APPENDIX 4
Memorandum submitted by British Consulate
General Staff in St Petersburg
1.1 An open meeting of the staff of the
British Consulate General was held in Cafe Bahlsen, Nevsky Prospect,
St Petersburg on Friday 10 September 1999. A broad spectrum of
grades was present. Topics for discussion were those issues raised
in the various "modernisation" and "change"
papers in circulation. The points raised reflect concerns that
are considerably older than the present initiative to seek staff
views. We should record that there is no formal mechanism for
staff overseas to express their views.
1.2 Visioning the Future! Yes please.
Can we have one?
1.3 We note the disenfranchised state of
the majority of staff working in the FCO Overseas and welcome
this opportunity to address our concerns to the "Top of the
Office" for the first time. We believe that there are no
principles or fundamentals that should not be challenged and re-examined.
We encourage a bold step forward.
1.4 There are four very separate groups
in our work place: UK based with permanent contracts, and three
groups of locally engaged members of staff on fixed contracts;
local nationals (Russians); expatriates and spouses. We note the
considerable disparity in the salaries, benefits, and conditions
of service of these four groups. We note that locally engaged
staff constitute the majority of staff employed overseas. Creating
a structure that allows for effective consultation between decision
makers and those affected is a considerable challenge in any modernisation
of The Office. Empowering staff with representative negotiating
rights is the ultimate challenge in taking your staff into a serious
partnership.
1.5 We note the Mission statements of the
Department, its commitment to the Citizens Charter, its Equal
Opportunities Policy and its intention to seek Investors in People
"status". These circumstances allow us to suggest that
it is time for a process to be initiated that gradually draws
together these four groups forwards into a common basic contract
of employment based on "best practice". We suspect this
should be based on a voluntary acceptance of European Community
Employment Law where this provides better protection for employers
and employees rather than local law in the place of employment,
which in some areas of the world will be inadequate. At the present
time locally engaged contracts are silent on grievance procedures
and this needs to be remedied as a matter of urgency whilst a
unified common contract is drawn up.
2.1 Some obvious areas for re-examination
are:
2.2 Annual Leave: Where is the common approach?
We believe annual leave entitlements should be standard across
all grades and increased in a uniform manner reflecting longevity
of service to the Department.
2.3 Overtime: If the Working Time Directive
is to be taken seriously, the easiest way of curbing excess hours
is to make eligibility for overtime or long hours gratuities the
norm for all grades across the office. We cannot think of a compelling
ethical argument why any grade should be made an exception. We
note Ministers are elected and not formally employed by The Office.
2.4 Pay: Salary levels for locally engaged
staff overseas are set by crude market analysis. We note current
mechanisms to evaluate and reflect the different circumstances
in overseas postings and ask why these mechanisms cannot be applied
to locally engaged staff. We can see no ethical argument why there
should not be a common pay spine for all staff in the Department.
Where is the justification for spouse to be employed at higher
rates than local nationals but at lower rates than expatriates?
The whole pay structure needs a fundamental re-examination within
a common standard of identical reward for identical work undertaken.
Do staff have different needs or merely different expectations?
What is the moral imperative that underpins the pay policy of
the Department?
2.5 Allowances: A standard set of responsibility
allowances should be established. There are many common core jobs
within Embassies and Consulates that merit recognition of responsibilities
within the same grade banding. This approach would not be necessary
if individual jobs were "weighted" against a common
standard. We recognise there is more than one approach to a basket
of problems that are inter-related. Visibility of principle remains
a key feature however in all these discussions.
2.6 Pensions, National Insurance Contributions
and similar related benefits: We note the difficulties in drawing
together a package that reflects equality of treatment within
the disparity of circumstances worldwide. We believe there should
be a common principle driving Departmental policy. Employer and
employee responsibilities should be judged against this one set
of principles and applied evenly. A contributory pension fund
for all staff (including UK based) not eligible for a UK pension
is appropriate.
2.7 Maternity and Paternity benefits: We
can see no reason why these should not be standard worldwide.
This has to be a "quick win" at small cost.
3.1 If the FCO is serious in its intention
to "invest" in people, then it will seek ways to provide
"careers" and long term or permanent contracts for its
staff overseas. We recognise that this will not be an easy journey
to take but we believe the ethical argument for a common core
is undeniable. Locally engaged staff provide the foundation on
which the continuity of the activity of FCO overseas is rooted.
It is their local knowledge and expertise that provides this foundation.
At the present time the short term nature of UK based staff postings
ensures that this situation will continue. The value of the continuity
of locally engaged staff in specialised areas (consular, commercial,
visa and management) needs to be recognised. Missions would not
function effectively without this heritage. We seek a commitment
from our employer to employ us. It is time to stop treating locally
engaged staff as though they were an expendable commodity to be
got rid of overnight (as has been known to happen) when short
term restructuring proposals arise.
3.2 We recognise the difficulties involved
in making this commitment, but we believe it a fundamental one
in any discussion of futures. Yes please, let us have one! Spouses
will continue to move on with their partners; inspection reports
will continue to redistribute, reduce or expand staff resource
requirements within missions. The opportunities for promotion
are limited but there is no apparent attempt at a personnel strategy.
We believe there is some scope for a redeployment strategy within
regional blocks for local staff and worldwide for spouses. Spouses
are by definition mobile. Local nationals and expatriate staff
will have periods of mobility at various points in their lives.
Human resourcing programmes have been developed by several organisations
that seek to maximise the benefits obtained by staff retention.
There are savings to be made in re-training costs. It is difficult
to put a price on experience.
It would not be too difficult to give all posts Internet
access to a Personnel website that allowed vacancies to be notified
and trawled from a weekly updated noticeboard. There are some
posts that would more easily allow themselves to be localised.
This will be a preferable alternative to contracting out whole
areas of work.
3.3 A principle of open competition for
vacancies including those at higher grades on promotion should
be introduced. There are no valid reasons why staff having the
necessary skills and experience should not be able to apply for
jobs at a higher grade. An annual appraisal system that established
that jobs were properly weighted, established common core descriptions
for common roles and was motivated towards identifying training
needs and individual career development strategies, instead of
performance pay, would support this process (please compare with
the Australian Immigration Department Agreed Annual Training Plan
if it still exists!). How can EA's have career development if
they cannot be promoted for example?
3.4 It may be that the underlying unvoiced
principle in all these concerns is that we are employed by the
FCO UK Ltd, with a common expectation and not by a plethora of
Ambassadors and Consul Generals in countries overseas.
4.1 With this document we hope we have initiated
a dialogue rather than just made a representation. We look forward
to a continuing debate with all its irreconcilable factors shared
frankly so that we can all own the outcome of these deliberations.
Peter Dyson on behalf of the staff of the British
Consulate General St Petersburg, all of whom saw this document
in draft stage for comment prior to submission.
| 
