Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Motion to National Conference


									PCS DWP Manchester and Salford
Motions for Debate 2006



A1 This AGM reaffirms the branch policy that no local rep will represent members in their
office, who have crossed a picket line during a strike.

We further agree that no local rep will represent members who fail to participate in other
forms of industrial action such as overtime bans.



A2 This AGM notes with concern the appalling attack on our Branch Secretary by another
member of staff.

We also note with dismay the failure of the local District Management to respond to this in a
fair and unbiased manner in relation to this incident.

This AGM gives its unconditional support to our Branch Secretary and instructs our Branch
Chair to write to the District Manager to protest their handling of this case and also the fact
that the District is not complying with DWP policies on discrimination, bullying and


A3 This conference notes the continuation of trade union victimisations in DWP.

Conference believes that such cases will always arise as we fight the New Labour cuts
programme, in particular where members take part in industrial action.

Conference recognises that an attack on one of our elected reps is an attack on the
functioning of the union as a whole. We therefore instruct the GEC to ensure that legal
representation is provided in all such cases and that support and encouragement is given to
industrial action submissions where reps are threatened.



A4 This Conference congratulates members in DWP for their leading role they are currently
playing in the campaign against civil service job cuts. In particular Conference applauds the
tremendous levels of support shown by the members in DWP in their current dispute.

This Conference recognises that members in DWP need to have effective industrial action if
they are to win the dispute.

Conference endorses the decision of the DWP GEC to include targeted action as part of the
industrial action strategy.

This Conference therefore instructs the NEC to organise a national levy of members in order
to help support members in any Department wishing to participate in short-term targeted
action as part of the industrial action strategy within the wider anti-job cuts campaign.


                                             1 of 8
PCS DWP Manchester and Salford
Motions for Debate 2006

A5 Conference recognises that the RAG tool has been subject to abuse by management
since its introduction. Members have felt intimidated, bullied and insulted by its crude
application. Conference realises JCP want to adapt and extend the use of RAG tools in other
parts of the business and that they will be used to inform not only PDS markings, but also
redundancy/workforce planning selection.

Conference welcomes the work done by branches, regions and the Group to get the RAG tool
withdrawn and instructs the GEC to incorporate its opposition to RAG into the Jobs Rights
and Services Campaign. The GEC are instructed to step up activity around our demand for
the withdrawal of RAG including the following measures:

1. Membership petitions
2. Draft grievances and complaints
3. Inclusion in media work
4. Inclusion in Parliamentary/Lobbying work




A6 This Conference notes that the NEC intends to ballot all members on the terms of the
new civil service pension scheme.

This Conference instructs the NEC to ballot all members on whether or not they wish to
accept the civil service pensions offer itself, which proposes to protect the pension rights of
current employees only.


A7 This conference instructs the NEC to ensure that the refund of dependents pension
contribution given to single staff on retirement should not be subject to any deduction for the
possibility of marriage in the future post retirement.



A8 Conference believes that every site within DWP should be fully compliant with the
Disability Discrimination Act and fully accessible to disabled staff. We instruct the GEC to
audit current progress towards DDA compliance and press management in all DWP business
units to make all premises fully compliant by March 2007 at the latest.



A9 This conference notes the Court of Session decision in Diosynth Limited v Morris
Thomson that found that disciplinary warnings should not be taken into account once expired
in any further proceedings leading to dismissal. Conference instructs the GEC to investigate
whether this decision could be used as a basis for test cases to challenge the department's
Attendance Management backsliding processes. Should the legal opinion indicate that there
are reasonable prospects of mounting such a challenge, Conference instructs the GEC to
pursue such cases urgently to try and prevent further bullying of our members back to work

                                              2 of 8
PCS DWP Manchester and Salford
Motions for Debate 2006

which could potentially have a detrimental effect on both the individual and their colleagues
Health and Safety when they are quite clearly genuinely off work ill.


A10 Conference condemns DWP’s Attendance Management policy and procedures. The
past period has demonstrated that Attendance Management is being used as a means to cut
staff as hundreds of our members have faced formal action.

