Letter to Home Sec - Winsor Part 1 Determinations - Police Federation

Police Federation
Of England and Wales
Ffederasiwn Heddlu
Lloegr a Chymru
Established by Act of Parliament
Federation House, Highbury Drive, Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 7UY
Telephone 01372 352022 Fax 01372 352078
Email GenSec@polfed.org www.polfed.org
FROM THE GENERAL SECRETARY’S OFFICE
IR/sg
8 May 2012
Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Home Secretary
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
Dear Home Secretary,
WINSOR PART ONE DETERMINATIONS
I have previously written to you on the above issue on 1 and 19 March, 10 and
17 April 2012. I have now received a reply from your official Ifeyinwa Okoye dated
24 April 2012.
Whilst I am grateful for the reply, which provided a more detailed response to my
letters, I had previously been assured that it would be received prior to the
publication of the determinations. This was not the case and, as you know, the
determinations took effect on 1 April 2012 and have now been issued under Home
Office Circular 10/2012.
Having read Ms Okoye’s letter, there are still a number of points on which I have
significant concerns.
Variable Shift Arrangements
I noted as far back as 1 March that the draft determination did not adequately reflect
the requirement to consult the affected officers and take full account of their
individual circumstances, including the likely effects of the new arrangement on their
personal circumstances; as recommended by Winsor and accepted by the PAT.
The revised wording still fails to fully reflect this. Ms Okoye’s letter of 24 April notes
that the wording “maintains the substance of the Winsor recommendation”.
Represent · Influence · Negotiate

However, I believe the determination should implement the recommendation in its
entirety as this was the Official Side position at PNB.
Incremental Progression
I have made my views clear on this matter on a number of occasions and I repeat
that Winsor’s recommendation 20 makes no reference nor provides any instruction
with regard to incremental progression following the end of the suspension and that
this was not clarified during the negotiating process. In fact, the negotiation process
has been truncated by this arbitrary decision.
Ms Okoye’s letter says that it is “self-evident that everyone in a pay freeze will end
the freeze at the same point at which they started” and cites the public sector-wide
pay freeze as an example. As you well know, this pay freeze covers police officers at
the present time. The position with respect to the incremental freeze is distinctly
different and has, up until now, been subject to negotiation. Why has this ceased to
be the case?
I will write to you separately in relation to the potential disproportionate discriminatory
impact of your decision.
Maternity Pay
I remain concerned that the need for a chief officer to agree an officer’s election to
receive half pay for the last ten weeks of maternity pay is unnecessary and could
lead to women being treated unfavourably because of pregnancy or maternity.
Moreover if SMP is not to be paid on top of half pay during this period then officers
will be at a financial disadvantage compared to those who receive full pay over the
5 weeks.
I have raised this point on a number of occasions, both during negotiations and in my
letters to you, and I have not yet had a response of any kind.
Away from Home Overnight Allowance
The determination to put into effect the away from home overnight allowance has
been amended as a direct result of the comments from ACPO in their letter of
12 March 2012, following consultation on the draft determination. A caveat has now
been introduced so that the allowance is not paid if the member is serving away from
his normal place of duty only by reason of being on a training course or carrying out
routine enquiries. This was not part of the PAT award and its inclusion undermines
the PNB process.
Ms Okoye’s letter of 24 April states that “Routine enquiries and attending a training
course could not have been the disruption to officers’ lives the PAT was seeking to
compensate”. Why has this assumption been made? What is the definition of a
routine enquiry and how is the inconvenience to an officer’s life any less if they are
undertaking such an enquiry rather than any other type of enquiry?
The PAT award simply said: “In the Tribunal’s view, there should be an element of
additional compensation for officers who are held in reserve and unable to return
home (whether this is in their own force or on mutual aid operations).”
The determination should reflect the decision of the PAT.
Represent · Influence · Negotiate

The determination also makes no reference to the PAT recommendation that there
should be periodic checks on the implementation of the overnight allowance.
Ms Okoye’s letter makes reference in a number of areas to a willingness to work with
the Police Federation of England and Wales on the implementation of these
determinations. Whilst that is welcome, I remain of the view that in the areas I have
identified the determinations do not accurately reflect the decision of the Police
Arbitration Tribunal. I, therefore, call upon you again to withdraw and amend the
documents to address these concerns and to properly reflect the decision of the
PAT.
These matters are of significant national importance to police officers and I have
therefore published this letter on the PFEW website.
Yours sincerely
IAN RENNIE
General Secretary
Represent · Influence · Negotiate