1. Whither the Private Sector or should that be witherQuest Diagnostics have lost their long standing contract to provide Pathology Services to the West Middlesex. At the same time TDL have lost their contract to supply Pathology Services to Ealing. The two contracts will now be operated by the Hammersmith Hospital working with TDL who will provide IT support. All staff involved will be employed and managed by Hammersmith in the NHS. The role of Amicus-MSF will now be to ensure that TUPE arrangements apply to all staff who wish to return to the NHS Amicus -MSF welcomes this move which recognises that with active management, the NHS can provide a Pathology service second to none. It is unfortunate that such demonstrations often only occur when under threat. The involvement of TDL in providing IT services ensures that this area of weakness in many parts of the NHS will be improved and is part of a major communication modernisation plan in NW London to improve Pathology. TDL have already demonstrated their success with IT in Pathology. Having won the service back to the NHS, we shall have to ensure that the service improvements already made will be further improved. It is now quite clear that there is no private sector capacity to provide a full Pathology service in the UK. It really is time that we stopped wasting so much time and effort trying to create one. Amicus-MSF members will continue to show the flexibility and drive, allied to proper investment, to create a first class Pathology Service, second to none. Roger Spiller Head of Health
Quest Diagnostics have lost their long standing contract to provide Pathology Services to the West Middlesex. At the same time TDL have lost their contract to supply Pathology Services to Ealing. The two contracts will now be operated by the Hammersmith Hospital working with TDL who will provide IT support.
All staff involved will be employed and managed by Hammersmith in the NHS. The role of Amicus-MSF will now be to ensure that TUPE arrangements apply to all staff who wish to return to the NHS
Amicus -MSF welcomes this move which recognises that with active management, the NHS can provide a Pathology service second to none. It is unfortunate that such demonstrations often only occur when under threat. The involvement of TDL in providing IT services ensures that this area of weakness in many parts of the NHS will be improved and is part of a major communication modernisation plan in NW London to improve Pathology. TDL have already demonstrated their success with IT in Pathology.
Having won the service back to the NHS, we shall have to ensure that the service improvements already made will be further improved.
It is now quite clear that there is no private sector capacity to provide a full Pathology service in the UK. It really is time that we stopped wasting so much time and effort trying to create one. Amicus-MSF members will continue to show the flexibility and drive, allied to proper investment, to create a first class Pathology Service, second to none.
Roger Spiller Head of Health
2. Report of the PTB joint pay meeting with management
The staff side of the PTB met with management side on Wednesday 27th February 2002.
The staff side presented the basic elements of the pay claim that had been submitted in writing before Christmas.
Management's introductory comments were that their response was against a background of low inflation of 1.3%, that they were optimistic Agenda for Change would be agreed in the coming months and that their response to our claim was transitory nature of the situation.
They acknowledged that there was a need to have changes to MTO structures not least because of the National Framework Programmes but this was not the place to do so. Nor were they prepared to change present structures due to the imminent implementation of Agenda for Change.
The formal response from management to our claim was the same as the Pay Review Bodies:
In addition:
In response Steve Sloan, Lead Officer for Pathology welcomed the overall increase as being in line with the PRBs but expressed our disappointment with management's response on the key issues (MTO; MLSO3/4; MLA; AP) that Amicus had added to the PTB pay claim for our members.
He pointed out that our proposed changes to the MLSO pay scales were intended to even up the entry salary for all professional and technical groupings. Thus the lack of movement on the MTO and Estate Officer grades did cut across this ethos.
He made clear that there was already evidence of problems in recruiting MTO's, the proposals from management would not redress this problem. Given the critical need for such staff, to deliver the National Cancer and Coronary Care Frameworks, he asked that the DoH reconsider this decision
He also pointed out that the request for a senior MLA grade was against a background of developing a new route for the school leavers entering the profession. This could not wait the full introduction of Agenda for Change in two years time.
He explained that there was a real problem brewing in laboratories where MLSO 4's would be retiring and while MLSO 3's would apply for these posts there was no real incentive for MLSO 2's at the top of the scale to apply for vacant MLSO 3 posts.
Dave Houliston, chair of the NHS NAC, expanded this point, he explained that in cytology MLSO 3's would be moving into the Advanced Practitioner and MLSO 2's would not be prepared to take on the extra responsibility for no increase in salary.
Management noted our points.
The staff side agreed that we would consult with our members.
It is proposed that there will be telephone conferences of the respective Amicus OACs in this next couple of weeks. In the meantime we shall be confirming our areas of priority with the DoH and expecting them to come back with proposals on how we address the outstanding issues.
It is clear that the DOH believe that Agenda for Change will resolve the issues we raised. While they are optimistic on reaching agreement, implementation for the majority of staff will not be until mid 2004. Recruitment is already suffering and unless redressed, Agenda for Change will have less impact on improving the quality of care to patients than it should.
The Amicus delegation was Steve Sloan, Dave Houliston, Jill Manley, Julie Evans, Dave Rist and Russell Cowell.
Steve Sloan Lead Officer for Pathology.
