fe report final report

27
1 REVIEW OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS FRAMEWORK FE COLLEGES IN NORTHERN IRELAND. November 2013 Sir Robert Salisbury

Upload: scott2355

Post on 20-Apr-2017

235 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: FE Report Final Report

1

REVIEW OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

FRAMEWORK

FE COLLEGES IN NORTHERN IRELAND.

November 2013

Sir Robert Salisbury

Page 2: FE Report Final Report

2

Review Recommendations

Recommendation 1:

Though the Non-Teaching Negotiating Committee has been working satisfactorily the

other committees in the industrial relations framework are not fit for purpose so a total re-

think of present practices would seem appropriate.

Recommendation 2:

The sector needs to take ownership of its employee relations by moving towards an

employer led employee relations framework.

Recommendation 3:

The sectors should identify and implement a set of core values which encourage a

working model, to be followed by all parties, which moves from an instinctively

adversarial approach to the more collegiate, co-operative arrangements already found in

much of the negotiations evident in the Non Teaching Staff Negotiating Committee.

Recommendation 4:

As FE staff are currently subject to Public Sector pay and conditions, the statutory

‘negotiation’ should be undertaken by a ‘single table’ Joint Negotiating Committee in

order to make procedures more streamlined and effective. This would have

representation from all unions and would meet once or twice a year to set pay and

conditions for:

* Directors and Senior Managers

* Middle Managers

* Lecturers

* Educational Support Staff

Negotiation would be exclusively on the statutory terms of pay, holidays and hours of

work. DEL would prepare an annual statement where pay limits are involved in advance

of the relevant meeting and the meeting would be chaired by a representative from CNI.

In exceptional cases where agreement cannot be reached a speedy deadlock-breaking

mechanism, unilaterally triggered, should be introduced and be conducted by a

representative of the LRA. The decision reached by the LRA will be binding thereafter on

all parties.

Time limits would need to be built in to all negotiations.

Page 3: FE Report Final Report

3

Recommendation 5:

That the nomenclature ‘Non-Teaching Staff’ should be replaced in the future by the title

‘Educational Support Staff’ as this was seen as being less divisive and more presentative

of actual college practice.

Recommendation 6:

In order to move towards more harmonious employee relations practice the Joint

Negotiating Committee should consider creating one set of policies and procedures

common to all staff employed in the college sector. They should explore the merits of

developing a common Job Evaluation Scheme, based on a single salary spine which

encompasses the work of all staff and might in the future facilitate greater career

flexibility than the existing rigid divisions.

Recommendation 7:

That the Joint Negotiating Committee should consider the progress on the introduction of

common Job Evaluation Schemes already undertaken by some FE institutions in England

and by all colleges in Wales.

Recommendation 8:

That Northern Ireland FE colleges should continue with the practice of ‘collective

bargaining’ as it is seen as being more cost effective, should create unity amongst

colleges and does provide a mechanism for collating local data which can influence the

strategic direction of all six colleges and the sector overall. However since the

implementation of central agreements have been interpreted differently by individual

colleges and has led to misunderstanding and mistrust, a transparent element of ‘plant

bargaining’ should be introduced where matters only concern individual colleges.. All

consultation of a ‘plant bargaining’ nature would need to be clearly defined and

documented by the development of an individual college policy.

Recommendation 9:

The starting point and emphasis for all consultation outside of statutory pay bargaining

should be based first and foremost within the individual colleges and should involve a

much wider cross section of all college staff. At the moment understanding and

involvement of staff in any change process appears at best haphazard and at worst non –

existent so commitment to any adjustment in working practices or policy often

encounters opposition and suspicion. Greater involvement of all staff in consultation

should be achieved by the expansion or creation of Local College Forums, Drafting

Groups, Works Councils etc working informally and flexibly on all issues of policy or

change. These forums would consist of union representatives, non-union staff, college

HR staff and a more flexible membership depending on the ‘expertise’ needed for any

particular subject under debate. All matters under review and their outcomes should be

Page 4: FE Report Final Report

4

communicated routinely to all college staff through ‘core briefings’ or ‘newsletters’

which should begin to build better understanding and trust between groups.

Recommendation 10:

That consultation relating to the work of specific colleges should be considered as ‘plant

bargaining’ and should not automatically become the business of any central consultation

forum. There may however be merit in considering collective consultations on a sectoral

basis on major issues that impact across all colleges.

Recommendation 11:

It is envisaged that these internal college consultation groups would undertake much of

the operational ‘groundwork’ and any ideas or policies which were then deemed relevant

to all colleges and required some element of ‘collective bargaining’ would then form the

agenda at a central Joint Consultative Forum for further discussion and signing off.

Recommendation 12:

The current structure of three negotiating committees for Lecturers, Directors and Non-

Teaching Staff should be scrapped and replaced by a single Joint Consultation Forum.

