Barnet UNISON

Secondment versus Joint Employment on Capita Symonds DRS contract

Over the past two weeks almost 50% of staff working in DRS have been attending what are referred to as ‘joint employment’ workshops. One of the critical proposals of the privatisation of DRS to Capita Symonds are joint employment contracts for the above staff. UNISON is currently carrying out an online survey of our members on this matter, but one consistent question is emerging i.e. “Why not use secondment?”

The responses to this question from staff are that the One Barnet contract is too long for a secondment (it is a 10 year contract with an option for a five years) and the Council has been advised that secondment is unlawful.

In response to this staff have referred to the privatisation of similar services to Capita Symonds earlier this year at North Tyneside Council (see here). This is a longer 15 year contract and secondment was chosen as the employment model for those staff carrying out enforcement.

Staff quite understandably are questioning this legal advice as they believe that joint employment is a much higher risk of challenge of their enforcement decisions by residents and or business than if they were still employed directly by Barnet Council via secondment. Furthermore they do not understand if it is unlawful to second staff to carry out enforcement in Barnet it must be unlawful to do the same in North Tyneside?

The UNSION and staff position on this matter was that we would support secondment as an employment option as we have done for other Barnet staff that are still on secondment beyond ten years  

It seems legal advice is very much under scrutiny at the moment.

On Monday 22 July UNISON met with Your Choice to discuss a number of critical concerns we have about the proposals and the current staffing situation in Your Choice workplaces.

Voluntary Redundancy

UNSION received confirmation that all staff seeking voluntary redundancy had now left and the proposed management changes have been completed. We understand not all of these posts have been recruited to and external adverts are going out.

Valley Way Consultation

We were informed consultation with service users, parents/carers is being carried out on a one-to-one basis for the Valley Way proposals. The consultation is expected to run to mid August, We have sought conformation of the actual date the consultation closes. We were told any decisions on this consultation exercise will be made at the end of August. If there are new changes to the original proposals for staff, consultation with the trade unions will begin at this point. We asked if there was further consultation would it be a 30 day consultation. We also sought the date when the implementation of the outcome of the proposals for Valley Way would be carried out.

Supported Living consultation

This next phase of consultation with service users, parents/carers regarding Supported Living is not expected to begin before the start of September and not expected to end before mid October. If following the consultation there are any differences in the original proposals for staff, consultation with the trade unions will begin at this point. Again we asked for confirmation as to whether the staff consultation would be a 30 day consultation. Finally we asked when the implementation of the outcome of the proposals would be carried out.

Shocking news on consultation.

UNISON has to report that in the meeting we were informed the consultation with service users, parents/carers will not include discussions about the proposed changes to salaries and terms and conditions of staff.

It is not clear to UNISON what Your Choice are consulting service users, parents/carers on. Given that Your Choice ignored UNISON’s advice that they should consult service users, parents/carers on 28 February 2013, it seems that once again service users, parents/carers are not going to have the critical information in this consultation process. We were informed of an involvement of a third party, we have asked who they are and what role are they playing.  We were also told Service users will be receiving an easy to read formatted consultation document and their opinions will also be sought.

“It is UNISON’s view this is a serious and fundamental flaw to the consultation process by omitting this critical information.”

BILS

Service users, parents/carers will be consulted only on the new venue for the service once alternative options have been identified. There is no timetable for this to commence at present. UNISON raised serious concern about the staffing levels for this service. We reported the service has now reduced from 10 to 3 staff. We raised issues around cover arrangements, responsibility for the building (recognising who has liability) and lone working. We stated Health & Safety measures in place are not robust or clear enough. Your Choice responded by saying service user numbers are down by some 50% and added they could not now afford to employ the full establishment. This was worrying news in that Your Choice do not seem to have been able to have secured the growth it urgently needs if the service is to survive.

Staff enhancement payments

Your Choice confirmed that any changes to enhancements (weekend/shift working) have been put on hold.

Benchmarking staff pay

We were informed consultants have been engaged to look at the benchmarking exercise and that they are looking at all issues around salaries and terms and conditions. Once they have their proposals and the board has considered their preferred option, consultation will open with the trade unions. We have asked for the name of the consultancy firm.

