NEW OAKLANDS/ WESTERLEA SPECIAL SCHOOL
UNISON City of Edinburgh Branch Submission
to the City of Edinburgh Council 18 April 2002
I understand that at your meeting on 18 April
2002 you will discuss the Council's proposail
to build a new special school in conjunction
with Capability Scotland. You wifi hear a delegation
from UNISON and I should also be grateful if
you would consider the following written comments.
1. UNISON represents the support staff at th
existing Qaklands school and in this submission
we put forward the views of our members.
2. Our main concerns are of course, in terms
of our member's conditions of employment, but,
additionally we have concerns relating to the
professional issues involved in the provision
of this service by an organisation outwith the
Council
3. The report which was submitted to the Executive
of the Council on 12 March 2002 at Paragraph
3.10 said that the most taxing of the personnel
issues was identifying a mechanism whereby the
Council staff would transfer to the new school.
There is, of course, no requirement that staff
should transfer to the new school and to the
employment of Capability Scotland.
The report attempts to indicate that other
options were explored but it is regrettable
that no other options appear to have been put
before elected members. We would therefore wish
to emphasise that even if the Council proceeds
by commissioning Capability Scotland to provide
education to these children, there is no need
as a consequence of that for staff to be employed
by Capability. Staff could continue to be employed
by the Council
4. The report indicates that any such transfer
would come within the scope of the TUPE regulations.
I am sure it will come as no surprise to elected
members that whilst the trade unions welcome
the provision of TUPE regulations as far as
they go, the regulations provide protection
only at the time of transfer, the trade unions
experience of the workings of the TUPE regulations
indicate that it can be a legalistic minefield
initially and later leads to a two tier workforce
where the other staff are employed on conditions
different and usually worse than TUPE protected
transferred staff.
Inevitably, this leads to ill feeling between
members of staff and is hardly convenient for
the employer. Equally, inevitably, the drive
from the employer is thereafter to standardise
conditions of employment and invariably this
is standardisation to the lowest common denominator.
5. Recent research has confirmed that in these
circumstances conditions of employment of public
service employees deteriorate. Training opportunities
diminish as training programmes focus on task
performance rather than on the enhancement of
transferable knowledge and skills. Promotion
opportunities decline as jobs become standardised
with lower qualifications and skill requirements.
In this particular school, support staff would
come from differing backgrounds requiring different
levels of qualification and skill, the one based
mainly on an education background and the other
on a mainly care background.
6. The other main issue in terms of employment
conditions relates to pensions. Whilst the teacher's
pension provisions will remain intact, we understand
that Capability will offer support staff a pension
scheme broadly comparable to the local government
pension scheme. Why are these members of staff
who will have paid into this pension scheme
for many years not to be allowed to continue
in that pension scheme? There is no reason why
they should not be allowed to continue in the
local government scheme if the will is there.
Indeed the Council seem to be going against
recent Govemment advice on this issue.
7. Other issues have already been raised but
without any satisfactory answers. A number will
remain to be resolved e.g. Auxiliary Staff at
Oaklands work a 52 week year. Will the new school
revert back to a 39 week year and if so, we
then have a number of employees who will be
unemployed yet unable to claim benefit for three
months of the year? A host of other areas of
concern like this will require to be resolved.
8. The Council seems to recognise that economic
pressures in the future will impact on staffing
issues. It has already been indicated that they
would be concerned about any proposal regarding
staffing that was simply designed to secure
economies. Staffing proposals designed to secure
economies are in our experience a distinct possibility.
Elsewhere there.is ample evidence to show that
this indeed is what has happened. Where staff
are transferred from the public sector labour
standards deteriorate. This deterioration is
accompanied by job loss and ever mare pressures
on those remaining staff to lower work standards
with consequent implications for service standards.
9. UNISON is concerned that a core service
for vulnerable children will no longer be provided
directly by the Council . While UNISON accepts
that there is, and sometimes needs to be a mixture
of provision when it comes to specialist services,
it is a dangerous precedent when such basic
and essential educational provision is passed
over to a charity and away from direct Council
accountability that parents normally expect
from education services.
10. Much has been made in submissions to our
members of the plans being in the interests
of the children and those are of primary concern
to our members who care for them throughout
the year. However, alongside this and throughout
the document, the issue of cost is prominent
and appears to dictate the agenda.
11. While there are clear statements about
teachers' conditions, there are no such statements
about protection of the support staff, especially
in terms of pensions. These staff do the valuable
work involving much of the day to day education,
development and care stimulation and physical
wellbeing of the children. This is currently
provided consistently by the same staff on a
52 week basis.
12. We have commented earlier on the limited
protection of TUPE and the wide evidence that
two-tier workforces are created and conditions
forced down This is all the more likely in a
situation where there already exists a disparity
in conditions between the Council and Capability
Scotland when it comes to this group of staff.
13. There is no doubt that there will be a
change in provision for the children and UNISON
is disappointed that the role of the support
staff has not been give the status it deserves.
These staff are not ancillaries to teaching
staff, they are a fundamental part of the daily
care and development of the children. They are
the key part of Oakland's particular reputation
as a school that gives high priority to physical
as well as intellectual stimulation.
14. The absence of commitment to this group
of staff is concerning as is the assumption
that the staff will have to transfer to the
new entity with lesser protection that their
colleagues. There is no such requirement to
transfer and under these circumstances there
should be no such requirement.
top
|