Report on the Service Group Executive 6th September 1996 This meeting was reconvened from 19th July, with the purpose of deciding on appropriate action on the pay campaign and completing the business from July's agenda. (Please note that for obvious reasons, some detail could not be included in this report) 1 Pay: Results of the consultative ballot were reported, with a vote of *more than 80% to reject the pay offer and take some form of industrial action with each sector showing a similar balance of results and the figures indicating that many of those who had voted to accept still appeared prepared to undertake action if balloted. It was accepted that the results tended to indicate a poor understanding of the difference between withdrawal of goodwill and working to contract, and that this was a matter requiring careful explanation if action of this sort was to be undertaken. Results from institutions showed there was no significant variation between bigger and smaller branches, allaying some fears that members in smaller institutions might feel more vulnerable and therefore be more inclined to accept. It was reported that the employers had been aware that a consultative ballot had been underway, and that apart from one institution that had sought to obtain an injunction before being advised that the process was not a formal ballot, they appeared to take the threat of industrial action as part of their campaign against funding cuts. It was reported that MSF, NATFHE and the TGWU had already decided to ballot for action of their members in Higher Education, with the AUT and AUCL both meeting in mid September to decide their courses of action. In view of this, a joint union meeting had been held, and all agreed that joint action involving every union would be highly desirable, with an inter linked campaign. A joint day of action was suggested, with the consensus being that this would provide a positive focus to industrial action. It was agreed that should this prove possible, a date in the week before the budget would be suggested. Some concern over *practical aspects of commencing a formal ballot were raised, and it was agreed to apply the necessary pressure to ensure that organisational issues were not likely to obstruct any ballot. It was agreed that should developments suggest it to be expedient, a further, special meeting of the Service Group Executive would take place in early October to resolve any last-minute issues. There was no dissension from the view that a ballot of members should take place, with a choice of industrial action offered. A ballot will therefore take place. There was discussion on the position of non-consortium members and staff groups not covered by national agreements, and it was agreed to pursue a policy to encourage their participation. Branches and members concerned will be contacted with *the appropriate advice. It was agreed that it was important to ensure that these members could participate and be involved if this proves possible using the strategy discussed. Some were concerned that imposition of the 1.5% might take place and it was reported that the UCEA had sought the views of their constituent institutions, and that the result made it very unlikely. It was decided not to seek any further meetings with the employers, unless they were prepared to make an improvement in the offer. It was clear from a recent meeting requested by MSF that the employers were not prepared to make such an improvement at the present time. 2 Strategy: Once again, there was criticism over delays in the production and distribution of publicity material, though assurances were made that lead-times in design and printing were now realistically short. It was agreed that distribution problems would be investigated. The poster on Stress, complimenting the one on the Minimum Wage would be circulated very soon, and was once again designed to carry a striking image on one side with explanatory notes on the reverse, making it possible to use on notice boards and as leaflets and handouts. The third poster in the series agreed by the campaign working group, on Equal Pay, had been designed and and was due for printing and dispatch. It was agreed that stickers on the minimum wage should be produced, and it was reported that a proof had already been received. Further stickers on 'goodbye to goodwill' or similar topics might also be desirable. It was also agreed that publicity emphasising the threat to national bargaining was needed, with a possible leaflet on 'issues beyond money' to be considered. It was reported that at least one region had established a campaign and publicity strategy group, and it was suggested that others should do the same. Branches with local publicity activists could then feed material into regional campaign strategies. Publicity activists should be urged to circulate local material and sent copies to Mabledon Place. It was agreed that branches should be urged to include local issues in campaigning, since this would assist in developing the climate necessary for positive action. It was also agreed that members of the Executive able to reach Blackpool, should arrange to leaflet the minimum wage debate at TUC conference on Wednesday 11th September. A further and urgent meeting of the campaign working group was needed, and it was arranged for Friday 13th September. Deferred from July: 3 National Conference business: It was agreed to examine and review decisions taken at Conference in June, with a view to ensuring these can be integrated into a range of service group policies and strategies. 4 Craftworkers national meeting: It was reported that the first national meeting of craftworkers had taken place, and that the meeting had been very useful, particularly in viewing the range of issues, service conditions and Health and Safety matters facing this group of staff around the country. It was agreed that further meetings of this group should be held, and that it was essential that craftworkers be provided with information and advice on protection against contracting out of services. 