This would meet as and when necessary and would comprise a greater involvement of all

college employees. It would be chaired by CNI and its agenda would be determined by

matters emanating from the work of the college Works Councils or Staff Focus Groups.

Recommendation 13:

All consultations would be ‘time bound’and following a period of consultation,

management would make a decision and implement accordingly. In the case of statutory

negotiations, no one party would have the power of veto over matters under discussion

and in exceptional cases where agreement cannot be reached, a speedy deadlock-breaking

mechanism, unilaterally triggered, should be introduced and conducted by a

representative of the LRA. Outcomes from this process would be binding on all parties.

Recommendation 14:

New protocols and procedures for the conduct of the Joint Consultation Forum should be

devised to ensure that all parties involved in the consultative process have equal voice.

Any attempts to circumvent agreed procedures by any of the participating groups should

be investigated and exposed as this practice has in the past, inevitably lead to mistrust and

has repeatedly undermined the deliberations of the formal networks.

Page 5: FE Report Final Report

5

Recommendation 15:

Since the current industrial relations model is largely ineffective and dysfunctional a Task

Force comprising union representatives, college HR staff and DEL representatives would

need to be appointed immediately, under the auspices of the College Employers Forum

(CEF) in order to design a precise project brief, monitor the progress made, manage the

communication process and set out the expected timescale. Any delay in tackling these

matters would seem to be inappropriate and there is therefore an urgency to begin work

on these issues as soon as possible.

Recommendation 16:

As a starting point, all college staff , their union representatives, local politicians, DEL,

the media and any other stakeholders should be informed simultaneously by ‘press

release’ about :

• The apparent weaknesses of the current system:

• The need for a model which gives a greater involvement of all staff in any

future consultation.

• How their opinion on the creation of a new model will be sought.

• The timescale for change.

Recommendation 17:

There is some confusion about the operational and strategic role of the Governing Bodies

of colleges and clarification of this may be helpful. Consideration might also be given to

the establishment of a Policy Forum comprising Governing bodies and DEL to liaise on

the future direction of the FE sector in NI.

Page 6: FE Report Final Report

6

1 Introduction

I wish to thank the Board of Colleges NI for the opportunity to review the current

Industrial Relations Framework in the Further Education sector in Northern Ireland.

2 Aims of the Review

The full terms of reference for the review are attached as Appendix 1 but can be

summarised as follows:

a) To recommend an Industrial Relations Framework which is fit for purpose and

supports the needs of employers and all staff;

b) To review the functionality of the current system;

c) To meet with all relevant stakeholders; and

d) To recommend a course of action which addresses perceived weaknesses in the current

system.

3 Methodology

a) From the outset, it was considered vital that though this review had been

commissioned by the Board of Colleges NI, it should clearly be seen as impartial and

independent if a true and full understanding of the current position was to be attained.

With this in mind an open and collaborative approach to gathering information was

undertaken and a wide cross section of stakeholder engagements took place.

b) Between late September 2013 and early November 2013 I met with representatives

from over forty stakeholder groups from all six colleges including Chairs of Governing

Bodies, Directors and Senior Management, HR Directors, Curriculum Directors and Staff

Focus Groups. A broader range of stakeholders were also interviewed which included all

of the relevant trade unions, Association of Colleges(England), Colleges Scotland,

Colleges Wales, Labour Relations Agency, The Minister and Senior Officials of the

Department for Employment and Learning.

c) In all instances meetings were informal and stakeholders were encouraged to provide

frank opinions on the efficacy of the current arrangements and to provide suggestions for

change. It was emphasised at all meetings that ‘Chatham House Rules’ would pertain and

that no individual opinion or contribution would be identified in the final report. This was

essentially a ‘listening’ exercise and obvious bias or inaccuracy was not challenged

during the meetings in an attempt to discover the prevailing ‘perceptions’ of the current

situation.

A full list of the individuals and organisations involved in the round of meetings is

included as Appendix 2.

Page 7: FE Report Final Report

7

d) Given the short timescale of this review, there was no formal ‘call for evidence’ but

several organisations did submit useful written contributions which were helpful. Other

relevant papers, minutes of meetings and records of industrial relations going back

several years were also reviewed.

