I am writing to lodge a dispute against Westminster Council.
The Council are undertaking a transformation process, involving all departments in the Council. It is expected up to 400 people will be made redundant.
‘pre consultation' has taken place over the past 90 days. This has involved informal meetings with Branch Officers, mostly discussing a road map, flexible retirements - mainly processes. At no stage were any clear structures made available, potential redundancies identified or any agreements on processes made.
It was fully expected that the 90 day consultation process would take place prior to the Council submitting the HR1 form from the Insolvency Service. We are now being told this is not the case, structure charts, detailed discussion and consultation will take place within the 90 day formal period.
We met with the Chief Executive and the Director of HR to express our concerns and asked them to go back to the first stage in the consultation process, and engage in meaningful consultation with us prior to submitting any formal notice of redundancies. This was refused. It was pointed out that we were trying to resolve this dispute locally before making it official. No business case has been presented.
No equality impact assessment has been carried out.
We believe all this information should have been provided to us as part of a pre consultation process.
Their own document states pre consultation does not in any way diminish the significance of formal consultation. No meaningful pre consultation has taken place.
Relevant documents are:
ORGANISATION CHANGE - CODE OF PRACTICE FOR DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTAITON
This code of practice clearly states that the Council is committed to effective consultation with the trade unions........and.........reaching mutually acceptable solutions to problems of concern to both sides.
No effective consultation has taken place and no mutually acceptable solutions have been reached.
Consultation should allow both sides to put forward alternative options for consideration........
As no effective consultation has taken place we have not been in a position to submit any alternative options.
Trade Unions will be informed at the earliest opportunity of any issue affecting staff which will be reported to Cabinet, and may request to make representations to a committee including consultation papers. Having had not been informed at all, we have had no opportunity to make any representations to Cabinet.
Where problems arise in the consultative process, both management and trade unions have a responsibility to find a mutually acceptable solution at the local level.
We have met with the Chief Executive and Director of HR and requested the pre consultation period commences at this point. They refused. We said we were trying to resolve the problem locally but this was met with a shrug of the shoulders.
HRI FORM
This form is the formal notice to the Insolvency Service of intention to make redundancies. 10 c asks if the elected representatives have been consulted. We have not.
Letter by the Director of HR
Prior to the formal consultation, the Regional Organiser was sent a letter by the Director of HR. This letter informed her that she could not be provided with the names of vulnerable staff, but suggests that he is aware (or knows) there are UNISON representatives at risk as it gives a specific procedure for making branch officers redundant, and says facility time will remain in place for the duration of their notice period. This sugggests they have already identified branch officer redundancies, despite claims the consultation process is about to begin.
The letter also informs the Regional Officer that the Branch Office may need to start organising a new election with minimum delay should Branch Officials be made redundant.
It goes on to say they will continue to work with the Branch or Regional Office as appropriate.
I formally request the Joint Secretaries to use their good offices in attempting to resolve this Dispute.
