You are on page 1of 4

Dear Iain Further to Mondays meeting I thought Id put the concerns of the staff to you and explain the

issues the JTUC feel we need to discuss with you. I want to start by saying very clearly that all the staff, including those of us on the JTUC, are committed to winning the next general election and accept that the party should adapt its structure to meet political and organisational challenges we face. However to make that work management should work with the staff. Staff consider the meeting held on Monday poor to say the least. It has left staff feeling immensely angry, fearful, demoralised and increasingly undervalued. The Head Office unions met with over 70 members turning up who all felt this way. Across the organisation the result has been a loss of faith and trust in the partys leadership and management. I would reiterate we are not against changes in the organisation but any changes should be carried out in a fair and open manner. In the first instance the concerns raised by the trade unions are as follows; Staffing costs; Given the extra Executive Director and the apparent retention of the staff who were Deputy General Secretaries it raises the question of how this is going to be cost neutral or how it will not lead to redundancies in the current staff? Are all Executive Directors on the same point of the pay scale and are some paid more than others? If the party has to recruit a Commercial Executive Director of the right calibre at above the pay scale does this impact on staffing costs? The party should re-affirm its commitment that there should be no redundancies as a result of the reorganisation. Charles Allen; What exactly is Charles Allens role? Who appointed him to be Chair and who does he report to? Is he answerable to the NEC as it would appear that this body bypasses any NEC accountability? Are staff expected to receive directions from him and is it expected that he deals with staff which goes against established employee / employer practices? Executive Board Structure: It was stated that the Executive Board would only meet nine times a year. It would seem that this in itself would limit the decision making process. It is referred to by the Leader as a Senior Management team but meeting on this basis it is likely it will be become a bottleneck for any decisions. It should be clear whether this is a strategic body or an executive body. Its intent is not clear. A mixture of Executive Directors, Leaders Office Staff, the General Secretary and a volunteer Chair would seem to make day to day running more difficult at times if the body is making executive decisions rather than strategic decisions. How does this body fit in with the NEC? The General Secretary reports to, and is employed by the NEC however this body seems to create two lines of accountability the Chair and the NEC. On face value this body doesnt report to anyone

and isnt accountable to anyone. It would seem to bypass any NEC involvement and could put those employed by the NEC in a difficult situation having two bosses. There is some concern that some of the new positions have responsibilities and functions that have a significant overlap with existing positions and as such duplicated functions. Were matters such as slotting in rights considered? We have concerns that the seventh Executive Director position, Strategy & Planning, was not advertised nor any job description produced. At face value we have appointed a person to a position that didnt exist. How can it be justified that anyone was doing this job when there is no job description to confirm this is correct? The issue of accountability and dual line management is a cause for some concern. It appears that some Executive Directors are being line-managed by the General Secretary and others are being linemanaged jointly by the General Secretary and the Leaders Chief of Staff. Who is the arbiter in such a situation? This could lead to a difficult situation for some staff that are employed by the NEC but find themselves line-managed by somebody employed by the Leader or may even have two line-managers. It would seem some members of staff have responsibilities that run across two or more directorates and currently this could lead to some staff being in a different directorate to their line-managers, There is no Financial Director on this Board an oversight or a deliberate omission? We have seen how quickly a surplus in the partys funds can turn into a 1.7m deficit. It would appear that this board can spend whatever it chooses without any financial controls. Why is there no financial representation on the Board? Regions and Nations; Concerns were expressed that there was no position on the Board from the Regions and that they were excluded from the new management team. This in turn raised concerns over who they report to at a senior level and who they take direction from can Executive Directors instruct Regional Directors? It would appear that the role of Regional Director was being demoted with the new Senior Management team. The Regions have been running short staffed for some time with Regional Organisers being moved all over the country. Vacancies have not been filled putting more workload on fewer people. It is our regions that deliver campaigns, organisation and victories on the ground. Diversity: The issue of diversity was raised at the meeting and it was felt that the party speaks about increasing opportunities for women yet doesnt do this in its own processes. Some members raised the fact that Ed Miliband raised the promotion of women at the Womens Dinner and yet this doesnt follow through into the party. The party should look at introducing policies to support existing staff from groups which are under-represented at management level through mentoring and training and to look at best practice for recruiting and supporting women and ethnic minorities. Timetable: It could be some months before some of the new Executive Directors are in position and in the case of the Commercial Director, even longer. It is concerning that Executive Directors could be determining their structures in a piecemeal fashion. In the event that some posts are thought no longer necessary there would be no alternative positions available if the other directorates had already determined their structures. The implementation of what is termed Phase 2 should be done at the same time to avoid this situation.

We have concerns over this transitional period and whether there are plans in place to fill the void in direction during this period. For some members of staff it is not clear who they are to take management from and we need clear guidelines on how this is to operate. For example the Development team have no Executive Director who will provide them with direction? In relation to Phase 2 there needs to be and end date it cannot be allowed to drift owing to some Executive Directors delaying their plans. We should have a formalised Terms of Reference which should cover for example a timetable, early production of Organograms and Job Descriptions and how the party deals with positions made redundant e.g. the offer of voluntary severance before compulsory redundancies.

Other Issues: It is disappointing that there seemed to be no concerns about the leaks. The first leak can only have come from somebody who knew about the seventh director appointment but the concerns are dismissed saying its difficult to determine. The party needs to launch an investigation before this situation gets out of hand to the detriment of the party. The irresponsible people, who have more concern for their own faction than they do for the party, have now started the disgraceful step of identifying individual members of staff. It is no surprise that staff will not speak up, and rely on others to raise the issues, when these types of people are in our midst. We need a greater deal of transparency in decision making going forward; in particular staff would appreciate more notice prior to staff meetings. There should be improved communication for example while defending the reorganisation on LabourList, one of those sites responsible for publishing a leak, this was again not communicated to staff. Staff find out from a website that the General Secretary believes they are . our most important asset - not something they feel at the moment. There is some concern about how effective this new body will be as it could not coordinate the announcement of the change. While it may have been forced by leaks it should have been handled better. Staff employed by the NEC through the General Secretary expect to be told of any structure changes by the General Secretary, as the ultimate line-manager for all NEC employed staff, but for the first time ever it came in a letter from the Leader, Ed Miliband. It was felt that Ed had not visited our Offices for some time and this did not convey the message that the staff were recognised as extraordinarily talented and committed. The same letter refers to a couple of outstanding posts. Other than the Commercial Executive Director what are these outstanding posts? Are there further appointments to this Board to be made? Again these would have to be paid for out of the salary budget. Within this structure in a directorate there are staff some of whom are based in Head Office and others in the Leaders Office. In such cases will there be equal pay for doing the same job? The structure at Head Office and in the Regions and Nations was detailed and transparent however the structures in the Leaders Office and Shadow Cabinet offices do not appear to be. How many staff are employed in these offices? Is short money involved in funding any of these positions in the new structure? As a result of the new positions where an internal candidate has been promoted then in the Leaders Office this is being backfilled. Will this apply to the other areas as it would otherwise seem to amplify

this them and us situation? The party should look at an employee representation on the Board nominated by the Trade Unions.

I appreciate there are quite a number of concerns and questions but there is widespread concern among staff rightly worried about both their futures and the effective operation of the party. Some staff in the organisation are doing several jobs in their commitment to the party as we have not filled vacancies. I would appreciate a meeting next week to go through these. Ray Walker JTUC Spokesperson