Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 346, June 2007

Case No 2383 (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) - Complaint date: 20-AUG-04 - Closed

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 177. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2006 meeting [see 343rd Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 297th Session, paras 191–195]. The Committee requested to be kept informed of developments with regard to the following issues: (a) the progress of consultation with private contractors on the establishment of appropriate mechanisms to compensate prisoner custody officers in private sector companies to which certain of the functions of the prison have been contracted out, for the limitation of their right to strike; (b) the progress of consultations with a view to improving the current mechanism for the determination of prison officers’ pay in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. With regard to the latter point, the Committee had taken note with interest of the Government’s intention to satisfy a claim by the complainant Prisoner Officers’ Association (POA) to include a trade union representative in the selection panel for the Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB).
2. 178. In a communication dated 26 February 2007, the Government indicates that pursuant to the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations in this case, the Government undertook to ensure that:
   • (i) PSPRB awards would only be departed from in exceptional circumstances;
   • (ii) consultation would take place to ensure that arrangements for the appointment of members of the PSPRB are independent and impartial, are approved on the basis of specific guidance or criteria and have the confidence of all parties concerned.
3. 179. Her Majesty’s Prison Service (HMPS), acting as the Government’s representative, sought to address the following issues:
   • (i) Open dialogue with the POA on this issue: HMPS telephoned POA officials on several occasions on this matter but received no response.
   • (ii) Changes to strengthen the recruitment criteria and provide for independent scrutiny of the recruitment process: proposals were drawn up and sent to all interested parties, including the POA, which, despite having in excess of the customary period of 28 days for reply, once again failed to respond.
4. 180. Accordingly, recruitment of new members of the PSPRB took place using the new criteria that had been circulated. In March 2006, the HMPS was asked if it could meet with the POA to discuss the ILO recommendations. At that meeting, the POA stated that it did not accept that the prison service and its officials could act as representatives for the Government on this issue, and criticized the Government for failure to consult. Despite ongoing discussions, the POA was unable to be persuaded that the mechanisms for Pay Review Body appointments were consistent with the Commissioner for Public Appointment’s guidelines and subject to independent scrutiny. The POA set its aims firmly on achieving:
   • (i) an independent Pay Review Body;
   • (ii) an input on the selection panel of the members of the Pay Review Body;
   • (iii) a written commitment that the Government, ministers or the employer would never attempt to interfere with the Pay Review Body; and
   • (iv) no reference to acceptance of workforce reform/modernization in determining future pay rises.
5. 181. Between 31 July and 13 August 2006, the POA held a ballot seeking support of its conference motion seeking a mandate for “action up to and including strike action to achieve these objectives”. The result of the ballot was in support of the union’s position by a significant majority.
6. 182. Following assistance from the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the prisons minister, a draft outline agreement was reached addressing all four key points raised by the POA. The POA agreed to take this to a further Special Delegates Conference on 7 September 2006, where it was accepted by delegates, thereby removing the mandate for industrial action. Following the acceptance of the agreement, the POA then sought to further renegotiate the agreement by introducing additional conditions. This was unacceptable to the Government and the agreement was subsequently withdrawn.
7. 183. This effectively placed the prison service in direct confrontation with the POA which, together with an unrelated dispute, resulted in the prison service successfully applying for an injunctive relief in the High Court to stop interference with the normal operation of the prison service. Contempt proceedings were scheduled to take place on 19 September 2006, as a consequence of which the POA had called for nationwide strike action, which would have been in breach of the legally binding agreement between the prison service and the POA.
8. 184. Intervention at ministerial and TUC level allowed the parties to draw up a settlement document that agreed to look at a broader approach to issues between them, including the key issue of the Pay Review Body mechanisms. Discussions allowed another set of agreed proposals to be drawn up which would have had a much reduced impact, but which seemed acceptable to the POA negotiators. However, at a further Special Delegates Conference held on 30 November 2006, the proposed settlement was rejected by delegates but a further mandate given that the POA should return to the prison service to negotiate a better deal; to date no such approach has been received by the prison service.
9. 185. Finally, in regard to private sector prisons, the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), which has responsibility for matters related to private prisons, has had discussions with providers on the issue of compensatory guarantees. All the companies are aware that, when setting their overall reward package, they must reflect prevailing market conditions in order to attract and retain staff in line with their organizational strategies. This includes the constraints imposed by section 127 of the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act in relation to the taking of industrial action. NOMS officials have also informed HMPS that they understand that the majority of trade unions in the private sector indicated they would be reluctant to engage in an agreement leading to a constraint on their ability to ballot for industrial action, but recognize that they remain so constrained by section 127 at the present time. Further discussions are planned involving the Minister responsible for Criminal Justice and Offender Management and the GMB Union to review these matters in more detail.
10. 186. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government. It regrets that the consultations carried out with the POA have not resulted in any agreed improvements in the current mechanism for the determination of prison officers’ pay in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Committee also notes that consultations with private contractors on the establishment of appropriate mechanisms to compensate prisoner custody officers in private sector companies for the limitation of the right to strike, have not had any result. The Committee requests the Government to pursue vigourously its efforts in respect of all the above and to keep it informed of developments.