5 NEC Strategic Review: Branch and Regional discussion papers outlining proposals from the strategic review were presented, and views sought on areas where a perspective on behalf of the Higher Education service group was appropriate. Discussion quickly focussed on the role of Regional Officers and the level and quality of resourcing that often seemed to result in Higher Education branches receiving very poor levels of officer support in comparison with the larger service groups. With the strategic review proposing that Regional Officers withdraw from casework and undertake a role more central in branch organisation, there was concern that members would have less access to appropriate levels of representation, while many branches might be resistant to full time staff becoming involved in local organisational matters. It was said that Higher Education is not seen as a priority when Regional Secretaries are assigning responsibilities and workloads, and many members of the Executive were surprised to hear that Regional Heads of Higher Education have only indirect responsibility to the National Head of Group. It was agreed that whilst the Head of Group should express the concerns raised in this matter directly into the union's Officer structure, the Service Group Executive wished to respond to the discussion paper by indicating great concern over the poor staffing resources available to branches at regional level, and the damaging consequences on Service Group members. 6 The Right of NEC members to Chair Service Group Executives: This issue has become a contentious one, with the rule book specifically excluding NEC representatives from holding office as Chair or Vice-Chair of SGEs (or SGE reps holding office as Chair or Vice-Chair of Regional SG Committees). It's been on the agenda as many as four times already. There were two views expressed which hold that Service Group Executives should be free to make their own choice, or that NEC members cannot be elected, and in an attempt to resolve the interpretation of rules, legal services have been involved in providing advice that didn't prove particularly helpful. A final decision on this issue will be referred to the first meeting of the newly elected Service Group Executive. (God knows why we waste so much of our time on this particular subject). 7 Aid for Sarajevo University: Some concern was expressed that Higher Education had not been involved in international work to any degree, and it was agreed that this should be investigated with a view to establishing international contacts. I was also agreed to invite a speaker from Sarajevo University to address the Branch Seminar. 8 HE Branches: Following a regional reference, it was agreed that all Higher Education members should be in Higher Education branches, where these were viable. This follows concerns that many HE members are still not in Higher Education based branches, and in some cases are hindered from establishing a viable branch. 9 Service Group Executive Seminar: This event will be held in Glasgow on 1st-3rd November, and will provide a training opportunity and first meeting of the newly elected Executive. 10 Branch Seminar: This event is scheduled to take place in London, at the TUC, on 6th-8th December. Due to the time of year, it has not been possible to arrange hotel accommodation, but branches will be provided with accommodation bureau contacts to make the necessary arrangements. It is hoped to have Sir Ron Deering and Pauline Green (Leader of Labour MEPs) as guest speakers, and to arrange a social event. The Executive did not believe that moving the Seminar to late January was viable (because the primary subject for discussion will be pay, which needs to be under way before Christmas), and could not arrange for an earlier date because of the election timetable, with results being reported at the end of October. It was reported that a number of alternative venues had been investigated, but that accommodation on the scale required could not be found in other locations. 11 Higher Education Conference 1997: A thorny subject, and one where I have put a tin hat on just to type this... It was reported that there had been some discussion following criticisms made by Local Government at the holding of Service Group Conferences immediately following Annual Delegate Conference. As a consequence, Higher Education had been offered an opportunity to hold our SG Conference immediately prior to Annual Conference, in Brighton next year. This was in line with last year's "fallback" option if we had not been allowed to select and organise a separate event. It was also reported that Service Groups had been told that it was possible to tie into Annual Conference in this way every other year, and for us to arrange HE Conference in a Northern venue in alternate years in order to comply with our own policy on the matter. Considerable discussion followed! It was said that this would place an excessive financial burden on branches, since Brighton accommodation costs in June are rather high in comparison to (for instance) Edinburgh in May - and that branches attempting to book accommodation for two days at the start of the week might have difficulties when faced by hotels more inclined to take bookings for the entire week. There were also concerns that this prevents the holding of HE Conference when it is more appropriate to our issues and service group concerns. It was decided however to accept the offer for next year only despite fears that once accepted, it would be difficult to break away once more. Consequently, Higher Education Conference will be on Monday 10th June 1997 in Brighton, with Annual Delegate Conference following on 11th-13th June. Oh dear - I wonder if there will be more reaction to this item than pay?! The meeting closed at 4.10pm (It just seemed like it took a lot longer - and if you've read all 2000 words, it probably seems a lot longer to you too!) Thanks go to Andy Okrim for this report Last Update: 10/9/96 Go to top of this document Go back to my Home Page Prepared for WWW by laurie.fenwick@sunderland.ac.uk© 1996