4 POSITION -Current Industrial Relations Framework in the FE Sector.

a) The current arrangements for the regulation of salaries and terms of conditions of

service in the further education sector have with some modifications been in operation

since incorporation in 1998. Basically there are three negotiating committees;

Lecturers

Non-Teaching Staff

Directors

In the interests of brevity, the detailed current arrangements for the negotiating

mechanisms for Further Education college staff are not itemised here but are contained in

a summary as Appendix 3

5 PROBLEM- Strengths and Weaknesses.

a) Though there are some positives in the current negotiating framework, the weaknesses

appear to greatly outnumber the strengths.

b) There was general agreement that given the small geographic area of Northern Ireland

the practice of ‘Collective Bargaining’ as opposed to the stand alone model of individual

‘plant bargaining’ which exists in England and Scotland should be maintained. However

there were some confused messages here and impressions were that in practice this

arrangement was both a strength and a weakness. In theory it is seen as being more cost

effective, should create unity amongst colleges and does provide a mechanism for

collating local data which can influence the strategic direction of all six colleges and the

sector overall. If in the future it was decided to seek greater autonomy for the FE sector

undoubtedly some of the colleges would have the capacity and capability to deliver on

‘plant bargaining’, but others would struggle to do so at present. Comment was made

that in practice ‘competition rather than collaboration’ still prevails between colleges and

failure to implement agreements or the selective ‘interpretation’ of policy does create

‘cracks and rifts’ which can be exploited by those initially opposed to any agreement.

This also creates a mistrust and lack of faith in the current system. There was also some

suggestion that individual colleges occasionally use the ‘collective bargaining ‘process as

a ‘smokescreen to hide behind’ rather than addressing contentious matters internally.

Some felt any new system ‘must enshrine the concept of collective bargaining for pay

and conditions of service’ but confusingly added that FE lecturers should not be classified

as public sector workers and ‘should be treated in the same way as Higher Education

Page 8: FE Report Final Report

8

lecturers and be free to negotiate their pay with their employers’ which is in fact ‘plant

bargaining.’

c) The Non-Teaching Negotiating Committee has been working satisfactorily over the

past few years possibly because most matters are settled by the NJC beforehand, union

staff are trained in modern ‘plant bargaining’ which ensures fewer problems and quicker

solutions and college management is ‘treated with a respect which is reciprocated’.

Meetings are very structured and business is conducted in ‘a mature fashion.’

Three of the colleges reported specifically that they have ‘satisfactory relationships with

their support staff union representatives.’

d) There is a clear distinction and identity between the three negotiating committees and

educational support staff particularly, thought this divisive and did not promote the notion

of wholesale sector identity. Most complained that the nomenclature ‘Non-Teaching

Staff’ was in itself derogatory and gave the impression that their contribution was not as

highly regarded or as important as that of lecturing staff. Most educational support staff

felt that the title ’Lecturer’ had itself become redundant as more people are fulfilling roles

which ‘bridge’ the traditional demarcations. Several staff commented that ‘not having

one set of policies and procedures common to all staff employed in the college sector was

not good employee relations practice’ and the historic divisions are unhelpful and

artificial. Several commented that a Job Evaluation Scheme based on a single spine

which encompasses all staff should be developed and implemented. This structure is used

in some FE institutions in England and is currently nearing implementation in all colleges

inWales.

e) The Directors’ Negotiating Committee works satisfactorily but appears to meet

infrequently and last met two and a half years ago so its purpose and efficacy is unclear.

f) One union made that point that though Middle Management personnel have become a

key layer in FE they are ‘under-represented’ in the current framework.

g) Clearly the operation of the Lecturers’ Negotiating Committee (LNC) is the forum

which has elicited most comment from the stakeholder groups and which appears to be

viewed as the most ‘dysfunctional and fractious’. Reasons given for this apparent tension

were;

* Attitudes on both sides which are ‘adversarial’, ‘dug in’ and ‘intransigent’.

Comments made were often harsh and ‘territorial’ with little sense of

compromise with a common theme along the lines of ‘the main union is stuck in

the 1970’s and what they have they hold’ to the directors who act ‘like little tin

gods and have no idea of modern industrial relations.’ It was generally not easy

to find hard evidence of the causes of these entrenched perceptions.

* Lack of clarity about what is for ‘negotiation’ and what for ‘consultation.’

* Issues in one college are brought to the table as ‘regional’ issues.

* Existing protocols for conducting LNC meetings lead to the ‘cult of personality’

and ‘grandstanding.’

Page 9: FE Report Final Report

9

* The ‘right of veto’ leads to impasse and a backlog of unresolved issues.

* There is no ‘practical’ form of arbitration which is time-bound.

* Too little preparatory work is done by ‘drafting Groups’ or ‘Works Councils’.

* Too much power and influence has been given to one union and the current

structure is a ‘union-led employee model rather than an employer led employee

relations framework.’

h) Most members of staff in the Focus Groups were largely ignorant of the general

principles and detail of their negotiating or consultation machinery though this awareness

did vary between colleges. There was a lack of consistency about how staff members

were consulted in regard to their employer relations and whilst some colleges had a staff

forum others said:

* Their opinions about ‘terms and conditions were never sought. ‘I have never

been asked what I think and I don’t know anyone else who has.’

* Internal communications are generally regarded as poor.

