LSHTM – University and Colleges Union

Joint Union/Management Change Meeting 5th April

▪ RB noted we will not be stopping doing anything we currently do
▪ HA stated number of staff effected was 82
▪ HA reported Mmt were open to alternative approaches to matching
▪ Unions reported the language of matching was confrontational and didn’t imply a desire to retain staff
▪ HoP stated the pre-consultation period may need to be extended as writing job descriptions was taking a lot of time
▪ Unions requested voluntary severance be available until after the process to make the process equal for staff who show dedication to LSHTM and try to stay though they don’t get matched.
▪ HA reported that there was no intention to consult anyone other than Faculties about changes. Unions suggested Heads of Department should be consulted too
▪ When asked about statutes and ordinances RB confirmed that only one statute existed as an appendix to the Schools Charter and no Ordinances exist as this was handled in School Policy

Joint Union/Management Change Meeting 29th March

▪ Unions questioned whether Head of Personnel (HoP/HA) was right representative on Change Team (CT) in that area but HoP stated Anna Gaze was also in personnel section of CT
▪ HoP noted that Andrew Kemp’s (AK) structure was what she had previously considered
▪ Mmt reported ideas from CT and one to one meetings would be pooled
▪ Moving IT into one department was non-negotiable
▪ HoP said space in the Faculties for local delivery of services maybe an issue
▪ Mmt reported each area would have a member of SLT to act as ‘Work Stream Supervisor’ for each area (now available on FAQ)
▪ New Organo-grams would be produced by the CT
▪ Talent Management would include Appraisal, Staff Development, Performance and would operate something like the Civil Service Fast-Track Scheme
▪ Safety was likely to move in Personnel like in other institutions
▪ Mmt asked unions to recommend IT Teaching and AV should meet either CT or RB
▪ Change team will ask be drafting job descriptions alongside new structure
▪ Unions can arrange to meet with CT as group or individuals as necessary
▪ HoP was sourcing counselling for affected staff
▪ RB reported feedback that the Centrally Mangaged, Locally Delivered Model was right

Thanks to Ady Cousins for the Summary: Sent to affected staff.

Members of the School’s three recognised unions met with Richard Benson and Andrew Kemp on Tuesday 20th March to discuss the “In shape for the future” document presented to staff at departmental meetings on Friday 16th March.
We had a number of major concerns with both the document and the manner in which it was presented.
At our request, the meeting began without the Interim Manager (IM), Andrew Kemp, being present so that the unions could raise questions about how he was appointed and whether he had the necessary expertise and experience to fulfil his role. We emphasised that the poor quality of the report and the manner in which it was presented raised serious questions about the IM.
In response to the question of whether the report was the work of the IM alone or of the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) as a whole we were assured that the SLT was in agreement with the “centrally managed, locally delivered” approach and that the Director had signed off on the “centrally managed, locally delivered” approach outlined in the report.
It’s still not clear whether the document presented to the affected staff has been endorsed by the whole SLT and the Director.
We can however take it as given that management are standing by their appointment of Andrew Kemp and will not entertain any objections to this. The broad approach and the IM were not up for negotiation.
Andrew Kemp then joined the meeting. The remainder of the meeting then focused on two main areas:
The poor quality of the plan, the poor manner of its delivery and how this had alienated the overwhelming majority of staff, and the lack of consultation. It was made clear that the level of opposition and anger was unprecedented in the School’s recent history.
The timetable for implementation was too rapid and it appeared that management were trying to rush it through. The milestones in the plan meant that we were effectively being asked to consult on a process that we had insufficient information on. We argued that the commencement of the legally required thirty day consultation process on 27th March was unacceptable, and would have to be delayed if meaningful consultation was to take place.

