PCS continues the fight to stop mass sackings through changes to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme (CSCS)

The message below is taken from the PCS website. It is important and every member should read it.

I was always taught that unity is strength and what some other unions who represent a small proportion of civil servants have done in going behind the back of PCS is little more than treachery and betrayal; strong words but in my view completely justified in this instance. PCS is still calling for unity with these other unions, but I believe that this should be unity with their members to fight for jobs and services, rather than unity with their leaders who to be blunt are an utter disgrace.


Union opposes Government's divide and rule tactics

The national executive committee met on 7 October to consider an offer from the Cabinet Office on changes to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme (CSCS).

The NEC decided that, in its present form, the offer does not protect the accrued rights of sufficient numbers of our members and is not acceptable. We have called on the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude MP, to enter into further talks in order to find an agreement with the Council of Civil Service Unions (CCSU). We believe an agreement is possible.

Disgracefully, some other unions representing a minority of staff have collaborated with the Government in attempting to divide the CCSU at a time when we are faced with the prospect of massive job cuts. These unions have entered into a separate agreement with the Government, even whilst CCSU discussions were taking place. The government’s planned cuts make this a vital issue concerning members’ livelihoods, and the minority unions’ actions are a matter of the utmost seriousness. We have demanded that the Minister returns to talks to find an agreement with the CCSU.

The other unions have, very regrettably, lent the government a veneer of respectability in its attempts to make it easier and cheaper to sack tens of thousands of civil and public servants.

PCS will continue to carry out a parliamentary campaign to stop the Government’s legislation on the CSCS, and will take further legal action at the appropriate time.

Ballot

The NEC has agreed that, in the event that any further negotiations prove to be unsuccessful, or the Cabinet Office refuse further talks, a membership ballot will be conducted to seek members’ approval for rejection of the offer based on the union’s policy, the judicial review and the potential for further legal action.

The root cause of the problem is government’s determination to both save money by cutting accrued CSCS rights and move ahead with large scale redundancies within a tight cost framework imposed by the Treasury. The NEC decided that the policy ballot on the CSCS will also be an opportunity to seek members support for our national campaign to defend jobs, pensions, pay and public services.

Background: negotiations

Following the union’s legal victory in the High Court earlier this year, talks have been taking place between the Cabinet Office and the Council of Civil Service Unions (CCSU) to see if agreement could be reached on a new compensation scheme.

The PCS position has been clear: that we wish to negotiate to reach agreement, but any agreement should be fair to all parties, recognise the accrued rights held by many civil service staff and be fair to new entrants to the civil service.

However, whilst claiming they wanted to proceed by agreement with all unions, the government stated their clear view that the scheme quashed by the High Court was ‘over generous’ and that they intended to introduce a Bill into Parliament to cap CSCS payments.

This Bill would slash members’ existing entitlements and accrued rights. It would include capping all compulsory redundancies at a maximum of 12 months pay and limiting payments for voluntary exits to 15 months salary. In addition, they have said they would seek to make changes to the 1972 Superannuation Act to remove the basis on which we were able to win the judicial review on the compensation scheme.

The talks with the Cabinet Office have therefore been conducted under the threat of legislation: the government has attempted to use the Superannuation Bill as a blunt bargaining tool to influence the negotiating process.

The offer

The offer contains only marginal improvements on the proposed legislation and drastically cuts members’ existing entitlements. The cap on voluntary severance has been increased to 21 months, and the underpin for the lowest paid to 90% of average pay. There is no protection, transitional or otherwise for accrued rights. In addition, the proposal go beyond the Superannuation Bill or indeed the 1972 Act in proposing changes to notice periods, the Protocol and the scope for redeployment across departmental boundaries.

In considering the offer, the test PCS has used has been a practical one – how many of our members, particularly the lower-paid – are protected by the proposals. The last scheme, with an underpin of £60,000 and a cap of two years, was rejected as our estimate was that it only protected 50% of our members.

The new offer is worse. The absence of any form of underpin to allow people to earn more than 21 months, or transitional provisions or reserved rights to protect accrued rights, means that the proposals will be detrimental to the majority of our existing members earning more than £20,000 with accrued rights to 2 years or more service. This will particularly affect a large number of our E.O. or equivalent grades.

Moreover, the offer seeks to change the period of notice of those in a compulsory redundancy situation from six months to three, and to reduce the timescales for efforts at avoiding redundancy set out in the agreed Protocols.

The new offer does incorporate a different way of protecting the lowest paid by providing for a notional salary for those below 90% of the median (as defined) or £23,000 – whichever is the greater. This is an improvement for many of the lowest paid. PCS has welcomed this as part of the package – whilst arguing for a higher median figure.

The areas of concern lie particularly in relation to the cap and the protection of accrued rights. The absence of an underpin at previously discussed levels, or any reserved rights or transitional protections, leaves many worse off than their accrued rights. This is significant not only because of the Judicial Review ruling but also in relation to any potential legal case. In reaching agreement we would forgo our right to take legal action.

The NEC decided that, in its present form, the offer does not protect the accrued rights of sufficient numbers of our members and is not acceptable, and to call on the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude MP, to enter into further talks in order to find an agreement.

Minority unions allow Tories to divide CCSU

On 24 September all the unions that make up the CCSU formally agreed that an offer made at that time by the government was not acceptable and informed the Minister of that position in a meeting on 28 September. However, it transpired that five other unions - Prospect, FDA, POA, Unite and GMB, representing a minority of civil servants - had already written to the Minister offering to come to an agreement on terms based on the Cabinet Office offer. PCS represents more than double the civil and public servants than the other five minority unions combined, and represents the people who would be affected by job cuts and redundancy. Nevertheless, at the meeting with the CCSU on 28 September, the Minister declared that he would seek an agreement with the five minority unions and break off talks with the CCSU.

A final offer was made on 5 October with a deadline of noon on 7 October for acceptance. PCS argued that the CCSU should respond and meet to discuss the offer. The Cabinet Office informed PCS that the five minority unions had already agreed the offer.

Earlier, the Treasury had intervened to impose a cost envelope – a total amount of money that would set the parameters of any agreement. The details have not been explained. We believe, however, that the costs have been calculated on the basis of the large numbers of jobs the government plans to cut.

Nevertheless, PCS was prepared to find an agreement and wrote to the Minister to inform him of this. However, a parallel process involving the five minority unions had clearly been taking place, including secret meetings with Cabinet Office officials. The Minister replied to PCS on 6 October to say that the government had concluded negotiations with the five unions.

The POA has now issued a statement denying that it has been party to any agreement. The Government has therefore misled staff and the unions in claiming such an agreement.

It is very regrettable that PCS finds it necessary to issue such a condemnation of other unions. But in order to build the unity we need to defend members from attacks, such as these cuts in redundancy pay, and the massive job cuts planned by the government, we must make clear to members and reps the way in which the minority unions have allowed the Tories to divide the CCSU and to readily agree a scheme which is only marginally different from the Government’s Bill yet gives up members’ rights.

Unity needed

The central element of our national campaign to defend jobs, pensions and public services is the building of unity with other unions, and community groups, across the public and private sectors. To date, PCS has played a leading role in bringing unions together to campaign against the Coalition’s cuts. We will continue to do so.


Mark Serwotka
General secretary