* Unions do hold branch meetings but attendance is small.

* Non-union members have no forum so ‘who decided the agenda at the LNC?’

i) There was a general lack of clarity about the role of Colleges NI in the negotiating

process and opinion was divided as to whether or not it was a ‘neutral’ organisation

which represented all sectors of FE or whether its main purpose was as a ‘mouthpiece for

the college Directors’.

j) There was also division in terms of the Labour Relations Agency. Some viewed it as

‘independent and impartial’ whilst others saw it as ‘tainted and prejudiced.’

k) There was a lack of clarity surrounding the role of DEL in the current Industrial

Relations model.

l) There was some evidence that although the protocols and procedures for the conduct of

the current employee relations model are defined in precise detail, in practice a culture

has grown where on occasions when no agreement can be reached ‘unofficial networks’

are immediately brought into play which attempt to circumvent the official channels.

This may involve calls directly to DEL, calls to individual college governors, approaches

to politicians or leaks to the media, all of which serve to devalue and undermine the

recognised networks.

m) Most interviewees thought HR staff with delegated powers to make decisions would

be more appropriate in negotiations/consultations than Directors. Others felt that they had

become increasingly ‘disillusioned by the abdication of members of Governing Bodies

from any responsibility for negotiations at the LNC.’

Page 10: FE Report Final Report

10

6 POSSIBILITIES

a) The current system could be left alone with no changes made but it is clear that most

stakeholders feel that it is not fit for purpose and has not been so for many years.

Procedures are relatively trouble free with the educational support staff but in the LNC

they have become fraught and non- productive. Too many issues remain unresolved or

take far too long to reach agreement and this is damaging for the sector in general.

b) Northern Ireland FE colleges could move to a ‘plant bargaining ‘model where

individually they would have greater autonomy to run their own affairs as happens in

England but at the moment there seems little interest either from DEL or colleges in

taking this course. However if the current inflexibility of the ‘collective bargaining’

model continues to impact negatively on the operational flexibility and potential of all

colleges, there might come a time when the more progressive institutions deem it

preferable to manage their own affairs and ‘go it alone.’ Interestingly, colleges in

Scotland, which have traditionally worked as ‘stand alone’ institutions are currently

moving towards a more ‘collective model.’

c) It might be possible to make minor adjustments to the existing model by such

mechanisms as the introduction of external private arbitration consultants, or by making

all discussions and agreements more limited in scope and ‘time bound’ but to some extent

this has been attempted before and has not proved especially productive.

d) Structures currently employed in the rest of the UK could be adapted to suit NI and

though there are some ideas which may be helpful, systems in Wales, Scotland or

England for various reasons would not meet our needs. FE structures in the south of

Ireland are not compatible.

e) Go for a total re-think of the current system which promotes harmonious working

relationships, is fair to all staff and enables the FE sector to provide a full user-led

educational provision fit for the 21st century.

7 PROPOSAL

a) The current system is not fit for purpose and the sector needs to take ownership of its

employee relations through an employer led employee relations framework so a total

re-think of present practices would seem appropriate.

b) This should identify and implement a set of core values which tries to encourage a

working model, followed by all parties, which moves from an instinctively adversarial

Page 11: FE Report Final Report

11

approach to the more collegiate, co-operative arrangements already found in much of the

negotiations evident in the Non Teaching Staff Negotiating Committee.

c) While ever FE staff are subject to Public Sector pay and conditions the statutory

‘negotiation’ should move towards a ‘single table’ Joint Negotiating system with

representations from all unions which would meet once or twice a year to set pay and

conditions for:

* Directors and Senior Managers

* Middle Managers

* Lecturers

* Educational Support Staff

Negotiation would be exclusively on the statutory terms of pay, holidays and hours of

work.

DEL would prepare an annual statement where pay limits are involved in advance of the

relevant meeting summarising the annual limits of Public Sector Pay Policy for that year.

The meeting would be chaired by a representative from CNI.

d) To facilitate more harmonious working relationships across the sector it is proposed

that the emphasis for all other consultation outside of statutory pay bargaining should be

based first and foremost within the individual colleges. Local College Forums, Drafting

Groups, Works Councils etc working informally and flexibly on all issues of policy or

practice have proved to be highly productive and constructive in other parts of the UK.

These forums would consist of union representatives, college HR staff and flexible

membership depending on the ‘expertise’ needed for any particular subject under debate.

A ‘localised’ structure such as this would:

• Allow the six colleges to consult on their particular operational issues and

where necessary accommodate an element of ‘plant bargaining’ suited to their

particular geographic or developmental needs

• Enable all staff or their representatives to be part of the process

• Would be an automatic element in any change process

• Would allow issues specific to individual colleges to be resolved within that

college.