Compulsory Redundancy letters

Your Choice has sent letters to staff informing them of their position regarding compulsory redundancy. Our members who have been sacked as result of the Your Choice proposals have asked to be able to leave straight away. However Your Choice have told these staff that they must work their notice.

UNISON objected to this and queried why Your Choice Board allowed all the staff given voluntary redundancy to leave straightaway. It was this decision to let these staff go that has now created an unsafe and unstable working environment.

Health & Safety

UNISON  raised serious concerns regarding health and safety matters. We identified over use of ‘agency’ and “as and when” hours as being inherently unsafe in terms of consistency and the need for ongoing induction of new agency staff etc. UNISON felt the casualisation of the workforce is fostering a workplace whereby staff who are reliant on either ‘agency work’ or ‘as & when’ hours are less likely to raise health & safety matters in the workforce for fear of losing hours. To remedy this situation UNISON said it is critical to stabilise the workforce as quickly as possible. The first step would be to withdraw all at risk letters for support workers/remaining staff.

YCB said they would review this request and decide whether to withdraw these letters or not.

UNISON said it was clear there is a surplus of support worker roles across the services and we also believe permanent jobs can already now be identified as the volume of work being covered by agency and temporary staff indicates large numbers of posts are now being covered temporarily.

Finally we have requested a Health and Safety audit of all YCB settings following a serious incident involving a service user at one of the day centres.

Staffing levels at all Your Choice Settings

UNISON has requested a breakdown of the staffing establishment for each individual Your Choice workplace by job title, this should include the numbers of part-time and full-time agency staff covering vacant posts as well as the numbers of staff on as and when hours in each individual setting with a breakdown as to how many hours they work in an as and when capacity and which posts they are covering.

UNISON was disappointed to hear that whilst agency staff have been employed on short-term contracts (agency) a similar stabilising commitment has not been given to as and when staff. We want to see the prioritisation of as and when staff into permanent contracts.

Why are we where we are?

In the meeting YCB reported they regret the position they are in with respect to uncertainty around staffing levels but this was not a position they chose to being and not one of their making. UNISON disputed this as in the very first consultation meeting 28th of February UNISON strongly recommended consultation was carried out with parents/carers. YCB chose not to do so.

UNISON members

UNISON has been conducting a telephone survey of all of its members working for Your Choice in order we can directly speak to each member about their concerns and the support they need from UNISON. This has been an important exercise in informing our branch and keeping us up to date with what is an unsettling and changing workplace. It is important our members are able to feel they can contact the branch if they have any queries or concerns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Campaign Against the Destruction of Disability Support Services (CADDSS) have produced a report on the Your Choice proposed changes to services.

You can read the full report here

Executive Summary 

Your Choice Barnet Ltd (YCB) began operating as a Local Authority Trading Company (LATC) in February 2012. Within months it incurred operating losses and failed to attract new service users and revenue. Barnet UNISON had earlier published a series of highly critical reports on the options appraisal, business case and business plan, which predicted the problems that have since unfolded in YCB.

The core objective of this report is to set out the case for full and continuing engagement with service users, carers and community organisations, together with staff and trade unions and to show how YCB’s current approach is flawed, fails to provide value for money for the taxpayer and therefore unacceptable.

The case for engagement

There are four powerful reasons why YCB should engage with service users, carers and staff in the design, delivery and review of service delivery:

·         The legal case for engagement.

·         The relationship between the quality of employment and the quality of service.

·         Best practice public management and service planning.

·         The important impact of personal budgets on YCB finances.

There is significant evidence, including YCB’s own evidence, that the restructuring proposals will have a negative impact on the delivery and quality of services.

YCB’s pick and mix approach to engagement

YCB’s current approach to engagement is totally inadequate. It ignores the basic principles of engagement (see page 16). Evidence of YCB reports and Board meetings hint at a positive approach, but YCB adopts a minimalist approach in practice. This has led to service users, carers and CADDSS having little trust or confidence in YCB’s approach to engagement. Consequently, CADDSS has drawn up a set of core principles for engagement.