Conference welcomes the incorporation of Managing Attendance demands in our
campaigning and industrial action strategy.

Conference instructs the GEC to:

    1. Demand an increase in the number of days set as the general consideration point
       beyond the current eight days;
    2. Seek the removal of backsliding from Managing Attendance;
    3. Seek the disregard of all disability-related absences;
    4. Demand disregards of absences during any widespread illness contracted by
       members, notably influenza and in consideration of fears of a flu pandemic;
    5. Produce specific guidance and a stencil to complete and give to management where
       they consider that their absence is caused by work-related stress.



A11 This conference is concerned that the union agreed to the joint re-launch of the DWP
Attendance Management policy. Conference believes that management’s policy and practice
has nothing to do with the welfare of DWP workers. Experience has shown us that DWP
management are only intent on pressurising those who are ill to come into work and sacking
those who cannot. We also believe that much of the absence is directly attributable to staff
cuts and workplace stress.

Conference is concerned that the GEC’s justification for the joint re-launch
included the view that:

“PCS can and should work with the DWP to tackle the real problem of sickness absence
•       the introduction of the Well-being at Work policy and procedures to
        reduce, if not eliminate, the causes of work related stress.
•       the setting up of several pilots to test their effectiveness in securing
        better attendance
•       revised and streamlined managing attendance guidance based on rights and
        responsibilities, reasonable adjustments and rehabilitation.”
        Although the re-launch included reference to six rights and 10
        responsibilities, we also recognize that management at the same time
        specified that there would be an “expectation” of formal warnings. In
        practice, this “streamlined” approach has led to an increase in warnings and

Conference believes that the union entering into the joint re-launch was
exploited by management and confused members as to whether PCS was opposed to
Managing Attendance.

Conference believes that it is impossible to work with an employer on
attendance management that is axing jobs and forcing more pressure on the
remaining members and victimizing those taken sick as a result.

                                            3 of 8
PCS DWP Manchester and Salford
Motions for Debate 2006

We therefore regret the decision to jointly re-launch the policy and
re-confirm our outright opposition to the Managing Attendance regime in DWP.



A12 This Conference notes that the 3 year pay deal will shortly expire. Whilst accepting that
members welcomed getting two pay awards timeously there are clearly concerns about the
anomaly of one Department negotiating a 3 year pay deal whilst the National union is
campaigning for national pay.

This Conference therefore instructs the GEC to negotiate a one year pay deal.

Proposed: Sharon Green


A13 Conference notes the following guidance in the ER Framework – Manager’s Guide-
Facilities for Trade Union Representatives:

“15. There will normally be a nominated lead TU representative for consultation in each
management unit (i.e. Jobcentre Plus district or pension centre) and, where possible, a
designated "site rep" located on each site. However, there may be a justifiable reason for a
site to have more than one representative. These could include:

• The large number of staff working at the site;

• The physical layout of an office (i.e. number of floors, satellite offices that do not contain
their own reps etc.)

• The number of district businesses on the site (Jobcentre Plus, The Pension Service etc.)
located on the site because cross- business representation for consultation with management
is normally not permissible;

• The variety of different roles. For example, a relatively small site could house a ULR, a
branch secretary, a GEC member, a Health & Safety representative and the site
representative, which on the face of it could appear excessive, but only one of these would
have site responsibilities. The others could just happen to be located on the site and are
included in the local facility time package because that is where they fall to be accounted for;

• TU representatives working hours or shift patterns - e.g. two or more representatives may
be necessary if one or more representatives work part time or the office is required to be
staffed for significantly longer than the normal working day.

Advice should be sought from an ER specialist if necessary.

Allocation of Trade Union Activities Time (TUA)

16. Managers need to consider the following guidance when awarding the basic 6 days TUA

From the following list 1) would qualify for 6 days TUA per year automatically. For TU
representatives falling within categories 2) and 3), or any other category of representatives,
an application would need to be made by PCS locally.