• Would massively improve internal communications and would hopefully

encourage greater staff involvement in the planning and implementation of

operational matters

• Would increase commitment and enhance awareness and understanding of the

current issues facing the FE sector

• Would begin to build trust and respect between all staff

This group would undertake much of the ‘leg work’ on terms and conditions of service

with the overarching body ratifying this work.

Page 12: FE Report Final Report

12

e) Policies or issues resulting from the ‘groundwork’ done by these college ‘drafting

groups’ which then required some form of ‘collective bargaining’ could form the agenda

at a Joint Consultative Forum for further discussion and final signing off.

f) The Joint Consultation Forum would meet as and when necessary and would comprise

a greater involvement of all college employees. It would be chaired by CNI. All

consultations would be ‘time bound’and following a period of consultation, management

would make a decision and implement accordingly. In the case of statutory negotiations,,

no one party would have the power of veto over matters under discussion and in

exceptional cases where agreement cannot be reached, a speedy deadlock-breaking

mechanism, unilaterally triggered, should be introduced and conducted by a

representative of the LRA. Outcomes from this process would be binding on all parties.

g) Elements of ‘plant bargaining’ accepted by the Joint Consultation Forum would need

to be clearly defined and documented by individual college policy.

h) Time limits need to be built in to all consultations.

8 CHALLENGES

Given the recent history of industrial relationships in the FE sector over the past few

years, it is reasonable to assume there will be substantial challenge to any proposed

changes. This resistance will be exacerbated if:

• Stakeholders have little understanding of the need for change

• Politicians and DEL officials do not fully back the proposals

• All six colleges do not act together

• Communication on the proposed changes is not effective, transparent and

frequent

• Consultation is not based on honesty, integrity and mutual respect

• Agreed lines of communication are short circuited or by-passed

9 COURSE OF ACTION

If the Board of Colleges NI / College Employers Forum decide to move forward with an

employer led employee relations model a Task Force or Working Group comprising

union representatives, college HR staff and DEL representatives would need to be

appointed in order to:

• Design a precise project brief

• Monitor the progress made

• Manage the communication process

• Set out the expected timescale

Page 13: FE Report Final Report

13

10 DRAFT TIMELINE

This would be agreed by the Governing Bodies (in their capacity as employing

authorities) and staff of the individual colleges but in principle, given the apparent

weaknesses of the current system, further delay in tackling this matter would seem to be

inappropriate and there is therefore an urgency to begin work on these issues as soon as

possible.

11 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

There were a range of observations raised by various stakeholders which, since they were

well beyond the remit of this review, can quite justifiably be totally disregarded, but may

never- the- less be of some general interest:

a) Many of the people interviewed had no clear understanding of the role FE was

expected to play in the overall educational provision in Northern Ireland. When asked

‘How do you see the future of the sector?’ answers were generally vague, lacked any

notion of a common purpose and often hankered back to a past where conditions were

seen as ‘much better then.’ If staff are being asked to be more flexible, innovative,

enterprising and adaptable in order to accommodate the demands of a less predictable

emerging economy in NI perhaps it is time to make sure this new ethos and purpose is

fully understood by all of the people expected to fulfil it? Colleges currently do an

excellent job for people ‘with time on their hands but still have some way to go for

people with no time on their hands.’

b) There was also some evidence of slight confusion about the precise role of the

Governing Bodies of colleges in these changing times. What is their strategic role in the

overall development of the FE sector in NI and how are their views incorporated into any

future policy development? Perhaps a Policy Forum for DEL and Governors would be

useful. Clarification of roles in terms of operational/strategic may also prove a helpful

dialogue.

c) Internal communications in some colleges were seen as being poor and in need of

review.

d)Most felt that the role of Colleges NI should be clarified.

e) Several comments were made that current contracts and structures do not allow scope

to reward staff financially for additional input or commitment which is a disincentive and

should be reviewed.

Page 14: FE Report Final Report

14

I would like to thank all those who took part in this short review for their honesty,

openness and professionalism.

Sir Robert Salisbury Nov 2013.

Page 15: FE Report Final Report

15

APPENDIX 1

Review of Industrial Relations Framework August 2013

Terms of Reference 1. Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to provide a Terms of Reference for the review of the

Industrial Relations Framework in Further Education (FE) in Northern Ireland.

The paper defines the strategic context, aim and objectives of the review and the

structure and timeframe required. It is envisaged that this review will outline a

series of recommendations which will enable the FE sector to address the current

weaknesses in industrial relations.

2. Background

The current Industrial Relations Framework for the regulation of salaries and

terms and conditions of service in the FE sector has been in operation since the

incorporation of the further education colleges in 1998.

