This may have some bearing and is taken from Amicus Reps Direct:

City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust – ‘big bang’

Many Reps/Stewards will have picked up great dissatisfaction being expressed by many of our Amicus members employed at City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust, an Early Implementer site. City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust decided, in partnership, to assimilate on a ‘big bang’ basis. About 3,500 employees were informed of their pay bands last week. Many are unhappy.

The AfC Proposed Agreement defines the role of EIs as “a testbed for the new system to deal with any teething problem…" This said, our members expect that any errors that occur within these testbeds be rectified without detriment. In this context it is predictable that errors in process and judgement will be made at most EIs however the scale of the impact of the ‘big bang’ is considerable and we believe it is important that members are aware of what Amicus is doing.

Some reps/stewards alerted us of concerns in relation to job descriptions – in particular it seems that in at least one department existing JDs were submitted and on the basis of clusters defined by grade. It is correct that the JE Handbook refers to existing JDs however training and subsequent guidance requires JDs to be agreed between the postholder and manager. It is this standard that we expect all employers to apply. Recently we have also discovered apparent anomalies in job matching procedures.

Amicus has raised concerns about City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust at consecutive meetings of the Shadow Executive and this has resulted in a meeting between the SE and City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust next week where we aim to establish what has occurred and why.

On site our reps/stewards met 24 May and there will be a mass meeting of our member’s later this week. Amicus is encouraging members to lodge individual grievances and reviews on the grounds that we believe procedures used may have resulted in unfair outcomes.

Amicus has also raised at Strategic Health Authority level our concern to ensure that agreed procedures for matching are adhered to as well as compliance with guidance on JDs and other process issues.

In the meantime our key message is that Amicus is aware of the problem and we are determined to get agreement on how to correct any mistakes made. When this is achieved we will evaluate the outcomes.

So basically Amicus are still insisting "It will be alright on the night" then ?

Is it a coincidence that the 'mistakes' have all meant a lower pay grade and that no 'mistakes' have been made that meant a higher pay grade. !

Seems to me, reading between the lines, that if they do not make a stand on the way AfC is implemented (it is probably too late now) ensuring that employees have more protection or additional rights of appeal/grievances (to those in the AfC handbook) then the Unions will actually assist the employer to devalue a swathe of jobs within the NHS. Leading to the exact opposite effect to problems that AfC was apparently intended to address e.g. morale, recruitment and retention issues that will (though indirectly, perhaps) affect patient care. Throwing discontent from one group of staff onto the backs of others perceived as being less important in the scheme of things. Somehow I think we're heading for a winter of discontent.

Those jobs perceived as being non-frontline roles are going to be compromised irrespective of whether the union pushes for implementation along the lines quoted in the AfC handbook or not - AfC is targeted to addressing issues around frontline patient care. I think the idea is that the staff/current posts compromised (sacrificed?) will effectively finance the improvements/enhancements that relatively few others will see - since AfC is funded out of existing provisions i.e. it is self-funding from savings made. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is an expression that comes to mind; a redistribution of funds that targets those in the "frontline" by taking from those that are perceived as not being in the "frontline" directly affecting patient care.

I say a few will see improvements because, at the local level, I see AfC as a means for the NHS to take the opportunity to apply a hidden agenda for cost-cutting of wage bills and the cost of pensions in the longer term. So I think many NHS organisations, now faced with higher employee contributions and having to find money to pay for pensions, etc, will take the opportunity to save money by "bending the AfC rules" so to speak. In this respect I think the timing of the introduction AfC at a time when all NHS organisations are under pressure because of the changes in employee contributions, etc, has been particularly devisive. This will probably get the result required at the local level without the governement being seen as directly involved in cutting the pay of a swathe of NHS employees (or posts, at least).

Irrespective of how loud the unions shout anomalies will occur since the unions have assisted in a poorly thought through process that now "has its foot stuck firmly in the door". If employers are allowed to redefine our job roles/job descriptions and "dumb-down" the essential requirements of our jobs before AfC then proper application of the job-matching process becomes somewhat irrelevant - it will happen by matching a lesser role to the new pay bands rather than by evaluation that's all.

Job evaluation can also be manipulated to achieve the same ends I suppose. Using groups of staff working in the same environment, effectively competing for resources and fighting for status in the pecking order will ensure that there is a tendency to push down groups that are perceived as non-important when it comes to patient care during evaluation. Smaller marginalised groups or individuals that do not get adequate support or communications from trades unions involved in the process, for example. Non-expert groups of volunteers should not be expected/trusted or may not have the expertise necessarily to assess the knock-on effects of their decisions on the services provided - such as ours.

The unions have helped to open the "flood gates" by allowing this ill thought through and poorly planned process to be implemented early and now they're trying to shut them again before everyone gets drowned (or swamped). The unions should never have agreed for the process to be implemented in the way it is being. As a member of AMICUS I don't remember being made aware that AfC was being negotiated over 4 years or so, or being asked my opinion or voting on this issue prior to being informed that AfC had been negotiated and was being implemented before agreements had been finalised.

Ken,

If mistakes were made giving individuals a massive pay hike, do you think they (the individuals concerned) would be up-in-arms?

Geoff, from your earlier posting:

Surely this is not necessary since we are told the unions are (and will continue to be) closely involved in the implementation process - don't the local representatives know what went wrong?

The reps are clearly answering your question in the preceding paragraph. The meeting between the Shadow Executive and the Sunderland Trust will confirm the reps view right or wrong.

BSM,
Has anyone been given a massive pay hike or indeed any sort of pay increase (excluding nurses)

Sorry Geoff, not making myself clear as usual, the point I'm making is that if the unions were (and are) closely involved in AfC implementation then how come the process has gone so wrong? If everyone knew about the dissatisfaction then how come it was pushed through? Surely enquiries are not necessary if your posting already outlines the reasons?

At the first meeting of the job evaluation panel we were given a very brief overview of what would happen. One of the speakers was an RCN convenor and the other was the finance manager. The first speaker said no one would lose out under Agenda for change and said that your wage was protected for 5 years.After repeating this a few times the other speaker interupted and pointed out this was not quite true. Your wage would be frozen and your pension would be affected if you were put in a lower wage band. What scared me was that it was the RCN convenor who was telling us that no one would lose out and the manager saying that there were winners and losers.
At the time I thought shouldn't it be the other way around.
God help us!