        1) the single representative nominated to represent the office on the BEC;

                                               4 of 8
PCS DWP Manchester and Salford
Motions for Debate 2006

        2) the main site representative in offices which do not send a delegate to
        BEC meetings (e.g. in smaller offices). Otherwise, the BEC delegate will be
        assumed to be the main representative;

        3) representatives that are not BEC members or nominated as site
        representative (categories 1) and 2) above) but who Management recognise
        take a lead role in representing members at consultation meetings with

This list is not necessarily exclusive. Application to grant the basic 6 days TUA allowance,
within an individual's overall Facility Time allowance, for any other classes of representative
should be considered on their merits. Advice should be sought from an ER specialist, if

Conference notes that, in practice, this guidance is interpreted by management in some
business units as a rule that there should only be one representative per site allocated Trade
Union Activities time. Conference rejects such an arbitrary restriction and instructs the GEC to
seek negotiations to so that, as a guideline, one local representative with TUA is allowed per
50 members.



A14 This conference notes that, in total, there are large numbers of security guards working
in DWP offices. Conference believes that it is crucial that these workers are organised into
unions. We note for example, that due to the cuts, CCOs in Jobcentre Plus offices often take
on the role of unofficial receptionists and in practice mask the true impact of the cuts.

Conference instructs the GEC to launch a campaign alongside the commercial sector aimed
at recruiting all security staff to PCS or a more suitable union. We also instruct the GEC to
enter into talks with any union currently organising DWP-based security staff.




A15 This conference notes with concern the increased numbers of private employment
agencies advertising through Jobcentre Plus. We note the view of many members that the
agencies are often using non-existent vacancies as a means to have JCP customers referred
to them.

We condemn Jobcentre Plus’ collusion with private employment agencies and the destruction
of marketing teams in JCP as part of the cuts programme. As a result, Jobcentre Plus’
vacancies are increasingly dominated by agencies offering temporary or even non-existent

Conference instructs the GEC to demand that

    1. Management scrutinise all agency vacancies to ensure there is a genuine job
    2. As part of our job cuts campaign, management provide more staff to marketing teams
       to ensure that Jobcentre Plus advertises quality vacancies.
    3. Publicise the record of agencies using Jobcentre Plus to the media, MPs and DWP
       Select Committee.


                                             5 of 8
PCS DWP Manchester and Salford
Motions for Debate 2006



A16 This conference instructs the NEC to negotiate an agreement so that all overpayments
of salaries, when recovery cannot be waived, are subject to repayment by an agreed
schedule of repayment, rather than recovery by a single deduction which invariably causes
hardship to the member concerned.



A17 Conference is concerned at the lack of any real independence of decision making under
the Departmental Grievance Procedures. Decisions are often taken by managers who know
or work closely with the person who is subject of the grievance, and within the same district or
management structure.

Conference calls for a change to the procedures so that decision makers are genuinely
independent, ideally by a return to the system of nominated grievance officers who could
cover the whole of DWP and be separate from any of its business units.

The Group Executive is instructed to open negotiations aimed at seeking such a change, and
also to explore the avenues for possible legal challenge of the current procedures.



A18 Conference believes the current Harassment, Discrimination and Bullying procedures
are inadequate in two respects:

    1. They do not contain an adequate system for addressing discrimination issues where
       there is not an issue of individual misconduct as such, but rather a systemic failure,
       for example a failure to provide reasonable adjustments within an appropriate
       timescale where blame is possibly shared between a number of individuals, the
       business unit concerned and indeed “The Department” generally;

    2. While the two-tier approach for dealing with minor incidences and more serious ones
       is helpful, the Line Manager’s Enquiry procedure does not guarantee independence
       or fairness. It should be replaced by an Independent Manager’s Enquiry, so a similar
       level of objectivity is achieved as with an HR investigation.

    The Group Executive is instructed to open negotiations to achieve these changes with the



A19 This conference notes with concern that the push to "maximise mobility" within the civil
service and "increase flexibility" in the external workforce is leading to an increase in the
amount of time staff are forced to spend travelling to work.

