Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 349, Mars 2008

Cas no 2383 (Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord) - Date de la plainte: 20-AOÛT -04 - Clos

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

1. 253. The Committee last examined this case at its May–June 2007 meeting [see 346th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 299th Session, paras 177–186]. The Committee had requested to be kept informed of developments concerning 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; and (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. The Committee had regretted the lack of progress in respect of the above and requested the Government to vigorously pursue its efforts with regard to these matters.
2. 254. In a communication dated 1 November 2007, the Government indicates that on 3 November 2006, officials of the prison service and the complainant Prisoner Officers’ Association (POA) met with Brendan Barber of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) to explore avenues for talks on the issue of the Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB) mechanism, as well as on wider issues relating to improving industrial relations, as per a settlement agreement of September 2006. On 19 January 2007, prison service officials met with Alan Cave of the Workforce Foundation for scene-setting discussions that were due to take place with the POA as well, prior to engaging in joint talks on agreed identified issues.
3. 255. A dispute raised by the POA in regard to the voluntary additional hours scheme (Contract Supplementary Hours – CSH) initiated discussion under the Joint Industrial Relations Procedural Agreement (JIRPA). This dispute, and a POA action seeking to gain a Declaratory Order in the High Court that the prison service had breached the JIRPA by excluding issues of dispute from the arbitration process, led the POA to fail to engage with taking the agreed talks further. Both the CSH dispute and action seeking a Declaratory Order became protracted, with both parties seeking to resolve issues through the courts. Key court decisions provided an agreed Consent Order in regard to the JIRPA processes and in a separate hearing constrained the POA from seeking to use union disciplinary processes against volunteers seeking to work additional voluntary hours.
4. 256. As a result of the Court’s decision, the POA decided that the JIRPA implemented in 2005 was not working in their interests and, in accordance with a provision in the agreement, gave 12 months’ notice of withdrawal, effectively removing any constraint upon the POA taking strike action as of May 2008 and thereby establishing comparable rights to other groups of workers in the United Kingdom. Following a ballot of their members, and with only 45 minutes notice, at 7 a.m. on 29 August 2007 the POA took strike action. The prison service obtained an interim injunction from the High Court, as the POA are bound by the JIRPA until 8 May 2008, and the POA instructed its members to return to work that evening. 11,485 staff took strike action, directly affecting 124 of the 129 establishments in England and Wales.
5. 257. The POA action concerned the Government’s decision to stage the 2007/2008 pay award recommended by the PSPRB. This decision was taken in line with the Government’s broader economic policy, and was applied to recommendations from all pay review bodies other than that governing the armed forces; it is in line with the Government’s response to ILO recommendations that while the recommendations of the PSPRB could not be binding, they would only be departed from on grounds of affordability.
6. 258. On 31 August 2007, Ministers met with the POA and made it clear that the 2007/2008 pay settlement would not be reopened. The POA made a commitment that there would be no further industrial action at that time. It was agreed that planned discussions on pay and workforce reform and TUC-sponsored talks on improving industrial relations would continue. Ministers met with the POA again on 17 September 2007 and a further meeting was scheduled for 30 October 2007 so that a joint assessment of progress could be made. The TUC-sponsored talks between the prison service and the POA continued, but little progress has been made: the POA had clearly stated that they would not sign a voluntary agreement constraining their right to take industrial action, and the Ministers maintained that if a voluntary agreement that includes protections against industrial action was not in place, they would take steps to reintroduce a statutory ban on prison officer strike action, honouring the understanding given to Parliament. The Ministry of Justice – as opposed to the prison service – is now taking forward work to look at future appointments to the PSPRB.
7. 259. In summary, the Government indicates that the POA and the prison service had been engaged in managing a series of disputes between them, which have been protracted and required legal intervention through the courts in accordance with the JIRPA. These disputes have been time-consuming and strained the relationship between the concerned parties, so that it was not possible to fully engage in the discussions agreed upon as part of the dispute settlement of September 2006; some preliminary work did commence, but more extensive negotiations were put aside as the parties focused on the ongoing disputes that became apparent in November 2006 and required determination by the Courts. The unlawful strike action undertaken by the POA on 29 August 2007 has further strained relations between the POA and the prison service. The Ministers have indicated that they wish to see the parties restore mechanisms to ensure the required protection for the operational delivery of the prison service, and TUC-facilitated talks aimed at achieving this are ongoing. Finally, the Government indicates that the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is considering legal advice with respect to the private sector issues raised in the instant case.
8. 260. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government. It regrets to note that relations between the concerned parties have deteriorated since its previous examination of the case and that in spite of TUC-sponsored preliminary talks on the PSPRB mechanism, little progress has been made with respect to improving the current mechanisms for the determination of prison officers’ pay in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As concerns the consultations with private contractors on the establishment of appropriate mechanisms to compensate private custody officers in private sector companies for the limitation of the right to strike, the Committee further regrets that little progress has been made in this respect, apart from the Government’s indication that the NOMS was reviewing legal advice on the issues concerned. The Committee once again requests the Government to vigorously pursue its efforts in respect of all of the above, and to keep it informed of developments.