CONTINUAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ARRANGEMENTS 2009/10

Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 7:08 pm

You will by now have read the message from LFEPA’s head of human resources, James Dalgleish, in respect of the above matter. In his message, Mr Dalgleish suggests that the FBU has not reached agreement with the authority over one issue: sickness targets.
I wish to correct that statement and inform members of exactly where we are in respect of the continual professional development (CPD) process. In 2007, the FBU entered into lengthy discussions with senior authority managers on the recently-introduced CPD scheme, and it was agreed that a streamlined local interim process would be established, thus avoiding the need for members to enter the more complex and convoluted national application process. Both sides made concessions to reach that agreement, and it was deemed successful enough to be used again in 2008 (albeit with slight pro-rata amendments to take account of reduced timescales, something which both sides agreed would be put right the following year).

During those discussions, the FBU made clear that it was not our intention to seek to renegotiate the agreement on a yearly basis. Senior managers agreed, although they did highlight that the agreement would need to be ‘tweaked’ (their words) to take account of additional training and courses which could form part of the tick-box criteria for future years.
In April 2009, the FBU was informed by managers that they now wished to amend the process, and they forwarded proposals to us for consultation. While we were prepared to discuss ‘tweaks’ to the various parts of the interim form against which members can choose to provide evidence, we were not prepared to renegotiate the whole process, including the central component that was the initial sift criteria, which detailed such things as the number of days sickness that were permitted before members became ineligible.

In May 2009, management sought a meeting with us where it was clear that they intended to renege on the previous agreement by proposing a reduction in the permitted number of days of sickness in a year – from nine to eight – which formed part of the initial sift criteria.
Indeed, after we objected, they went one step further by proposing, as a ‘compromise’, a new criterion of 21 days sickness in three years, which any discerning observer would see, pro-rata, is an even more inferior arrangement. The justification cited by management for the change was the reduction in the authority’s sickness target, which itself was brought about by the general improvement in sickness levels throughout the brigade and which, in their view, allowed them to now set the bar even higher.

The FBU protested about this, pointing out that members were effectively being punished for reducing sickness levels. What kind of employer, having reaped the benefit of reduced sickness levels, then rewards its employees for their efforts by setting more stringent criteria the following year, and why should employees feel anything but bitter and betrayed about being treated so shabbily? If sickness levels had increased over the last year, would managers see this as a reason to commensurately increase the limit for the CPD scheme? The question hardly requires an answer.

When challenged on how such a move could be seen as a benefit or reward, we were informed that the reward was that members would be able to carry out prearranged overtime and outside employment.
In 2007/08, the FBU made considerable concessions in seeking a local agreement on the CPD process, and members made clear at that time that no further concessions should be made by the FBU. Therefore, the FBU has emphasised to managers that if they wish to continue to renege on the agreement then we would have no option but to advise members not to participate in the interim process, and to apply instead via the national application process – something that the authority must surely know would take up a considerable amount of both time and resources of managers.

We have informed senior managers that we expect members eligible for CPD to be informed if their applications were successful by no later than 1 June 2009, in accordance with the national process.
As management were fully aware of the significance of this deadline, they then sought to seek agreement from the FBU for a joint statement highlighting that discussions were ongoing and this was the reason for the delay. To ‘share the blame’, in other words. The union was not prepared to sign such a joint statement, as our members are entitled to know precisely who is responsible for the delay in this year’s CPD process.
We also informed the head of human resources that the FBU has always been prepared to meet with the NJC joint secretaries on any matter, in accordance with the Grey Book and the NJC protocols.

I hope this clarifies some of the misleading information included in the message from the head of human resources. Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact your local FBU officials.

Yours fraternally

Ian Leahair