                                            6 of 8
PCS DWP Manchester and Salford
Motions for Debate 2006

This conference believes that employers including our own are getting "savings" through the
movement and centralisation of work but that these "savings" are being paid for partly by
individual members of staff effectively giving up more of their personal time for no pay but
also by society in the form of environmental damage, family break down, destruction of local
communities and a less healthy population due both to the effects on the individual and the
increased risk of accidents..
This conference believes that 30 minutes each way (or 5 hours per week) is a reasonable
maximum for unpaid daily travel and that the employer should pay for anything above this.
This conference therefore instructs the NEC and all the Unions separate bargaining units to
1)immediately add a cut in the maximum mobility to 30 minutes to any and all pay claims.
2) To seek immediate industrial action in all areas where management attempt to impose
a worsening of the current conditions
3) support all individual members where management is attempting to attack current
conditions by attempting to pushing staff to the limits of the rules.

this conference further instructs the NEC to play a leading part in a TUC wide campaign for
paid travelling time over 30 minutes that campaign being based on the principles of
1) a fair days work for a fair days pay
2) the protection of local goods services and communities
3) ensuring a cut in pollution in line with international agreements
With a final long-term goal of altering the EU working time directive so that all travelling for all
workers over 1 hour per day is included in the 48 hours.



A20 This Conference notes that, with the introduction of BDCs and the reduction in the
number of workplaces, the majority of staff will be forced to travel greater distances, and for
longer, in order to get to and from work. In order to compensate for this, the GEC is
instructed to negotiate a reduction in the working week for all (full-time) staff in line with the
hours worked in the London pay zone (VIZ. Reduce the working week to 36 hours for all staff
regardless of location.)

Proposed: Sharon Green


A21 This branch agrees to affiliate to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.



A22 This branch agrees that we have a responsibility to other Trade Unionists in struggle,
and therefore agrees to make a maximum of 10% of the branch Hardship Fund available to
help with appeals from other unions in dispute.


A23 (Falls if A22 is carried) This AGM accepts that the branch is currently proscribed from
funding certain legitimate trade Union activity out of either of its existing Branch accounts.
This AGM therefore instructs the BEC to open a "branch third account" funded by clearly
separate donations
All decisions regarding payments to from this account to be included in the minutes of the
BEC and attached as an appendix to the treasurers report for membership scrutiny at the
end of the financial year.

                                              7 of 8
PCS DWP Manchester and Salford
Motions for Debate 2006


A24 This branch agrees that 50% of the 200 club money raised monthly should be donated
to the hardship fund. The remaining 50% should be split in to 5 prizes, made up of 25% for
1st prize, 15 % for second prize, 5% for third prize and 2.5% for 4th and 5th prize.



A25 This conference agrees that from January 2007, branch funding shall be available in the
form of quarterly payments in advance if this is requested by the branch concerned.


A26 This conference believes that the system of funding for branches is unfair, with active
branches receiving less than £1.50 per year per member, we therefore agree that the funding
should be based on the following formula:
££2.00 per member with an optional rural weighting.


A27 This conference agrees that a holding of a branch banner would be a useful asset for all
branches, we therefore agree that funding should be allowed to enable any branch to
purchase one that wishes to.



A28 This conference believes that it is vitally important that the largest possible number of
members participate in the democratic process that sets union policy.
This Conference therefore rejects the current allocation of time allocated for members to
attend mandating meetings as woefully inadequate for the purpose and that it also
discriminates against members with home responsibilities.
This conference instructs the GEC and the Unions negotiators to return to management to
negotiate a credit of a minimum of 3 hours or 5 minutes for each A marked motion at group
and national conferences whichever is shorter.
In the event of Management refusing this request this conference instructs the GEC to
 1) Publicise all managements stated reasons for refusing both to all members immediately
and in external material in response to managements frequent implications that the union is
run by an undemocratic minority.
3) seek comparisons with other agreements within the civil service and where favourable
pursue legal advice and redress.


                                            8 of 8

To top