3. Letter to Pat Urry re: PTB Pay Round
07 March 2002
Mrs. P Urry Head of Pay Department of Health Quarry House Leeds
Dear Pat
PTB Pay Round
Having had a chance to talk to some of our senior officials since we met last week, I have been asked to write to you on behalf of our members to reinforce a number of points that that I raised on their behalf at the meeting.
We are concerned at the department's unwillingness to provide a forum to deal with the recruitment and retention difficulties that exist in the MTO grades. We believe that while the offer is in many respects of a similar nature to that offered to the MLSO's last year, it is in itself unlikely to aid recruitment into this grade of staff. It also repeats the compression of differentials for MTOs which is causing the problem outlined below for recruitment into MLSO 3 and 4. As I stated at the time both MTO's and EO's need a serious adjustment to their grade structure if all support professions are to enter agenda for change on a fairly level playing field.
We would further urge you to reconsider the proposal that a senior MLA grade is created. This would mirror the MTO structure, but more importantly would provide a real alternative to the present abuse of the MTO structure being used in some laboratories to overcome the limited use of MLA's. Such a development would also put a grading scheme in place that would facilitate entry into the service by school leavers. We cannot afford to leave this for a further two years.
While the department may feel that Agenda for Change will alleviate the differentials difficulty for MLSO3's and 4's, for reasons below we do not feel that the possible time lag involved here is going to help. As I stated last week there is a real possibility that a number of MLSO 4's will be retiring over the next two years. While there will be plenty of 3's willing to step into their shoes, as the differential between the top of the 2 and 3 no longer exists filling MLSO 3 posts is going to be very difficult. Given their position as a key supervisory grade, running a service is going to be exceptionally difficult in these circumstances.
While we welcome the departments optimism on reaching an agreement soon on agenda for change, the simple fact that even with an imminent agreement the vast majority of staff will be have to wait least a further two years before they are job evaluated.
Given that the process will start at the earliest in April 2003, this could mean an additional delay of at least three years. As we are already aware of localised shortages in key areas we believe that this delay which is in some case equivalent to the training period of some MTO professions is not sustainable if the government wishes to deliver the cancer and coronary frameworks on schedule. Neither do we believe it is acceptable for patients to have to wait up to six years for these services to improve.
For these reasons we would urge the department to seriously reconsider it's position in respect of the pay issues raised above.
Yours sincerely
Steve Sloan Lead officer for Pathology
4. NURSES' AND MIDWIVES' PAY FOR 2002/03
The Advance Letter for Nurses' & Midwives' pay has recently been issued. Copies of this letter can be obtained from the Department of Health web site at www.doh.gov.uk/publications/coinh.htm or by writing to PO Box 777, London SE1 6XH or by fax on 01623 724 524, email doh@prologistics.co.uk or by telephoning the NHS Responseline on 08701 555 455.
5. AGENDA FOR CHANGE
Within the next month we expect to receive the first rank order of jobs within the Agenda for Change Job Evaluation scheme. It is this rank which will determine the relative position of all evaluated jobs and thus in turn determine one's salary band.
This is the culmination of much work to firstly develop and test a Factor plan which seeks to identify all the characteristics of any job which should contribute to measuring its value in comparison with others. Each job will be measured against these factors and scored. The task of measurement is being eased by the advance preparation of "Benchmark" jobs, some 400 of which have been measured and are likely to cover between 80 and 95% of all staff. There will be some staff in jobs with small, typically below 300 populations who have not been benchmarked. Amicus is seeking to have more of these measured so as to reduce both uncertainty and many appeals at local level on implementation.
There is much left to discuss on process but some principles have already emerged:
The only thing agreed so far about implementation is that there will be a group of early implementers who will be trusts, with Union support, who volunteer. The likely implementation date for them could be December/January 2002/3. The remainder would be approx 15 months after that say May 2004, giving a period for review of the early implementers and the success of the scheme. There is no agreement yet on how any pay increases are to be implemented.
Negotiations over pay and progression will start after Easter when the Comprehensive Spending Review figures are known. The summer will be busy.
If agreement can be reached by August/September, then it will be put to staff by ballot in the case of Amicus as a package. If agreed then early implementers could start by the year end.
There is no question that provided the resources are made available, as we believe they will be, AFC should correct many of the anomalies to which Amicus has drawn attention over the years. PRB status will be awarded to most Amicus members and those not formally covered will still be influenced by it. It should allow greater flexibility so that if a worker increases their skill or experience base, then a regrading may be appropriate. Pay will be based on the needs of the job, not an arbitrary allocation of job grades. Pay will be for the contribution made not just the public image created or the noise made.
What we must not do is believe that AFC will produce extra money for all salaries. It will ensure, that those, who in terms relative to other staff, are paid to little, will receive a boost. If the present job is correctly graded in relation to others then there will be no boost. The greatest benefit will come from knowing that NHS staff will be paid fairly in relation to one another, so if there is a low pay problem, it applies to all (including doctors and dentists) and we can all work together to argue for more.
NHS JOB EVALUATION SCHEME
Introduction
1. The Agenda for Change negotiations on a new NHS pay system have been underway between the UK Health Departments, representatives of NHS employers and NHS staff organisations for nearly three years. As the talks are being conducted on the basis that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed", very little information has been released jointly by the negotiators on the new system that is emerging in the talks. This is likely to remain the position during the final stages of the talks now underway.
2. It has however been agreed that some factual information about the proposed system can be made available to NHS managers, provided its status is made clear and it does not prejudice the position of either side in the talks.
3. The following briefing note on part of the new system known as "NHS Job Evaluation Scheme" has been prepared on this basis.
Background
4. A Job Evaluation Working Party (JEWP) was established in November 1997 to examine the use of job evaluation systems in the NHS. JEWP is made up from Staff Side and Management Side representatives, supported by DOH, working in partnership.
Process
5. Early work undertaken by JEWP established that none of the commonly available Job Evaluation schemes was suitable for applying to the range of NHS jobs in the UK and social care jobs in Northern Ireland. A decision was taken to develop a scheme purposely designed by JEWP which would cope with the range and diversity of NHS jobs and underpin the plans for pay reform outlined in the Agenda for Change White Paper. JEWP has been assisted by two independent experts. The scheme was intended to be able to differentiate and rank NHS jobs, to be sensitive to the organisational environment in which it would operate, and support equal pay for equal value principles.
Progress
6. JEWP has constructed and tested a Job Evaluation Scheme containing sixteen factors grouped into three main families to cover skills, responsibilities and effort. Each factor describes a number of different levels of demand allowing NHS jobs to be measured under each. Sixteen is a relatively large number of factors compared to some existing schemes. It was considered necessary to have this number of factors to ensure that all relevant job features are adequately and fairly measured. Considerable care was taken in designing the scheme to ensure that the factors did not either conflate or double count job features. Advice has been taken from the Equal Opportunities Commission and other Equality bodies at key points during the design stage. This input has been essential in ensuring the scheme is objective, free from bias and fair to all staff.
7. Several rounds of testing and subsequent refinement have taken place to bring the Job Evaluation scheme very close to its final state. The skills, knowledge and experience of NHS staff have been used to develop the scheme using information obtained from NHS postholders.
8. Over four hundred jobs have been benchmarked. The jobs have come from sites across the four countries reflecting a mix of representative organisations and geographical locations. The methodology has been to acquire information from post holders with the assistance of two analysts - one a staff representative and one a management representative - working in pairs. These have been trained to operate the new scheme. The questionnaires have been evaluated by panels of four staff - two representing staff and two Management side.
9. The benchmarks are now being used to create a library of profiles of key and most common NHS jobs. These will give NHS organisations the reference points they will need to be able to decide easily and quickly what is the appropriate pay band for around 95% of NHS posts without the need to evaluate them locally.
10. Quality control of both the questionnaires and the subsequent evaluations has been performed by members of JEWP operating in pairs.
11. The scheme has not been formally agreed by the Central Negotiating Group. It is made available to improve understanding of how Job Evaluation is likely to apply across the NHS
12. The factor plan is being made available in the four countries without the accompanying weighting and scoring system. This will be made available in the future.
13. The Job Evaluation scheme is, at this stage, not for use in evaluating posts within the NHS. Once agreed its use will only be approved once organisations have been trained in its use. Prior to any implementation training will be provided through the Modernisation Agency. Equivalent arrangements are being made in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
14. The Job Evaluation Scheme is copyright and may only be reproduced to facilitate learning across the NHS.
15. Any queries that arise about the scheme or its potential application may be addressed to Peter Smith, Chair, Job Evaluation Working Party, Room 2N32, Quarry House, Leeds, LS2 7UE - 0113 254 5684.
A full breakdown of FACTOR DEFINITIONS AND FACTOR LEVELS is available our Website - www.msfhealth.org
AGENDA FOR CHANGE: KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS FRAMEWORK
A copy a statement produced by management in respect of the Knowledge and Skills Framework is available on our website (as above).
The KSF is a part of the talks to modernise NHS pay, Agenda for Change, which have been taking place for the last three years. The object of the KSF is to allow for more consistent and effective development of staff by, for example, identifying in appraisals, learning skills. This will be a national framework, and linked with other initiatives such as national occupational standards and the lifelong learning strategy.
There are two reasons why management have issued this statement. Firstly to inform the Service of developments in this area and secondly to seek comments.
Joint NHS trade unions (Unison, SOR, T&G, Amicus, GMB, RCN, RCM, BDA, BOS, SCP, CDNA, UCATT, USDAW and CSP) are writing to inform representatives/stewards that:
(1) The KSF development work is being developed jointly, with trade union involvement.
(2) The development of the KSF is still at an early stage. Much more work and testing is required before a final document can be produced and agreed.
(3) Joint Unions fully support moves to improve staff development and learning opportunities for staff. Joint unions do not support a link between pay and the KSF.
NHS Joint Unions are aware that a number of trusts have or are considering developing their own staff development schemes (some potentially linked to pay). Local stewards/representatives in such trusts can use this statement to help argue that local employers should not at this stage undertake such work as a national framework is being developed in partnership.