Prior to 1998 the salaries and terms and conditions of employment for lecturers

were negotiated by the Further Education Negotiating Committee (FENC), a body

comprising Education and Library Board (ELB) officers and Department of

Education (DENI) officials on the management side and NATFHE (now UCU)

and NASUWT members on the staff side. In addition, a consultative committee

made up of ELB officers, DENI officials and College Principals met twice a year

to discuss matters that were not for negotiation. The management side agreed to a

range of issues being discussed in the FENC and the outcomes of these

discussions transferred, under TUPE, to the Colleges at the point of incorporation.

Salaries and terms and conditions of employment for non-teaching staff were

negotiated by the National Joint Council in England modified where required and

appropriate by a local (Northern Ireland) negotiating committee comprising the

ELBs on the management side and the recognised unions representing non-

teaching staff.

In essence the ELBs were the employers for both lecturing and support staff.

In 1997, the year prior to incorporation, arrangements were put in place by the

Colleges, as employers, for three negotiating committees as follows:

Lecturers Lecturers’ Negotiating Committee (LNC) with

Directors on the management side and UCU and

NASUWT on the staff side.

Non – Teaching Staff The Non–Teaching Staff Negotiating Committee

(NTSNC) with Principals, and now HR Managers,

on the management side and recognised unions

representing non-teaching staff.

Directors Directors’ Negotiating Committee (DNC) with

Chairs of Governing Bodies on the management

side and AMIE, UCU, the Association of Principals

Page 16: FE Report Final Report

16

of Colleges and the National Association of

Teachers in Further and Higher Education on the

staff side.

There has been some modification to the above since 1998 but the basic structure

has not been changed. The opportunity was not taken at the point of incorporation

to review the “fitness for purpose” of the arrangements transferring to the

Colleges. The constitutions of the negotiating committees are attached at

Appendix 1.

3 Current position

The Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) commissioned a review of

industrial relations in North West Regional College (NWRC) which was carried

out last autumn. The outcome of that review, the McConnell Report, was

published in February 2013.

In assessing the state of industrial relations in NWRC, the author of the report also

made reference to employee relations at regional level. He found a general

consensus that the Non-Teaching Staff Negotiating Committee tends to be more

productive and less confrontational than the Lecturers Negotiating Committee

(LNC). In part, this was seen as due to the significance and complexity of the

LNC’s remit.

McConnell reports the operation of the LNC as being regarded by management as

‘dysfunctional’ and by staff as ‘fractured’ and that both sides regarded regional

issues to be at a standstill. He cites the need for the Committee to be chaired on a

permanent basis by the LRA and the existence of protocols to regulate the conduct

of participants as indicative of the poor state of industrial relations at regional

level.

DEL takes the view that the report’s references to LNC, in particular, need to be

addressed and they anticipate the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Departmental

Committee sharing that view. DEL has stated that they would welcome a response

from the sector to the issues raised, possibly through the establishment of a formal

review of industrial relations at regional level.

Recent chronology

Autumn 2012 DEL: commissioned review of industrial relations in

NWRC.

February 2013 Report on the review of industrial relations in NWRC (the

McConnell report) published.

22 March 2013 DEL letter to CNI seeking a sectoral response to

McConnell’s references to the operation of LNC, in

particular.

Early June 2013 Draft terms of reference for a review of Industrial Relations

in FE

Page 17: FE Report Final Report

17

4. Aim of the Review The aim of the review is to recommend an Industrial Relations Framework which

is fit for purpose, flexible and supports the needs of employers and all staff. The

outcome of the review and subsequent recommendations and decisions will be

taken forward by the College Employers Forum (CEF).

5. Structure of the Review

The review will be conducted by Sir Robert Salisbury and will result in the

production of a draft report to the CEF by November 2013, outlining coherent

proposals and recommendations for establishing and implementing a new

Industrial Relations Framework.

6. Objectives of the Review

The objectives of the Review are to:

• Review the functionality of the current Industrial Relations Framework at

regional level within the FE Sector in Northern Ireland including strengths

and weaknesses. This review will include the current role of DNC, LNC,

NTSNC and the Labour Relations Agency. It will also examine the

function of Governing Bodies and the CEF in relation to current Industrial

Relations.

• Undertake appropriate and meaningful engagement with sector relevant

stakeholders, namely employers and recognised trade unions.

• Explore options and set out clear recommendations for an Industrial

Relations Framework which addresses the weaknesses in the current

model. The recommendations are to include but not be limited to:

� Identifying the scope for negotiating machinery;

� Identifying challenges in implementing a new Industrial Relations

Framework

• Recommend a course of action to implement solutions.

• Provide a realistic timescale for the implementation of the

recommendations.

7. Timing of the Review The review should be complete by the first week of November 2013 at the latest

to facilitate discussion at the CEF meeting on 19th

November 2013.