A long period of argument ensued, with management initially unprepared to offer more than a couple of weeks extra. Their justification was that it would be unfair to staff for this to be “hanging over them” for any longer. The IM appeared to be of the opinion that we should consider ourselves fortunate. He stated that there was no legal requirement to consult prior to the official 30 day consultation period. He also related that he’d just taken a call from Salford informing him of 150 redundancies. The Union team considered these comments to be inappropriate.
Eventually we agreed the following:
That the time limit would be extended, that the legally mandated thirty day consultation period will commence on April 30th and run up to at least 11th June or longer if required. All parties must agree this closer to the time.
During the formal consultation, jobs will be HERA scored and current staff matched.
That a justification for the structure and how it meets the needs of the School would be developed before the legally required consultation process commences.
They also conceded that meaningful job titles and job descriptions will be provided before the formal consultation process begins.
Representations for changes from the Change Team will be considered, as such the work of the Change Teams can continue.
The reconvened meeting with management that was requested by IT staff on 16th March and agreed to by management would take place in two weeks time – but we need to set a date agreeable to us.
At the reconvened meeting, management would present to staff:
A complete structure proposal containing the functions that we identified as missing from the original.
Included would be meaningful job titles that indicated concretely the tasks to be performed.
A basic indication of the job descriptions relevant to the job titles.
It was suggested by the unions that the absence of support for teaching in the plans may indicate that teaching was not considered to be a core activity. Management confirmed that teaching was to remain a core activity and the omission of any function from the plan was not intentional and simply reflected the underdeveloped state of the proposals at the point at which they were presented. We also raised the question of whether the absence of certain functions indicated that they were to be outsourced and were assured that this was not the case, that no outsourcing is envisaged.
At this point the meeting had lasted for almost two hours with many outstanding issues to be resolved – the highly contentious issue of matching amongst them. We decided that outstanding issues would be discussed at a further meeting the following Thursday, that the unions and management would meet weekly henceforth, that the work of the change team would continue with supplies to be represented on it and that management would circulate an email outlining what had been agreed. A proposal for this to carry the signatures of the unions was rejected – we felt that management had caused great distress for the affected staff and that the onus was on them to repair the damage. There are also some serious areas of disagreement that remain to be resolved at further meetings.
In terms of where we go from here, I think the following points need to be emphasised:
Major points of disagreement and concern remain.
It is hard to see how the rhetorical commitment to more resources, better opportunities for career development and the emphasis that there is no financial pressure driving these changes can be squared with the proposals presented thus far, with the prominence given to terms such as “voluntary severance” “at risk of redundancy” and “pooled for competitive interview”.
The manner in which, thus far, this process has been handled, and the lack of recognition on the part of management that they have indeed mishandled it continues to be a cause for concern. There has been no provision for the welfare of the staff via counselling or support.
The unions will oppose this process unless the proposals as presented in the change document are substantially altered.

On a personal note, I can’t speak for the other Union reps but we should not be negotiating redundancies. The lack of any financial crisis, the failure of management to adjust the organisation to growth, the obvious need for more resources to support teaching and research, and the Director’s clear statement that this process should not “normally” involve redundancies means that there is no reason for staff to be downgraded or made redundant and it is not in the interests of the School, its staff or its students that we accept either of these outcomes.
The IM will be leaving the School in three months time. The manner in which this process has been mishandled means that the Senior Leadership Team will be left with a legacy of bitterness, demoralisation and distrust that will radically change the working environment for all staff and raise serious problems for the proposals for phase two of this process.

On 16th March 2012 a number of Central Services Staff from LSHTM were presented with proposals on changes to their sections. Details of these changes are available at http://intra.lshtm.ac.uk/management/activities/shape_for_the_future/index.html

Dear SLT, Heads of Department,

Staff at LSHTM generally welcomed a review of our service structures in the hope of improving the support we offer for Research and Teaching but are now extremely disappointed by the failure of the process conducted by the Interim Manager (IM) and the failure to incorporate the needs of LSHTM, resulting in unreasonable proposals. The process appears to have been informed with out-of-date job descriptions and with an insufficient timescale which has left staff querying the real motivation for this restructuring process.

A number of staff have questioned whether the School has made an appropriate choice with the IM as the process to this point has been very badly managed. The presentations on Friday have alienated almost all staff who attended. The IM’s corporate/management consulting babble was uninterpretable and hugely frustrating to the audience. There was little evidence that the IM understood the workings of the School and it appears that the informal chats the IM had with a few staff were not integrated into the proposal.  Many staff found his tone, failure to stand up when presenting and brushing over the questions asked to be highly disrespectful. Staff morale is at an all time low, particularly in those areas where departments are disappearing and it is unclear if/where they are being relocated in the new structure.

Staff feel that the need for change in many areas has not been justified and the reasons why this template will support LSHTM were not explained, particularly in an institution with an excellent reputation for evidence-based research. There is also wide feeling that support for students, particularly teaching, has been forgotten leading staff to wonder whether this function of the School will continue.

The unions are particularly concerned that no independent welfare support has been offered to the many staff who are now feeling demoralised and extremely anxious about their jobs (and what was offered seemed to be an afterthought in the meetings).

The School does not have a good reputation amongst its staff for consultation in times of change and the way this process has been carried out so far and presented to staff has fueled these concerns. The disingenuous nature of the meetings further disappointed staff as it was unclear if official minutes of questions and concerns had been taken and whether these would then be circulated later to staff involved. The failure to properly consult staff and their reps so far has also been repeatedly commented on.

We hope that SLT will reflect on these concerns, start a meaningful consultation that engages staff about current failures in services, develop a realistic timetable for meaningful consultation on proposed changes and work with the recognised trade unions on both of these, and in the future, on implementation.

Regards,

Unite,Unison and UCU Staff Reps.
Dan Arthur, Andre Burbidge, Adrian Cousins, Lorna Gibson, Craig Higgins, Cheryl Whitehorn