 

YCB suffers from three important democratic gaps that require immediate attention: a Governance Gap because parents do not have a direct representative on the Board; an Engagement Gap because engagement policy and practice is inadequate and unacceptable; and a Transparency Gap because disclosure is selective and limited.

The financial crisis deepens

The roller coaster financial forecasts for YCB between 2010-2012 reflected the way in which the options appraisal, business case and business plan were prepared. Barnet Council chose to ignore the detailed critical analysis and proposals submitted by Barnet UNISON. Instead it stuck to a pre-determined decision to transfer Adult Social Services to a new local authority trading company, supported by its outsourcing consultants and lawyers.

Predictably, YCB was incurring costs within a few months leading to first year losses and the £1m bailout. Despite the £180,000 first year cost saving measures and the financial impact of the restructuring proposals, the financial position is precarious. Some £951,587 of cumulative losses, reduced income and part repayment of the loan and interest, plus achieve the £162,000 budgeted growth income, have to be addressed in 2013-2014.

The case to return the service to in-house provision

There is a very substantive case for returning Your Choice Barnet services back to in-house provision to stabilise the finances of the six services; remove the threat to Barnet tenant’s housing management service with rapid repayment of the £1m bailout; take a more effective and measured approach to the development of services to avoid misuse of public resources in pursuing inappropriate and unachievable commercial objectives; and to prepare a three-year development plan with the engagement of service users, carers and community organisations together with staff and trade unions.

Recommendations

The YCB Board should immediately:

1. Engage in full and continuing engagement with service users, carers and community organisations, together with staff and trade unions, in the design, delivery and review of Adult Social Care services. This should include community meetings and facilitate the submission of proposals for the future of the services. It requires a new Engagement Plan prepared with service user and carer representatives.

 

2. Endorse the seven core engagement principles into the YCB engagement policy and commit to their application in practice (see page 16).

3. Agree not to implement the management and staffing proposals in the Consultation Paper published on 1st March 2013.

4. Immediately terminate the benchmarking contract with Valuing Care Limited and the consultancy contract with Care and Health Solutions Limited.

Barnet Council should:

5. Return YCB services to in-house provision at the earliest practical opportunity.

6. In the short-term, extend the block contract to ease YCB cash flow problems.

7. Prepare a three-year service development plan with service users, carers, s taff and trade unions.

Campaign Against Destruction of Disabled Support Services

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 23 July 2013

Your Choice Barnet offered a way out of its financial crisis by Professor Dexter Whitfield

 

CADDSS (Campaign Against Destruction of Disabled Support Services) was so concerned about the future of services provided by Your Choice Barnet that it asked Prof Dexter Whitfield, the Director of European Services Strategy, to review the situation.  Your Choice Barnet is experiencing considerable financial difficulties and is very unwilling to engage with service users and families who are worried about the future of the services they use.

 

In his report “The Way Out Of Financial Crisis” Dexter Whitfield States, “The core objective of this report is to set out the case for full and continuing engagement with service users, carers and community organisations, together with staff and trade unions and to show how YCB’s current approach is flawed, fails to provide value for money for the taxpayer and therefore unacceptable.”

 

At present Your Choice Barnet has not engaged in meaningful consultations with service users and their families. Service users and their families have no direct representation on the Board of Your Choice Barnet.  Your Choice Barnet is very selective about what it chooses to disclose.

 

Dexter Whitfield urges Your Choice Barnet not to implement its proposed changes to management and staffing.  Service users and their families are concerned that these changes would cause a considerable deterioration in the quality of services provided.

Despite considerable financial difficulties Your Choice Barnet has agreed to new contracts with consultants.  Dexter Whitfield feels they will give little information that Your Choice Barnet does not already know.  He recommends these contracts should be terminated.

 

Dexter Whitfield recommends that Barnet Council should return YCB services in-house, extend the block contract to ease YCB cash flow problems, and prepare a three-year service development plan with service users, carers, staff and trade unions.

 

A member of CADDSS voiced the concerns of many, “Carers are extremely worried about  the future care of their loved ones.  What will happen when we are no longer around to look out for them?”