Page 18: FE Report Final Report

18

APPENDIX 2

LIST OF ORGANISATIONS WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO THIS REVIEW

Further Education Colleges Chairs of Governing Bodies of: Belfast Metropolitan College (BMC) Northern Regional College (NRC) North West Regional College (NWRC) Southern Regional College (SRC) South Eastern Regional College (SERC) South West College (SWC) The Director and senior management of: Belfast Metropolitan College (BMC) Northern Regional College (NRC) North West Regional College (NWRC) Southern Regional College (SRC) South Eastern Regional College (SERC) South West College (SWC) Human Resource Directors and Curriculum Directors of: Belfast Metropolitan College (BMC) Northern Regional College (NRC) North West Regional College (NWRC) Southern Regional College (SRC) South Eastern Regional College (SERC) South West College (SWC) Focus groups of: Belfast Metropolitan College (BMC) Northern Regional College (NRC) North West Regional College (NWRC) Southern Regional College (SRC) South Eastern Regional College (SERC) South West College (SWC)

Page 19: FE Report Final Report

19

Trade Unions: Association of Teachers and Lecturers / Association of Managers in Education (ATL / AMiE) National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) Northern Ireland Public Service (NIPSA) Alliance UNISON UNITE University and Colleges Union (UCU)

Other individuals and Organisations Agenda NI Association of Colleges (England)* Chair of the Industrial Court Chair of the Lecturers’, Non-teaching staff and Directors’ Negotiating Committees The Minister and senior officials of the Department for Employment and Learning Colleges Scotland* Colleges Wales* Labour Relations’ Agency New College Nottingham* * Conference call

Page 20: FE Report Final Report

20

APPENDIX 3

SUMMARY OF THE NEGOTIATING MECHANISMS FOR FURTHER EDUCATION COLLEGE STAFF

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Three committees were formed as the machinery to negotiate the salaries

and conditions of service of the following groups of staff, employed by

Further Education Colleges:

• Directors/Deputy Directors - Directors’ Negotiating Committee (DNC)

• Lecturers - Lecturers Negotiating Committee (LNC)

• Non-teaching staff - Non-teaching staff Negotiating Committee (NTSNC)

1.2 A constitution for each committee determines the following:

• Interpretation – defines the meanings of expressions used in the

constitution

• Functions

• Membership

• Secretariat

• Chairmanship of meetings

• Period of office

• Appointment of members

• Withdrawal – by either side, with the appropriate notice

• Organisation and management of the Committees

• Amendment of Constitution

• Rules of procedure

Page 21: FE Report Final Report

21

1.3 This paper summarises the various mechanisms under which each

committee operates.

2. GENERAL – SHARED PROCESSES

2.1 All three negotiating committees operate on the same basis, regarding the

following:

Secretariat:

Management and staff side appoint one member each to act as secretary

for each side.

Period of Office:

The Committee runs for 4 years, beginning 1 April and ending 31 March.

Appointment of members:

Each organisation, which is entitled to representation on the committee,

informs the chairperson, in writing, of those it wishes to be members, in

good time for the incoming period of office.

A Member of the committee ceases, as such, if an organisation withdraws

his appointment.

If a vacancy occurs on the committee, it shall be filled by the appropriate

appointing organisation, so as to preserve the committee’s composition.

Organisation & management of the committee:

A vacancy or defect in any appointment will not invalidate the committee’s

proceedings.

If a member cannot attend, his/her organisation may send a substitute.

Substitutes have the same rights as substantive members.

The committee can appoint sub-committees, as necessary, and delegate

powers as it sees fit. Both sides may only co-opt two persons to the sub-

Page 22: FE Report Final Report

22

committees which are not members of the main committee. The sub-

committee’s members appoint the chairperson of that sub-committee.

The chairperson shall rule on any matter not covered in the constitution or

rules of procedure.

Communications with the chairperson should normally be made through

the secretariat.

Amendment of constitution:

This is subject to the agreement of each of the organisations represented

by Management Side and Staff Side of the committee.

Proposals for amendments shall be sent to the chairperson (through the

secretariat), who shall circulate a copy of the proposal to each member of

the committee.

The amendment shall not be considered by the committee until at least

four weeks after the date of circulation.

Agenda:

This is decided in consultation between the Chairperson and the joint

secretaries.

This is circulated at least 7 days before the meeting and includes date,

time and place.

Minutes:

These are to include:

• Minutes of previous meeting.

• Matters arising (other than those itemised on the agenda).

• Reports (including sub-committee reports).

• Other relevant substantive matters.

Page 23: FE Report Final Report

23

Business:

Only items on the agenda may be discussed at the meeting, except with

the agreement of the chairperson and both sides.

The secretariat provides papers, 7 days prior to the meeting, to the

chairperson and members of the committee.

The committee’s decisions are reached by agreement of both sides and

recorded in the minutes and circulated to the employers’ forum and the

department and others, as appropriate.

