of you will already have seen this, but just wanted to share these management response’s to UNISON’s proposals (see below).
These seem to incorporate most of our key demands – although please let us know what you think. The main thing that occurs to me is that obviously there will still be far less staff doing more work at the end of this.
Thanks to everyone who flyered / petioned / submitted FOIs etc – this will definitely have had a massive effect on forcing these changes! In addition I know that journalists have been calling HEE asking about the cuts, so that will also have had an effect…
Any questions drop Danny a line (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Please note, these proposals are subject to certain assumptions about VR rates which cannot be guaranteed (as VR applications are a matter for individual employees, which they are free to withdraw should they so wish) and therefore we cannot provide an absolute guarantee that provisions below will take place. However, given the current number of VR applications (75) and resignations (15), we are optimistic that we can achieve the following key outcomes:
- No compulsory redundancies will be made
- No selection process will be required for the vast majority of staff. Most staff will be slotted into the new structure.
In addition the following provisions have been made:
- The revised proposal will be subjected to an externally conducted Equality Impact Assessment
- Current part-time and flexible working arrangements have been guaranteed
- The timeline for implementation has been extended until September 2017
- Secondments will be reviewed and evaluated as whether they can be considered as a ‘permanent’ positions for the purposes of post-matching
- Technology solutions will be subjected to rigorous testing, and an evaluation of their capacity to provide efficiency savings will be undertaken. This will take place prior to the reduction in staffing which will be achieved through VR
- A stakeholder engagement exercise will be undertaken