 

ENDS

 

Notes to the editor:

ñ  The Campaign Against the Destruction of Disabled Support Services (CADDSS for short) has been set up by Barnet residents to protest against deteriorating social care provision in the London Borough of Barnet.

ñ  Your Choice Barnet was set up by Barnet Council as part of the One Barnet Programme of outsourcing to provide services for adults with disabilities.  It is failing financially and its proposed solution is to restructure services and reduce the number and skill level of staff.

 

Dexter Whitfield’s Report is attached.

 

Contact:        Janet Leifer Tel: 07534 407 703, John Sullivan 07711-934499                                  caddss1@gmail.com

 

 

Campaign Against Destruction of Disabled Support Services

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 23 July 2013

Your Choice Barnet offered a way out of its financial crisis by Professor Dexter Whitfield

 

CADDSS (Campaign Against Destruction of Disabled Support Services) was so concerned about the future of services provided by Your Choice Barnet that it asked Prof Dexter Whitfield, the Director of European Services Strategy, to review the situation.  Your Choice Barnet is experiencing considerable financial difficulties and is very unwilling to engage with service users and families who are worried about the future of the services they use.

 

In his report “The Way Out Of Financial Crisis” Dexter Whitfield States, “The core objective of this report is to set out the case for full and continuing engagement with service users, carers and community organisations, together with staff and trade unions and to show how YCB’s current approach is flawed, fails to provide value for money for the taxpayer and therefore unacceptable.”

 

At present Your Choice Barnet has not engaged in meaningful consultations with service users and their families. Service users and their families have no direct representation on the Board of Your Choice Barnet.  Your Choice Barnet is very selective about what it chooses to disclose.

 

Dexter Whitfield urges Your Choice Barnet not to implement its proposed changes to management and staffing.  Service users and their families are concerned that these changes would cause a considerable deterioration in the quality of services provided.

Despite considerable financial difficulties Your Choice Barnet has agreed to new contracts with consultants.  Dexter Whitfield feels they will give little information that Your Choice Barnet does not already know.  He recommends these contracts should be terminated.

 

Dexter Whitfield recommends that Barnet Council should return YCB services in-house, extend the block contract to ease YCB cash flow problems, and prepare a three-year service development plan with service users, carers, staff and trade unions.

 

A member of CADDSS voiced the concerns of many, “Carers are extremely worried about  the future care of their loved ones.  What will happen when we are no longer around to look out for them?”

 

ENDS

 

Notes to the editor:

ñ  The Campaign Against the Destruction of Disabled Support Services (CADDSS for short) has been set up by Barnet residents to protest against deteriorating social care provision in the London Borough of Barnet.

ñ  Your Choice Barnet was set up by Barnet Council as part of the One Barnet Programme of outsourcing to provide services for adults with disabilities.  It is failing financially and its proposed solution is to restructure services and reduce the number and skill level of staff.

 

Dexter Whitfield’s Report is attached.

 

Contact:        Janet Leifer Tel: 07534 407 703, John Sullivan 07711-934499                                  caddss1@gmail.com

 

 

1. Jeremy Hunt: ‘completely normal’ for contractor to fail to deliver http://ning.it/OV8pPC

2. Winterbourne – Timeline: Winterbourne View abuse scandal http://ning.it/18tbEaf

3. Southwest One contract dispute cost council £5.9m http://ning.it/18tbHTs

4. Timeline: how G4S’s bungled Olympics security contract unfolded http://ning.it/1b4EnGP

5. G4S faces fraud investigation over tagging contracts http://ning.it/18tbNKJ

6. Private contractor fiddled data when reporting to NHS, says watchdog http://ning.it/1b4EwtN

7. Serco tagging scandal could hit sale of MoD agency contract – http://ning.it/1b4ExOp

8. MPs CALL FOR CAPITA CONTRACT TO BE AXED http://ning.it/1b4EHoV

9. BT overcharging Liverpool council by £10m a year, report claims http://ning.it/1b4EPoq

10. Southern Cross set to shut down and stop running homes – http://ning.it/1b4F0A1

Tomorrow the case Maria Nash versus Barnet Council will be heard at the Court of Appeal in Court 71 before The Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Davis and Lady Justice Gloster it is a 10.30 start.

