Memorandum submitted by Prospect
1. I have been asked by the General Secretary
to reply to your e-mail of 3 June, seeking our comments on the
FCO Annual report. We have restricted ourselves to looking at
Chapter 14 (People) as that is where our primary interest lies.
2. Generally, we enjoy a reasonable working
relationship with the Administration although, as in any industrial
relations environment, we have our disagreements. This would not,
however, be the place to air those, as we prefer to work them
through internally.
3. As the report records, we were able,
after a long period of negotiation, to reach a three-year pay
agreement last year. The Unions welcomed this as it provides stability
in the pay system. We remain opposed to the bonus scheme, but
understand this is a Treasury requirement. We would prefer the
money spent on bonuses to be re-allocated to the general pay pot,
but whilst it is in place we believe that everybody should at
least have an equal opportunity to access it. At present we receive
some reports from members that recommendations for bonuses are
not put forward by senior management for consideration, although
no statistics are available to show how widespread this is. This
is a matter of some concern to us as the scheme should be as equitable
as possible.
4. One matter not referred to in the Annual
Report, but which is of importance to us, is the Equal Pay audit.
In line with Cabinet Office requirements, the FCO has been undertaking
an audit of actual pay rates of male and female employees by grade,
to show whether there are any disparities in their pay and, if
so, identify the reasons for them. They have to produce an Action
Plan showing how any such disparities are going to be corrected
and over what timescale. We have not yet received the detail but
understand it is nearing completion. Given the emphasis in the
Report on diversity and equality, we are interested to see how
this commitment will be applied in practice and are looking forward
to a productive discussion with the Administration.
5. The Report also refers to the Interchange
policy; a policy we support. However, it is not always easy after
a period of outward secondment to return to the office. Not unnaturally,
circumstances change and the officer's original section may have
been re-organised and his or her post is no longer available to
return to. This is a particular problem for the specialists we
represent. The concept of interchange is a good one, but will
only be of benefit to the office if a suitable post can be found
on their return. If the secondment was outside London, expenses
will not be paid for an officer to return, which can be a discouragement.
6. Health and Safety is referred to in the
Report. Officially, the provisions of the Health and Safety Acts
do not apply overseas, even within the Embassy. The Health and
Safety Executive have confirmed this to us on two occasions. The
policy in MOD is, nevertheless, to apply the Acts' provisions
where their staff work overseas. The FCO has no such policy, which
is a concern to us. We are told the FCO want to comply with legal
requirements but as there is no UK legal requirement this is of
little help and the legal Health and Safety provisions in many
countries, particularly outside Europe, is poor. We are seeking
the adoption of the MOD policy by the FCO so that our members
do have the appropriate protection.
Negotiations Officer
Prospect
June 2003
|