Topics:

A topic can be presented by either side after consultation with the

representative organisations and the membership of that side; this does

not necessarily preclude other members of the appropriate side from

taking part in discussions.

Topics shall not relate to individual cases.

Deliberations:

If a matter is agreed by both sides of a committee, a statement about the

deliberations of the committee may be issued after any meeting by the

Secretariat with the agreement of the Joint Secretaries.

The deliberations of a committee are in confidence.

However, members of a committee may, during the progress of

negotiations, consult the executive or similar bodies of their parent

organisations, and may reveal on a confidential basis, to such bodies,

such information as may be necessary for receiving instructions as to the

action to be taken by the members of that committee.

Involving the Labour Relations Agency:

If agreement cannot be reached between both sides of the committee, the

dispute may, with the agreement of both sides, be referred for conciliation

by the Labour Relations Agency.

Page 24: FE Report Final Report

24

3. GENERAL – INDIVIDUAL PROCESSES

3.1 In addition to the above processes, which are operated in the same way

by each negotiating committee, there are some areas in which each

committee operates slightly differently to their counterparts. These are

detailed in the table below.

Page 25: FE Report Final Report

25

Differences in the Negotiating Mechanisms for FE College Staff Directors Negotiating Committee

(DNC) Lecturers Negotiating

Committee (LNC) Non-Teaching Staff

Negotiating Committee (NTSNC)

Function: To negotiate the remuneration and conditions of service of directors/ deputy directors of constituent colleges. Membership: Management – 4 members from among the governors, appointed by the employers. Staff – max. 3 members -1 (if they have members at 4 colleges), 1more (if they have members at 9 colleges) and a further 1 (if they have membership at 13 colleges). Chairmanship of committee: Both sides, having agreed to a chairperson, consult with the Labour Relations Agency (LRA) and appoint a mutually-agreed chairperson. If the Chairperson is unavoidably prevented from attending a meeting, those present can agree to a chairperson from among

Function: To negotiate the remuneration and conditions of service of lecturers of constituent colleges. Membership: Management – 2 members from among the governors, appointed by the employers. Staff – 1 representative for each 300 members of a trade union, provided that a trade union with less than 300, but at least 150 members, shall be given one place; such members to be full-time permanent lecturers in constituent colleges. Chairmanship of committee: Both sides, having agreed to a chairperson, consult with the Labour Relations Agency (LRA) and appoint a mutually-agreed chairperson. If the Chairperson is unavoidably prevented from attending a meeting, those present can agree to a chairperson

Function: To negotiate the remuneration and conditions of service of non-teaching staff of constituent colleges. Membership: Management – 6 members from among the employers’ forum. Staff – 3 representatives to be appointed by NIPSA 1 representative to be appointed by AT&GWU 1 representative to be appointed by UNISON 1 representative to be appointed by GMB/APEX. Chairmanship of committee: Both sides, having agreed to a chairperson, consult with the Labour Relations Agency (LRA) and appoint a mutually-agreed chairperson. The chairperson shall not be a member of either Management Side or Trade Union Side. The chairperson shall

Page 26: FE Report Final Report

26

their number. Withdrawal: Each party could have withdrawn prior to the completion of the first period of the arrangements. Organisation & management of the committee: The quorum is 3 representatives on each side. Rules of Procedure Calling a meeting: The committee meets when business requires. The chairperson must call a meeting within 21 days of a request of either secretary. Arbitration: Failing any settlement, the committee shall meet to discuss whether the issue should be submitted to arbitration. The form of any arbitration will be in

from among their number. Withdrawal: Each party can withdraw from the arrangements by giving 3 months notice to the chairperson. Organisation & management of the committee: The quorum is 4 representatives from staff side and 2 from management side. Rules of Procedure Calling a meeting: The committee meets when business requires. The chairperson must call a meeting within 21 days of a request of either secretary. Arbitration: Failing any settlement, the committee shall meet to discuss whether the issue should be submitted to arbitration. The form of any arbitration

hold office for the same period as the committee. If the Chairperson is unavoidably prevented from attending a meeting, those present can agree to a chairperson from among their number. Withdrawal: Each party can withdraw from the arrangements by giving 6 months notice to the chairperson. Organisation & management of the committee: The quorum is 3 representatives on each side. Rules of Procedure Calling a meeting: The committee meets 4 times a year, when business requires. The chairperson must call a meeting within 21 days of a request of either secretary. Arbitration: Failing any settlement, the committee shall meet to discuss whether the issue should be submitted to arbitration. The form of any arbitration

Page 27: FE Report Final Report

27

accordance with an arbitration procedure agreed by both sides of a committee.

will be in accordance with an arbitration procedure agreed by both sides of a committee. In the absence of agreement, the LRA will decide the form of the arbitration to be used.

will be in accordance with an arbitration procedure agreed by both sides of a committee.