Two days have been set aside to hear the case.

The case was brought by Barnet resident and disability rights campaigner Maria Nash in response to the One Barnet mass outsourcing council.

If the Court of Appeal finds against Maria Nash what sort of message does it send to public bodies across the UK? That it is all right to breach your statutory obligations because there are no serious implications for doing so.

This is why the judgment delivered at the Court of Appeal on the Maria Nash case will have wide-ranging implications for the future of local government and the NHS. As more and more councils and Clinical Commissioning Groups are placed under increased pressure to try to outsource their problems away. The stark reality is that if this decision is not challenged, it will leave the door open for mass outsourcing of public services on an unprecedented scale across the country.

Outsourcing failures are becoming all the more common, most recently the G4S & Serco overcharging scandal which once again demonstrates the failure of public bodies to monitor the private sector.

Outsourcing is big business, recent reports indicate the current cost of outsourcings public services which were once delivered in house are now worth £88billion.

The Maria Nash case is all about whether the Council should have consulted residents which is why it is worth considering what Lord Justice Underhill had to say about the claim of failing to consult. Below are a number of key extracts from the judgment.

Judgment (extract)

“60.Not withstanding that conclusion, I believe that I should give my conclusions on the substantive questions. I do so partly in case the matter goes further but also because, so far as the issues under section 3 of the 1999 Act are concerned, I am told that there is no case-law, and in view of the thorough and expert submissions made to me it may be of some wider value if I expressed my views….” (2013.04.29 Lord Justice Underhill)

Rejecting the Barnet Council’s response to ‘Failing to consult’

“73. I do not accept Ms Carss-Frisk’s submissions. In the first place I do not think that the use of the formulation “for the purpose of deciding how to fulfil” as opposed to, say, “about how to fulfil” will bear the weight that Ms Carss-Frisk puts on it. Of course it is important to pay close attention to the statutory language, but I do not see how you can consult “for the purpose of” making a decision without inviting views on the substance of the decision itself. And even if that is theoretically possible, I do not see how it is possible to consult for the purpose of deciding whether to undertake a major outsourcing programme without inviting views on the proposal to undertake that programme. Consultation only about “priorities”, or about other general matters that might “assist” the authority in deciding whether to outsource, is not the same thing and is not what is required.” (2013.04.29 Lord Justice Underhill)

Barnet Council seeking to avoid consulting

“74. That seems to me not only the natural reading of the statutory language but what I would expect Parliament to have intended. It is hard to see why authorities should be entitled to fulfil their duty to consult in a way which avoided seeking views on the central issues raised by the substantive duty. Ms Carss-Frisk was of course obliged to put her case in the way that she did because it is clear that in the present case the Council did not make any attempt to consult on the specific question of whether the functions and services covered by the NSCSO and DRS contracts should be outsourced. (Indeed if what Mr Dix was told, as quoted at para. 52 (1) above, is to be taken at face value, the Council had taken the view that it would not consult on “the principles of the Future Shape programme”)” (2013.04.29 Lord Justice Underhill)

No intention to consult residents

“Because here the Council never set out to consult about its outsourcing programme at all,” (2013.04.29 Lord Justice Underhill)

Failed to comply with obligations under section 3 (2) of the 1999 Act

“76. It follows that if the application for judicial review had been made in time I would have held that the Council had not complied with its obligations under section 3 (2) of the 1999 Act in respect of the decisions taken in 2010/11 to outsource the performance of its functions and services, covered by the proposed NSCSO and DRS contracts.” (2013.04.29 Lord Justice Underhill)

Whatever the outcome of the decision, I know the workforce (almost 600 jobs) at risk of losing their jobs as a result of the privatisation of council services are hoping the Judges decide in favour of Maria Nash.

Follow the court case on twitter on #BarnetJR

 

“Hospitals accuse Capita of failings.”

Some of the failings are reported as:

• M overpaying staff, with trusts having problems recovering the monies paid out;
• M breaching data protection by sending staff personal details to other employees;
• M paying someone due to start work two months’ salary, despite their dropping out of the recruitment process;
• M delays in pre- employment checks, leading to highly valuable candi­dates withdrawing their application for a job;
• M losing sensitive and confidential information

“The audit report was said to contain a “damning assessment of Capita’s performance of the contract” with failings in a number of areas.”

