Negotiations? There are no negotiations!

On Friday, we met with management side representatives from the UHL and their three private contractors - Serco, ISS and Medirest - to discuss the consultative ballots recently held by UNISON, and the "next steps".

It turned out that the most positive thing we could say about the meeting is the fact that it happened - despite years of UNISON asking to meet all three contractors together and being told that such a meeting was impossible for "commercial reasons" we have finally managed to meet all the parties involved at the same time. Progress, of sorts.

But they had nothing new to tell us.

Rob Pinsent, UHL contracts director actually apologised for "sounding like a broken record" in re-stating the existing UHL proposal,  but despite having made £3million in surplus on the last financial year, Rob said the UHL "could not afford" to fully back--date Agenda for Change for private contractor staff. This despite the fact that they have never even calcucated the cost of doing so.

For UNISON, we explained that the ballot result meant the branch felt it had an instruction from our members to move to a formal industrial action ballot unless the UHL or the private contractors were prepared to make a new offer, securing the back-dating. Since Rob had made clear that the UHL were not prepared to do so, I asked the three contractors if they were willing, given their substantial operating profits over the last year, to make the payments to staff set out in the Joint Statement / National Framework Agreement. All three said no.

The UHL believe that our members only voted to reject the current offer because of ISS having said that their staff had received the Framework Agreement's provisions in full. We assured the UHL, and the contractoors that all of our communication with our members suggested otherwise and that they had voted against the offer because they believed it was not good enough, and because they wanted to secure the back-dated terms and conditions payments to which the Joint Statement says they are entitled. We added that the ongoing ballot among ISS members would illustrate whether the UHL's other claim - that ISS members are happy with the offer - was accurate too. That ballot result is due on Monday.

We had some rather odd exchanges in which the managers on all sides claimed UNISON had 'flouted recognition agreements' in conducting an internal consultative ballot without communicating with the management in advance. I found this a bit cheeky, to say the least since one of the companies had effectively imposed the UHL's offer on staff without any discussion with the union, and a second one had conducted a sham ballot to try to get the offer 'accepted' despite a clear request from UNISON for them to desist. Thankfully, the Medirest workforce had listened to the union even if their managers did not, and the ballot resulted in an overwhelming rejection. UNISON's Regional Organiser and the reps present from the branch refused to be drawn into defending ourselves, simply pointing out that it was an internal consultation by UNISON with our own members, that we had made clear to the UHL and Serco (at meeting the other contractors had chosen not to attend) that we would consult our members unless a better offer was made, and that nothing in any of our agreements with the company would be allowed by UNISON to over-rule our obligation to allow our members to decide on their pay and conditions every step of the way.

Since no further offer was made, we informed the management that we would commence discussions with UNISON region about initiating industrial action ballots, and that was that. The UHL indicated a willingness to meet again should UNISON desire it, and we indicated a willingness to meet again should the UHL or any of the contractors find enough money down the back of the sofa to pay the back-dating, but we have scheduled no further meetings - there is little point meeting until someone has something new to say.

We were able to get some clear answers on the 2009 pay rise, which should have been implemented in April but has not yet been paid by any of the contractors. They have finally reached agreement amongst themselves about how to pay it, and increases in our members pay will be calculcated with effect from Jule 1st. It will appear in paypackets at different times due to some contractor staff being weekly and others being monthly paid, but by July 1st all our members should be back on NHS rates of pay. Better late thaan never, once aagain, which will be the verdict on the back--dated terms and conditions once we finally win.

For now, UHL and the contractors have made clear they will not budge unless they are pushed. All our appeals to the National Framework Agreement, to the Government's stated intention to see it implemented in full and to simple moral arguments about the poorest paid workers in the health service not being made to pay for the collapse of the Pathway PFI project cut no ice at all.

It is now down to our members now to impress upon the UHL and their employers that the hospitals cannot function without them, and that paying the back-dating would be preferable to trying to run a hospital without cleaners, porters and catering staff.