Notting Hill staff to vote on strike action
Share
Staff at a London housing association will vote on strike action this month following proposed changes to terms and conditions.
Ballot papers have been sent to members of trade union Unison at Notting Hill Housing Group.
Unison said Notting Hill had proposed to abolish paid carers’ leave. The union also said the landlord was planning for staff redeployed to a lower-paid job to receive their original salary for six months rather than the current two years and relocation allowances would last for three months rather than a year. Flexitime, where staff have a contractual right to accrue overtime and take it as leave, would be replaced with flexible working, where staff must apply to managers to change their hours.
The association had considered extending working hours from 35 to 37 a week without extra pay but the board ruled out the idea. However it planned to implement the other changes without negotiating with the union, Unison said.
Almost half of the 210 Unison members at Notting Hill took part in a vote in December to decide whether they should be balloted for strike action. A total of 95 per cent voted in favour and 5 per cent opposed the idea.
Unison said carers’ leave cost Notting Hill a total of £30,000 in 2008 and its abolition combined with the end of flexitime, would have a disproportionate impact on female staff with caring responsibilities. It said cuts in salary protection and relocation allowances were ‘a cynical attempt to cut employment protection measures in advance of likely restructures and office moves’.
Unison Housing Associations Branch secretary Mary Powell said: ‘Notting Hill is one of a number of London-based housing associations which has imposed cuts to terms and conditions on its staff, or is threatening to do so. Such cuts come at a time when the need for quality social housing is greater than ever. Staff are expected to deliver a high standard of customer service whist seeing their own conditions of employment eroded. Low morale will only increase staff turnover to the detriment of services.’
A Notting Hill employee, who wanted to remain anonymous, said: ‘People are willing to make changes if it is necessary but there’s been no negotiation so it is demoralising. The way it has been put forward people feel they are being told they are not working hard enough. It seems the hardest hit are families and carers. Carers’ leave had such a small financial impact on the company that we cannot understand why they would want to get rid of it.’
Notting Hill chair Paul Hodgkinson is also a trustee of Parenting UK, a membership body for organisations which support parents.
A spokesperson for Notting Hill said the organisation was implementing the new terms and conditions to improve residents’ satisfaction with services.
‘We very much value our staff and will continue to try to balance their needs with our commitment to putting our residents first. We believe that the new terms and conditions are reasonable and compare very favourably with those offered by similar organisations,’ she said.
‘We have conducted an equality impact assessment to make sure that the proposed terms and conditions would not lead to any member of staff being treated unfairly.’
The spokesperson added that the association had increased paid holiday and was proposing to offer time off in lieu, but could not afford the current level of relocation and redeployment benefits and flexible working provided more predictability around staff attendance than flexitime which would allow a better service for residents. The organisation’s services had become expensive compared with other landlords and staff costs were a big part of this. She said the organisation was listening to staff and talking to them about individual concerns.
She said the organisation had discussed the proposals with Unison but had not been convinced by alternatives put forward by the union.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (10)
palaver | 04/02/2010 9:43 am
So once again the most vulnerable staff are being penalised. £30K per year? that's a tiny fraction of the senior directors' pay - take it off them instead, they won't even notice! The senior directors & the chief exec should be ashamed of themselves - they don't know how to do their job. If you want to change the terms & conditions CONSULT AND NEGOTIATE WITH YOUR STAFF & THE TRADE UNION! A strike will cost NHHG a lot more than the savings they seek to make.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 04/02/2010 10:34 am
Who is going to pay for the cost of the strike?
It is going to fall on tenants surely, one way or another.
And what tenants have got to do with and industrial dispute?
Nothing whatsoever.
So why at the end of the day should the tenants be double penalised by having services disrupted and at the same time pay for the disruption?
Just once side of the evil of social housing for tenants.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
karen | 04/02/2010 11:52 am
I dont think anyone wins in this Kass. Its not just about the tenants loosing out - its the staff who work hard and are getting their T&Cs changed without consultation.
Social housing includes the gems who work their socks off for little reward. Those who make a difference every day of their life. They are hardly evil.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dev | 04/02/2010 1:03 pm
Kass - I don't really feel that a strike would be paid for in any event by the residents. Ulimately the industrial action (which is still not guaranteed) would only affect those union members within the company, so most RSLs would have enough staff left over to operate a skeleton service at worst.