You can read more here and here and the minutes here

Yesterday and today the media are reporting another story about contractors ripping off the public purse.

“private security company G4S for overcharging tens of millions of pounds on electronic tagging contracts for offenders.”

This branch has been clear from the start that if you use the private sector you need to have the skills and expertise and resources to manage them. In response to our concerns our council has responded by creating the commissioning council in order to manage the private sector using “relationship management” Who comes up with such jargon? In the real world with stories like G4S and Serco the relationship with all private sector contractors taking public money should be very clear: 

“If you are taking public money and you don’t deliver you are not getting paid and if you over charge us then the contract is ripped up and you have to pay, end of story.”

However in order to enforce this you need lots of resources to ensure robust contract monitoring team…..but the catch here is that to do this can mean the business case for outsourcing does not stack up!

So with a history of private sector failures in the public sector what has been the clever thinking? Answer—The Thin Client!

UNISON has written at length about the ‘thin client’ . To put it simply it seeks to reduce the size of the client team down (less people monitoring the contractor) and relies unbelievably upon the contractor reporting itself..?

“You could not make this up but it is true.”

So when you read about G4S (again..Olympics anyone! ) and see they only found out when they started to re-tender, then it shows the ‘light touch’ approach to contract monitoring is simply unacceptable.

“Grayling told MPs that G4S and a second major supplier, Serco, had been overcharging on the existing £700m contract, with the Ministry of Justice being billed for non-existent services that dated back to at least 2005 and possibly as long ago as 1999.”

What does the above say about the culture of the contractors who must have know what they were doing?

(Footnote “the market’s instinctive reaction – 8% off Serco’s share price and 5.5% of G4S’s more lowly rated stock.”)

Did the Coalition government promise better control?

I remember back in 2010 government minister Francis Maude saying this in regards the private sector contracts with the govern­ment:

“We will expect you to be transparent in all your dealings with us and for the terms of the contracts we sign with you to go up online.”

Oh dear, not turned out as he hoped and he is now saying

“The public rightly expects government suppliers to meet the highest standards, and for taxpayers’ money to be spent properly and trans­parently. As a result of what the Justice Secretary outlined earlier today, I am launching an immediate review into government-held G4S and Serco contracts.”

You can read more here and here

UNISON has for the last two weeks been trying to establish what plans Your Choice are putting in place for consultation with Parents/Carers.

After Parents/Carers threatened a Judicial Review Your Choice put some of their restructure plans on hold.

However, Your Choice has allowed a sixth of the workforce to go before the consultation begins. This has had a terrible impact on morale of the frontline workforce and we are now receiving news that more staff are finding alternative jobs with others applying to get out of Your Choice services. For instance 60% of staff working in Barnet Independent Living Service have already left the service.

UNISON has asked Your Choice on a number of occasions to provide details of their  consultation plans in order we can try and bring some stability to the workforce. UNISON has advised our members not to leave and wait to hear the outcome of the consultation. Many of our members have provided a quality service and built up strong relationships with services users and carers. It is UNISON’s view that this strength is being undermined by the restructure and worsened by the lack of information sharing. We are concerned that the high turnover of staff in these type of services increases the likelihood of a serious incident in the workplace.

On the Your Choice website here http://www.yourchoicebarnet.org/news/2013/06/2013/06/consultation-process-update/ it states: 

Our announcement giving the Board’s decisions on our restructuring proposals said that decisions concerning Valley Way and Supported Living changes will be postponed until a full consultation has been completed.

This will be held with service users, parents and carers of both services.  The Valley Way consultation will be for six weeks, followed immediately by the Supported Living consultation which will be for a further six weeks. The Valley Way invitation and consultation document will be sent out by 12 July, inviting families to personal meetings during the week of 22 July.

We’ll post further updates as we progress.

This provides very little useful information.

UNISON produced a response to the staff consultation which you can read here we are concerned that the stability of the workforce is being further undermined by the lack of information/communication to the workforce and the trade unions.   

Look out for further updates