The SFE - Doc 30 Clifton Road Fire Station
Suffolk County Council
Fire Service
Mr C Hayward
Ipswich
KES/FBU/MLA
DCFO Seager
(01473) 588939
23rd July 1997
Dear Mr Hayward,
THE DISPUTES AND THE STATUS QUO
I refer to our brief discussions yesterday about the disputes procedure, and what has come to be called the “status quo” arrangement enshrined within it.
As promised, I did seek an opinion on the interpretation of your request for status quo in the dispute (since withdrawn) over General Order OP08.
The advice of Phil white, the employers’ side secretary of the National joint council, and of Adrian Pritchard, the County Personnel Officer, was that the status quo at the time of the registration of that dispute was the agreement which came into force on the 1st July.
The matter was further complicated by:-
(a) The fact that the dispute arose over the interpretation of one part of that agreement, which does not, of itself, render the whole agreement suspended whilst the dispute is heard;
(b) The situation within the brigade prior to the agreement of 1st july was not clear, with different practices being used in different parts of the brigade. Indeed, this is precisely why an agreement was thought sensible, to ensure a consistent approach across the brigade.
Leaving aside the particular issue of OP08, I do believe that the spirit of the paragraph in the disputes procedure which we call the status quo is that it is intended to be a protection for your members in the case of a mangerial decision or action which they believe adversely affects them from the immediate effects of that decision whilst the disputes procedure itself is progressed
In other words, there is an inference that whatever action taken, or intended, by the management has precipitated the dispute, that action is rescinded for the duration of the dispute, pending an agreement or a ruling on the dispute. I think the difficulty arises because of the use of the phrase “status quo” to describe something which is not strictly the status quo!
There are two important caveats to the foregoing, however.
Firstly, as you will no doubt be aware, I do not believe that the disputes procedure can be applied to all instances of disagreement between us, but only to those matters which fall within the scope of the National scheme of Conditions of Service. I know you take a different view, and that you are seeking other opinion on this, but for the time being that remains my firm belief.
Secondly, the disputes procedure itself makes the point that the normal operation of the service should continue whilst the dispute is being heard.
I hope this clarifies the matter. It is too late to make amendments to the disputes procedure booklet which has already gone to press. If you agree with my interpretation, I will ensure that this letter is retained on file as a supplement to the booklet.
Yours sincerely
K. E. Seager,
Deputy County Fire Officer
Fire Service
Mr C Hayward
Ipswich
KES/FBU/MLA
DCFO Seager
(01473) 588939
23rd July 1997
Dear Mr Hayward,
THE DISPUTES AND THE STATUS QUO
I refer to our brief discussions yesterday about the disputes procedure, and what has come to be called the “status quo” arrangement enshrined within it.
As promised, I did seek an opinion on the interpretation of your request for status quo in the dispute (since withdrawn) over General Order OP08.
The advice of Phil white, the employers’ side secretary of the National joint council, and of Adrian Pritchard, the County Personnel Officer, was that the status quo at the time of the registration of that dispute was the agreement which came into force on the 1st July.
The matter was further complicated by:-
(a) The fact that the dispute arose over the interpretation of one part of that agreement, which does not, of itself, render the whole agreement suspended whilst the dispute is heard;
(b) The situation within the brigade prior to the agreement of 1st july was not clear, with different practices being used in different parts of the brigade. Indeed, this is precisely why an agreement was thought sensible, to ensure a consistent approach across the brigade.
Leaving aside the particular issue of OP08, I do believe that the spirit of the paragraph in the disputes procedure which we call the status quo is that it is intended to be a protection for your members in the case of a mangerial decision or action which they believe adversely affects them from the immediate effects of that decision whilst the disputes procedure itself is progressed
In other words, there is an inference that whatever action taken, or intended, by the management has precipitated the dispute, that action is rescinded for the duration of the dispute, pending an agreement or a ruling on the dispute. I think the difficulty arises because of the use of the phrase “status quo” to describe something which is not strictly the status quo!
There are two important caveats to the foregoing, however.
Firstly, as you will no doubt be aware, I do not believe that the disputes procedure can be applied to all instances of disagreement between us, but only to those matters which fall within the scope of the National scheme of Conditions of Service. I know you take a different view, and that you are seeking other opinion on this, but for the time being that remains my firm belief.
Secondly, the disputes procedure itself makes the point that the normal operation of the service should continue whilst the dispute is being heard.
I hope this clarifies the matter. It is too late to make amendments to the disputes procedure booklet which has already gone to press. If you agree with my interpretation, I will ensure that this letter is retained on file as a supplement to the booklet.
Yours sincerely
K. E. Seager,
Deputy County Fire Officer
posted by Bert Blythburgh at 11:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home