The staff are trying to get the best T&Cs they can, ultimately the better they are, the better staff will be attracted and motivated, improving the service to tenants.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Michael | 04/02/2010 1:55 pm
Kass,
you are probably one of the very few tenants who has concerns or even knows about the possible action beng considered.
I doubt very much if the vast majority of disengaged and uninterested tenants give two hoots. So long as they get their rent paid??? and have have enough cash to have a beer or a spliff who cares!!!!! oh,and who pays for this???
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
The ONLY One | 04/02/2010 2:35 pm
Kass - you have shown yourself up as a so called 'human rights' campaigner you allege to be.(employed yet? I doubt it). What about the employees who are having their salaries cut, hours extended, and other terms and conditions changed without consultation? The knock on effect will be the service users also may suffer, and to be honest it looks like no-one wins. Your first concern was that the tenants MIGHT have to pay for it all (highly doubtful), not that employees and service users might suffer.
You are not a human rights campaigner, you are a 'Kass rights' campaigner. Selfish.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
karen | 04/02/2010 3:46 pm
Michael - I'm interested as to why the countries tenants would be engaged in this debate? What about the rights of tenants who just want to live their lives, pay their rent and keep their heads down? Their rights are equally important.
I think its also somewhat unfair to assume all tenants care only about rent and alcohol/drugs...I could make a joke there but I think it would taken the wrong way...
Or I could be completely missing the tone of your posting in which case I apologise :-)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter | 04/02/2010 4:13 pm
Did NHG consult with the Union or not? The staff are saying they didn't but the spokesperson of NHG is saying they did but the Union's proposal are not acceptable, so they going to implement the new T&C anyway. I do not call that negotiation.
This kind of blinkered, command and control management do not work and it will be fraught with all kinds of day to day management issues that will create a stressful and untrustworthy environment. This impact is far more devastation to the well being of the organisation then the 'savings' you are going to make. If people are abusing the system, you must manage the abusers and not get rid of a useful benefit. What about the people who comply with system, why penalise them?
You need to question the purpose of this exercise and how does these changes can really benefit the organisation, its residents and the staff?
If you need to reduce staff costs, start from the top. It is absolutely abhorrent if staff costs is problem that you start cutting bottom up because it never gets to the top. Who are you benchmarking your costs against? Why are your staff costs higher than other organisations?
You must treat people with courtesy and respect at all times! That is the mark of a good organisation and leader.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andrea Rose | 08/02/2010 1:14 pm
I do believe it is not respectful to behave in the way the Senior Management behave allegedly been accused of, however when it comes to reducing costs there is not much they can do. Flexitime and Carer Leave is abused my a minority of staff and this creates a poor perception to Management and rather than analysing where problems are and dealing with them, they opt to get rid of the benefits all together and the innocent suffer. Managers need to realise that people do have lives outside of work and need to strike a balance to enable to give their best to both. Disregarding staffs opinions will always lead to conflict even though you may have some ‘heavy hitting (bullying styles) managers’ in place. These shock and awe tactic’s can backfire.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mary | 08/02/2010 9:52 pm
This ballot has come about following many months of attempting to negotiate with the employer by UNISON. Staff have been prepared to consider changes but their views have been ignored and the employer was not prepared to involve ACAS.
The proposed cuts are not due to financial necessity. NHHT's own website sets out just how financially healthy the organisation is. This has more to do with macho management.
In 2009 Kate Davies, Chief Executive at Notting Hill Housing Trust, chaired a group of “experts” who produced a report for Conservative Party think tank the Centre for Social Justice. This body is headed by Iain Duncan Smith and supported by David Cameron. That report recommended ending secure and assured tenancies.
Notting Hill Housing Trust Chairman Paul Hodgkinson is also a Trustee of Parenting UK which promotes family friendly policies. This is ironic considering the family unfriendly policies being imposed on his staff at Notting Hill.
It is not clear how any of the changes being imposed by NHHT would actually improve services to tenants. Ultimately, taking this attitude to staff at NHHT will have a dire effect on staff morale which will be of no benefit to tenants.
The ballot is now open and UNISON members at NHHT are being encouraged to vote yes to industrial action. The decision to ballot is not taken lightly. What happens at NHHT today will happen with other employers over the next weeks and months. There are other employers in the sector trying to reduce terms and conditions e.g. increasing the working week for no extra pay or coming off national pay agreements.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment