The Governor's Personnel Sub-committee at York College approved a proposal, on the 14 November 2000, to end a long pay freeze, in effect since 1993, that discriminated against Lecturers on 'Silver Book' contracts, and which finally includes this group in the current pay award, with effect from 1 August 2000.

The College is to be congratulated on recognising the irrationality of the AoC's policy supported by the previous Principal, David Mason, which was designed to ensure that Lecturers who refused to sign 'new' contracts with worse conditions, "should wither on the vine". The new Principal, Mike Galloway, appointed since the merger with York Sixth Form College, has taken a different approach in his dealings with staff.

Salary levels are to be increased by 2.3% or £230, whichever is the larger sum, coming into effect from 1 August 2000. Part-time staff will receive a pro rata increase. This award has now been implemented in the December 2000 salary payment, with arrears included, received by all staff. An additional 1% or £100, whichever is the larger sum, backdated to 1 August 2000, is proposed for payment in August 2001, making a total increase of 3.3%, subject to the qualification of the continuing financial health of the college.

Although Further Education has become the 'privatised' dog end of the educational scene, and still nowhere reaches the professional salary levels attained in schools, such an award starts to redress some of the injustices heaped on Lecturers. They have been punished for years through inherited Thatcherite doctrines that have laid low the training opportunities for a whole generation of students. With also the role of a struggling Higher Education sector within the FE straitjacket, paid at high street retail levels, the continuing unprofessional structure of the system does nothing to inspire confidence in the future skill levels of shopping mall Britain.

In such a college as York, there are now three types of contract: the original nationally negotiated structure of Silver Book staff, the varied AoC 'local' contracts, and the Sixth Form national framework contract. Due to the intermix of different staff contracts in one employment framework, paid at wildly different rates for the same workloads and levels of study, there are now several cases that could logically be called to tribunal on unfair pay discrimination grounds. The process could be complicated further by the offer of a future FOURTH contract, that attempts to harmonise the different rates, but any compulsion to impose acceptance of this is out of the question, as it would plunge the college into further costly litigation.

In respect of the few remaining Silver Book lecturers at York, LEAF would now expect to see a speedy settlement of arrears backdated to 1993, as it is clear that the actions taken against these staff was arbitrary, discriminating, and with no basis in law. As these Lecturers were abandoned by NATFHE when it sought recognition by the AoC, LEAF and its legal team would be willing to negotiate the final settlement for those members whose cases would otherwise be in preparation for claims for arrears, interest and compensation in the courts.

Clearly, York has taken an enlightened approach to its perceived problem with Silver Book, and it is a course of action to be recommended to other FE colleges in the same situation. LEAF hopes that the Governors and Management of the College will have the vision to see the process of redress through to the end, and see that justice is done for what has been a most unsatisfactory foundation period for a new institution.

Without a properly motivated and paid professional workforce SUPPORTED by its management, no college in the country will survive academically or financially once it has been abandoned by the very people that the students come to see every day in the hope of gaining an education.

NEWS Online Saturday 30 December 2000 

 

LEAF EXAMINES THE LAWFULNESS OF THE PENSION REGULATIONS.

Members will be aware of the draconian changes that have been made to pension entitlements since 1998, which have effectively prevented any prospect of premature retirement.

Prior to the 1998 Regulations coming into force, a lecturer over 50 years of age was entitled to receive an immediate pension if his/her employment had been terminated by reason of redundancy or in the efficient discharge of the employer's functions. That right continues to be enshrined in the contracts of employment of those lecturers who remain on Silver Book contracts of employment. The Silver Book collective agreement is expressly incorporated into the contracts of those who remain on their transferred terms.

The primary legislation that applies in relation to teachers' pensions is the Superannuation Act 1972. This Act is the Enabling Act. The relevant section of the Act is Section 24 and is entitled 'Compensation for Loss of Office'.

This section of the Act enables the Secretary of State to make new regulations in regard of pension entitlements and to modify existing arrangements. It also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations that have a retrospective effect.

However, this section of the Superannuation Act clearly states that:

"Regulations having effect from a date earlier than the date of their making, shall not place any individual who is qualified to participate in the benefits for which the regulations provide, in a worse position than he would have been in if the regulations were so framed as to have effect from the date of their making."

Lawyers acting for LEAF are now examining this and other sections of the Act and we will keep our members in touch with our findings.

The changes that have been made to the pension regulations since 1998 have had a devastating effect upon our members and their families. If it transpires that there has been a legal sleight of hand in the presentation and effect of the new pension regulations, members may be certain that every effort will be made to rectify the situation and every effort made to recover those rights and any losses that have been incurred. Letter to DFEE.

Our members and the employers know that LEAF says what it means and means what it says. Our members also know that we are not concerned, as a trade union, about the size of the opposition. We do not turn tail and run away from taking difficult decisions or difficult measures. We will undoubtedly seek justice and proper recompense if our members and their families are wronged.

If you are concerned about the diminution of your pension rights and want justice to prevail in this and other matters to which LEAF are deeply committed, and you are not already a member of LEAF, you should seriously consider joining LEAF today.

In addition to the efforts we are making on behalf of our members' in respect of their pension entitlements, our Appeal in the important test case of Ralton & Others -v- Havering College, regarding the lawfulness or otherwise of the "new" contracts, is due to be heard on the 8th, 9th & 12th February 2001. What other "unions" in the sector are taking up these important matters?

Those who casually visit our web-site must understand that the "something for nothing" philosophy that has been cultivated by the Government and the Further Education employers, is not one to which LEAF adheres. Do not therefore expect any guidance or assistance from this Union if your intention is to remain a voyeur.

You can join LEAF today by clicking on this link, or by contacting Janice Warren our Membership Secretary. It could be the most important decision you have made in a very long time.

 

 

NEWS Online Monday 6 November 2000 

 

WOODHEAD RESIGNS

CHANGE OF EMPLOYER RATHER THAN CHANGE OF OCCUPATION

Chris Woodhead, the director of Ofsted, would shortly have directed his attention to full-time 16-19 FE teaching. His resignation thus deprives LEAF of the opportunity to engage with Mr Woodhead's oddly confrontational style of inspections.

For Woodhead, the new job as a leader-writer for the Daily Telegraph is a natural home for a born headline grabber. His approach had no prospect whatsoever of leading to a passing of standards for the vast majority of young learners, since this would involve massive and consistent investment in teachers [yes, pay & conditions!] buildings, equipment and resources.

Woodhead danced to a very different tune of Stackhanovite heroics by dedicated teachers. The problem for him, was the 15000 or so' incompetent' teachers in schools who dragged the rest down!

No doubt we would have shortly heard similar arguments in Further Education.

The "Wonder of Woodhead" is that so many decision-makers were prepared to listen to his drivel. Never was so much nonsense listened to, by so many, for so long!

 

 

NEWS Online Monday 16 October 2000 

 

BRANCH FORMATIONS

We are pleased to report that LEAF branches are in the process of being formed at Brighton College of Technology and Swansea College.

LEAF General Secretary, David Evans, recently visited both colleges. At these meetings he provided members with an update on the legal cases LEAF is currently pursuing, and emphasised the importance of branch formation in enhancing the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the Union.

David is now available to meet with members in Colleges throughout the UK. If you would like him to visit your college to talk to members about LEAF's policies, strategies, objectives, legal actions or branch formation, he can be contacted on 01702 589 529.

 

LEAF LEGAL ACTIONS

LEAF is presently engaged in bringing a number of significant legal actions in five institutions. These actions are in addition to the Appeal of the important test case known as Ralton & Others -v- Havering College of Further and Higher Education.

The cases involve claims of Constructive Dismissal, Breach of Contract, Unfair Dismissal, Denial of Pay Increases and London Allowance, Redundancy, Discrimination on Trade Union Grounds. As these cases progress we will inform members of the details of our actions and any outcomes that may ensue.

In another unrelated action, a LEAF member recently received a five-figure sum in settlement. As the settlement was subject to a Compromise Agreement, we are unable to report the details of the action or comment on the parties involved.

Members should contact David Robinson [National Officer] if they require assistance or representation in matters relating to their employment.

 

 

NEWS Online Thursday 5 October 2000 

 

RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION BY LEAF

SECTION 10 of the EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS ACT 1999 came into force on the 4th September 2000.

This provides a statutory right to be accompanied at disciplinary meetings and grievance hearings. It is important to note that the right to be accompanied by a trade union official is not limited to recognised unions.

LEAF officers therefore now have a statutory right to represent members at their place of work in the capacity of union official.

Where the right to accompaniment at disciplinary meetings and some grievance hearings is denied or threatened to be denied, employees can claim up to two weeks pay from the Employment Tribunal.

There is no limit on a week's pay; it is the Applicant's gross pay. Workers are also protected by the legislation from victimisation for exercising their right to be accompanied and so too are their companions. The latter would apply to a situation where a work colleague accompanied a member.

 

CASEWORK

LEAF has always been heavily involved in casework on behalf of its members. This academic year has seen a substantial rise in requests for advice and assistance. Over the past couple of months we have advised and represented members on a variety of employment issues.

These have included:

Constructive Dismissal

Breaches of Contract

Harassment

Grievances

Defamation

Redundancies/Severance

Reapplication for Posts

Working Time Regulations

Pension Entitlement

 

 

NEWS Online Monday 18 September 2000 

 

YORK COLLEGE WITHDRAWS THREAT OF COMPULSORY REDUNDANCIES

Following representations made by LEAF to the Principal and Governors of York College about their intentions to make one hundred members of staff redundant because of a claimed £100,000 shortfall in the college budget early in the New Year, the College has now backed down from their previous position, and accepted such voluntary redundancies as they have managed to achieve. This was announced in the Principal's Report of July 2000.

Lecturers and support staff, were amongst the forty-five staff, sickened by the continuous erosion of professionalism in the college, and degrading of their conditions of service, who decided to take voluntary redundancy last Session. Others decided to look for a better job.

In our letter of 6 March 2000, LEAF pointed out that we did not agree with the case that the College was trying to present. The budget shortfall was publicised about a month after the Governors last meeting of 1999 had concluded that the College's finances were foreseen to be in the black. LEAF contended that if the shortfall was not a fix to create a panic in which to generate redundancies, it was a sign of financial mismanagement which should lead to governors questioning their own competence and their future personal financial liability under current law, for such discrepancies uncovered.

LEAF also pointed out (see Correspondence 6 March 2000), that an assessment of the colleges real estate assets should be conducted with a view to rationalising the sites of the two merged colleges, and realising capital to support infrastructure projects. This would then release revenue income for maintaining qualified Lecturers class contact hours with students. The Principal told lecturers earlier in the year that there could not be further capital investment in resources and equipment unless he got rid of enough staff to pay for them. He made a direct link then between capital and revenue costs.

On May 8th this year, Mike Galloway, the Principal was quoted in the Yorkshire Evening Press as saying: "York College could move its entire campus to the site behind the City's Railway Station under options being considered with Council planners. The College, which has two sites on Tadcaster Road, is looking at the possibility of moving to a more central location on the teardrop-shaped piece of land off Leeman Road.........Mr. Galloway said the review was being carried out because the College had to look at its location and estates periodically. He said the discussions were unconnected to the colleges budget situation which is set to lead to the loss of around 100 jobs.......Anything raised from any sale of land could not be used towards the College's budget - it could only be used for other capital work, he said."

Then later on July 17th, we are informed that "York College is to be rebuilt and replaced with a multimillion-pound new development, the Evening Press can reveal today. College Principal, Mike Galloway, said the new-look college would be housed in a state-of-the-art building."

Another firm of consultants has been employed to look at the scenario, to add to the list that appears to actually manage the college.

Residents of the Leeman Road area are not ecstatic about the potential future influx of 14000 students, with accompanying traffic, into an area with limited existing access and other resources.

Meanwhile, we have to ask the questions as to whether the Principal and Governors of York College were considering this option BEFORE December 1999, in which case the whole redundancies action was a profiteering farce, or were these statements, post-6 March 2000, and our letter, in reaction to LEAF's accurate assessment of the situation, and to what now appears to have been a manufactured 'problem'?

In either case the result is now a considerable reduction in properly qualified teaching and contact hours for students at the College--in many cases this may prove to be below statutory guided learning hours, and an accompanying disappearance of technician grades from most areas. With the loss of clerical and other support staff, there has been a very rocky start to the academic year with support services well below minimum requirements for either efficient operation, or health and safety cover.

It is likely that the foreseeable outcome of such policies will reinforce the existing problems of student retention in many areas, as identified in the College's Executive Summary sent to the FEFC in June 2000. With a skeleton crew navigating a ghost ship, there is less incentive for students to attend for the few days they are actually timetabled in, for the full-time course of their choice.

LEAF hopes that the appointments of Governors from York City Council, and North Yorkshire County Council (who is required to report on the College to Council in session) will help to bring a wider framework of accountability to bear on future plans. With the advent of the Learning Skills Councils, there will also be more opportunity for local representation to make their views felt.

In light of LEAF's legal challenge for Lecturers' compensation, there is also an opportunity for colleges to reassess assets now which could help to repay, with interest, the enormous capital 'loans' they have freely enjoyed off the backs of overworked lecturers and other staff. Whether the Government would bail out any institution who in effect has profited from the transfer of public assets to privatised ones remains to be seen.

In the event of compensation claims being made against any college for breach of contract (eg: in unawarded pay reviews for Silver Book Lecturers over seven years), non-payment of holiday pay entitlement under the Working Time Directive, and the Acquired Rights Directive Appeals Tribunal Case itself, where Governors assets themselves could be seized in lieu of any realistic capital provision being set aside now, those colleges that have already disposed of such assets could find themselves very much out on a limb.

The situation at York has many parallels across the country. York is still an FEFC Grade 2 College, with staff doing their utmost to hold things together. Many other colleges are in even more desperate circumstances. After nearly eight years of privatisation the writing is on the wall for the unfortunate lack of success in the FE sector.

Students deserve a better deal for all their years of financial sacrifice, and the highly vulnerable technological society that Britain has proven to be, needs a high calibre of trained people to keep the machines turning upon which all life depends in these exposed and increasingly inclement Northern latitudes.

See LETTER from David Evans

 

 

NEWS Online Wednesday 13 September 2000 

 

NEWS Online Sunday 30 July 2000 

 

LATEST NEWS ON THE HAVERING CASE APPEAL

Those of you who have read the Grounds of Appeal LEAF submitted to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, will know that our Application for an appeal was based on the following points:

1] The Tribunal had erred on the questions of European Law and of National Law.

2] The Tribunal misdirected itself on the facts, in that:

a) no reasonable tribunal could have so found on the facts;

b) in certain respects the Tribunal failed to make any or any sufficient relevant findings of fact at all;

and in any event

3] The Tribunal's decision was so unreasonable as to be perverse.

In fact, our counsel cited twenty-three instances in which they considered the original Employment Tribunal had fallen into error in reaching its Decision in April 2000.

The Grounds of Appeal can be found in the Documents Section. Members are recommended to visit this section of the web-site to review for themselves the grounds our lawyers have put forward for the Appeal. Members will readily see that LEAF is not simply "tilting at windmills" in this matter.

We have very substantial grounds for seeking an Appeal from the incredible decision of the Employment Tribunal earlier this year. Moreover, we firmly believe that the decision can and will be overturned.

EMPLOYERS SHOW SIGNS OF PANIC

In a new twist to this case, lawyers acting for the Association of Colleges wrote to the Employment Appeal Tribunal at the end of June. In their letter, they seek to isolate the key issue of whether the contractual changes were causally related to the incorporation of the college.

They say;

"We appreciate that it is unusual for the Appeal Tribunal to isolate issues in an appeal for separate determination, but we believe that the exceptional circumstances of this case justify that course".

Their aim of course is to limit the legal arguments and to try to deny us the opportunity to demonstrate that the original decision of the Employment Tribunal is perverse. To clarify that point, a decision is regarded as perverse if, on the evidence presented, no reasonable tribunal could have reached such a decision. The evidence presented to the Tribunal by LEAF showed unequivocally that the plan to worsen lecturers terms and conditions existed more than two years before colleges were incorporated. The Employment Tribunal airbrushed this unassailable evidence from the picture.

Unfortunately for the Association of Colleges lawyers, the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal has written to say he will only agree to deal with the isolated issue of causation at a preliminary hearing - if both sides agree. As you may expect, LEAF will not accede to such a request. We seek a full hearing on all of the points raised in our Grounds for Appeal.

In his response to the other side the President, Mr Justice Lindsay, goes somewhat further. He says, "if we do not agree to a preliminary hearing, this case looks appropriate to go forward to a full hearing of the whole appeal without the usual intervening preliminary hearing at the Employment Appeal Tribunal".

That is a clear indication that Mr Justice Lindsay believes there to be substance to our request for an appeal of the Ralton case.

A further move by the employers' side has been to try to specify which judge hears the case. In a letter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, lawyers acting for the Association of Colleges say;"Lastly, we would mention that the Appellant's Trade Union has made it clear that they regard this as an important test case and have indicated that many other lecturers in further education will be encouraged to present claims against Further Education colleges if the Appellants are successful. That being so, we would respectfully request that the case be allocated to the President of the Appeal Tribunal".

It is one thing to ask a senior judge to hear a case of the gravity and importance of Ralton -v- Havering College, it is another to specify the judge in person. It is clear to us that the AoC's legal advisers know that we have a very good chance of succeeding with this case at appeal, and their aim is to seek to frustrate that prospect. We are taking further advice on this matter.

Our lawyers will be writing to the Appeal Tribunal in the next few days. A purpose of their communication will be to bring the case to as early a hearing as is possible. At present, we are informed that this is unlikely to take place before October/November 2000. We will keep members in touch with events as they unfold.

Members should understand that it is absolutely essential we keep up the pressure on this case and that we increase our support through membership of LEAF. Whether you or your colleagues have many years ahead in FE, are considering leaving the sector, or have left the sector by way of redundancy, retirement or both, you will still need to remain a member of LEAF and to continue to give your support.

Please remember that there are numerous ramifications that will flow from the success of the Ralton case. Among these will be the need for the employers to reconsider the pension entitlements of those who have not received a pay increase, not to mention the question of enhancement to pension which have continued under the Local Authorities, long after enhancement was outlawed from Further Education.

CONTINUE TO SUPPORT LEAF IN OUR MAMMOTH FIGHT TO ENSURE THAT JUSTICE IS EVENTUALLY DONE IN THE GREAT CONTRACTS ROBBERY.

Finally, may we apologise for the delay in getting information on to the web-site. The simple answer is we have been run off our feet!!

NEWS Online Friday 26 May 2000 

 

  

AS APPEAL ON LECTURERS' CONTRACT CASES IS LODGED, LEAF REMAINS CONFIDENT OF EVENTUAL VICTORY 

  

The Appeal against the Employment Tribunal Decision in Ralton -v- Havering College has been lodged this week. 

  

In launching an appeal against the Tribunal's original decision LEAF maintains the Union's original arguments were, and remain, correct. 

  

General Secretary, David Evans, commenting on the appeal said: 

  

"We view the original Tribunal decision as wrong in fact and law. The Tribunal misunderstood European law on this case, and is even wrong in its understanding of certain aspects of English common law on contracts, on another level. We will appeal that this Tribunal decision is so 

unreasonable as to be perverse." 

  

Mr Evans added that the Union would be seeking a reference to the European Court of Justice if there were any doubt about the correctness of LEAF's position. 

  

Following the original Tribunal decision given on 12 April 2000, LEAF has received strong support from its members in over 100 colleges around the country. 

  

Some criticism has been received from among the recognised unions, who have accused the Union of an over-reliance on the law. LEAF rejects this charge. The Union, says Mr Evans, has engaged in the full range of activities to protect and advance lecturers' interests. 

  

In five years, the Union has recorded some impressive gains, and has a goal of concluding a new national collective agreement which will ensure and protect the employment rights of every lecturer in Further Education. 

  

Further details of the Employment Tribunal Decision and the Grounds of Appeal, can be found by following these links. 

  

Tel: (01702) 589529 or (01284) 765369 for LEAF Officers. 

  

  

  

NEWS Online Saturday 20 May 2000 

 

  

LEAF NATIONAL COUNCIL MEETING IN YORK---SATURDAY 27 MAY 

  

National Council members are convening in York, a week today, for a meeting to discuss the future developments of LEAF's case at the Appeals Tribunal and other matters. 

  

The meeting is being held at King's Manor, which is in the centre of York, five minutes from the Railway Station, off Exhibition Square, next to York City Art Gallery. King's Manor is an annex of the Univerity of York.  

  

Any members who are in the region, who would like to take this opportunity to meet with us, are invited to visit during our midday break from business at about 12.30pm onwards. We will no doubt then make our way to one of the many local hostelries, for which York is justly famous, for lunch. 

  

Visitors should report to the Porter's Lodge, directly opposite the entrance gates, for directions to the meeting room. The nearest parking for car drivers is in Gillygate, directly across the Exhibition Square traffic lights, or Marygate, (turn left at the traffic lights, and left again at the 'P' sign). 

  

We look forward to seeing you! 

  

  

  

  

NEWS Online Thursday 4 May 2000 

 

  

LEAF When the going gets tough.......You know the rest ! 

  

NEW CONTRACTS TEST CASE CONTINUES 

  

As lecturers will be aware, the national test cases relating to the introduction of new contracts was decided by the Tribunal in the employers favour. After studying the Tribunals decision carefully, LEAF remains confident of its original assertion, that the new contracts were and are unlawful. In short, we are saying that the Tribunal's decision is wrong. It is wrong in its treatment of the facts laid before it, and it is wrong in its interpretation of European Law to these cases. 

  

  

Appeal to Employment Appeal Tribunal 

  

An appeal against the Tribunal's decision is being prepared and will be lodged very soon. 

  

Briefly, the Tribunal decided that the variations to lecturers' contracts was not for reasons solely connected to incorporation [though it offered no satisfactory alternative reason]; that the new contracts signed by the applicants were "fresh" contracts (as the Tribunal put it), and further, that the irrefutable fact of a still extant national collective agreement had no significance for the applicants cases. 

  

A veritable mountain of fact and evidence, brought forward by LEAF, relating to the events surrounding the change of colleges to corporate status, and of the transfer of staff to new and worse contracts, was airbrushed out of the Tribunal's deliberations. Instead, an eclectic mix of selected snippets of evidence and assertion from the other side, was married to an idiosyncratic interpretation of how European Directives apply to these cases, to produce a poorly-written 19 page decision in the employer's favour. And this after eight months of deliberation! 

  

  

Why the fight must go on 

  

For LEAF to accept this decision and not pursue the case would mean that no public sector worker would have legal protection in the event of a transfer of undertakings [such as incorporation] taking place. This cannot be right or acceptable. We owe it to every teacher in the sector who has supported this union's case to pursue the case to a conclusion. Furthermore, we have always maintained that no quick fix solution is possible to the problems of professionalism and employees rights in the sector.  

  

We have never shirked from our responsibilities to take the long hard road back to gaining respect for the people who really make Further Education work. We hope that you and your colleagues will respect and support this view. The word 'defeat' is not part of our vocabulary, and we will continue to work on all fronts until a satisfactory conclusion is reached. 

  

  

LEAF Officers meet EU Commission 

   

On 18 April, Leaf Officers met senior officials at the European Commission. The meeting was extremely useful, with both sides exchanging their views and understanding of the position of employees in the light of the application of European law. We were able to supply the Commission with a detailed case history of the FE sector over 10 years, and presented a number of issues for the Commission's officials to study. Further exchanges of information will follow. You can be sure that lecturer's concerns are being raised at every opportunity. 

  

  

LEAF membership now in over 100 colleges 

  

We are very proud to announce that LEAF now has members in over 100 colleges of FE throughout England and Wales. From a standing start in 1995, LEAF now has a presence in almost a quarter of colleges in the sector.  

  

Our success in gaining lecturer support is down to a few simple principles. Firstly, we are quite clear that we represent lecturers' interests. Secondly, we define our concerns very specifically; our job is to promote and protect your pay levels, conditions of service, career prospects and pensions. Our job is to bring about permanent improvements to all of the above. And thirdly, we do not accept, and never will, that a sector fragmented in 450 separate bargaining units can be the basis for the collective improvements of the profession. 

  

  

Join LEAF now 

  

LEAF continues to receive calls for help from lecturers who have been badly treated by individual colleges, or who have been let down by the recognised unions. Abuses of trust and power continue to be a feature of life in the incorporated sector. We are well aware of further plans to dismantle the last vestiges of professionalism in the sector.  

  

LEAF stands in the path of all these negative developments and that is why we believe your interests lie with joining us. In recent months the employers' representatives have attempted to marginalise LEAF's contribution by a range of tactics. None of these measures will succeed, and indeed are likely to have the opposite effect to the one intended. 

  

Find out more about LEAF by visiting our website or phoning us. Mention LEAF to your colleagues, and consider setting up a branch. We look forward to hearing from you. 

  

    

  

  

NEWS Online Monday 24 April 2000 

 

  

CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT 

  

LEAF will be meeting with its lawyers very shortly to discuss the Appeal against the Employment Tribunal's decision in Ralton and Others -v- Havering College. As we have already indicated, our counsel believe there are strong grounds for an appeal in this case.  

  

We will also be discussing with our lawyers the prospect of drafting breach of contract claims. We are very mindful of the six year limitation in such claims. 

  

Meanwhile, a separate Complaint to the European Commission, under Article 169 of the Treaty of Rome, has been entered in respect of loss of entitlements under the Directive 93/104/EEC, suffered by lecturers employed by Further Education Corporations, resulting from the failure of the United Kingdom Government to transpose the Directive into national legislation within the prescribed time limits. See Correspondence. 

  

May we once again thank our members for their continuing support in the battle to rectify the grave injustices that further education lecturers have been forced to suffer since 1993. Stay resolute. The battle is not over yet! 

  

  

  

  

NEWS Online Friday 21 April 2000 

 

  

APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL IN RALTON and OTHERS -V- HAVERING COLLEGE 

  

LEAF has now had an opportunity to discuss with its lawyers the decision of the Employment Tribunal. We are advised there are a number of points of law on which an appeal against the decision can be lodged. 

  

Counsel for LEAF is at present in the process of drafting an Appeal Document. We are advised that we can expect to receive a copy of this document early next week. It is our lawyers' intention to lodge the Appeal well ahead of the deadline - which is 42 days from the date of the decision of the Employment Tribunal. 

  

The case will be referred to the Employment Appeal Tribunal for an initial hearing. This is likely to last no longer than a day and will concern the appellants only. While lawyers for the employers will be able to attend, they will have no right of audience. A High Court Judge will preside. 

  

If the Appeal is granted, it is possible that the case could be re-heard by this Summer. Our lawyers' aim will be to overturn the decision of the Employment Tribunal, and/or get a reference to the European Court of Justice. The AoC would be foolish to believe that the Employment Tribunal is the end of the matter! 

  

We stand by our statements, in the press and elsewhere, that a "monumental legal sleight of hand" has taken place in relation to the employment contracts of Further Education lecturers. We would like to thank our members for the e-mails and other very supportive communications received by LEAF. It is reiterated that we firmly believe that justice will eventually be achieved. 

  

YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT IS VALUED. PLEASE ENCOURAGE YOUR COLLEAGUES WHO ARE NOT CURRENTLY MEMBERS OF LEAF, TO GIVE US THEIR BACKING. LECTURERS THROUGHOUT THE U.K. NEED OUR SUPPORT AND WE "DESERVE" THEIRS. 

  

  

  

  

NEWS Online Friday 14 April 2000 

 

THE DECISION

 

Against all expectations, the decision in Ralton and Others -v- Havering College was made in favour of the employer's side.  

  

The decision amounted to nineteen pages of typescript, that patently failed to address important evidence relating to the facts of this case, and to which the Tribunal's attention had been specifically directed. There were many instances of a failure to regard or comment upon key documentary evidence, and admissions. 

  

For example, the fact that the Principal conceded under cross examination that he had misled staff in a letter setting out the consequences of not signing the new contract, is not reported by the Tribunal.  

  

Further, a range of documentary evidence was presented to the Tribunal on the matter of the link between the Transfer and the worsening of terms and conditions. This evidence was clear and irrefutable. It categorically showed that there was a detailed plan to worsen the terms and conditions of lecturers in Further Education establishments, almost two years before the change of employer took place.  

  

No discussion or comment on this evidence is to be found in the Tribunal's decision. Yet it formed a crucial link in the chain of causation.  

  

Was it that the Tribunal had too little time to consider all of the evidence? Emphatically no. 

  

This decision was preceded by six days of evidence, three days of legal argument, three days in chambers for the Chairman and his colleagues to discuss the case, and a gap of four months from the last day of the hearing - before the decision was made available.  

  

Curiously, the date on which the decision was actually taken is absent from the written particulars. 

  

In the view of this union, the presentation of the evidence by the Tribunal was selective, slanted, tendentious and offensive to reason. 

  

Members, and others who visit our web-site, are assured that this decision has not ended our endeavours to recover the lawful rights of lecturers. LEAF will very shortly be consulting with its lawyers on legal strategy.  

  

It is our intention to write to the Tribunal, making the points we have raised above, together with a good number of others, and request that the Tribunal review its decision. We have a lawful right to make such a request, which must be made within 14 days of the decision being made public. 

  

Given the nature of the decision we will consult with our lawyers regarding the possibility of taking the matter to the Divisional Court, on the basis that no reasonable tribunal could have come to this decision. The Divisional Court has the power to review such decisions. 

  

The Tribunal's conclusion appears to be that: 

  

......it is reasonable and lawful for the Government to have introduced a culture of change in a part of its public service. 

  

...... it is reasonable and lawful to have effected that change by way of a [statutory] transfer of employer. 

  

...... it is reasonable and lawful to have created the mechanisms by which the pressures for change would take place and could be manipulated. 

  

...... it is reasonable and lawful to encourage and cajole the new employers to worsen the contracts of their staff, and for the employers to starve their staff off of their contracts. 

  

...... it is reasonable and lawful to have planned this scenario, and to have placed the worsening of lecturers terms and conditions at the very core of the plan, at least two years ahead of the event. 

  

Given the Tribunal's analysis, no worker in any public sector organisation would have the protection of the Acquired Rights Directive. It seems that the Tribunal has assumed that a national government can run roughshod over the rights of its employees. This cannot be correct. 

  

LEAF will be meeting with the Head of Law at Directorate General VI of the European Commission on the 18th April 2000. Matters will be raised in connection with our Complaint under Article 169 Treaty of Rome and our request that the Commission brings proceedings against the United Kingdom in relation to the effects on lecturers terms and conditions following the transfer of colleges from LEA control in 1993.  

  

Members are assured that the conclusions of the Tribunal will be brought to the attention of the Commission and that the consequences of those conclusions are fully discussed at this meeting. 

  

Finally, let us remind you of our Q.C's submission to the Tribunal. She says; ..."on the facts of the case, it is plain that the variation in the Applicants' contracts was due to the Transfer.....the Transfer and the contract change was intimately bound up in this case; the one was the purpose and the consequence of the other".  

  

Later, in her analysis of the evidence she says of the Transfer. "This was thus a deliberate attempt to avoid the mandatory rules of the Acquired Rights Directive, in direct contravention of Community Law duties". 

  

  

NO STONE WILL BE LEFT UNTURNED TO ENSURE THAT JUSTICE FOR LECTURERS WILL EVENTUALLY PREVAIL 

  

 

  

NEWS Online Tuesday 4 April 2000 

 

  

TRIBUNAL DECISION 

  

Message from the General Secretary 

  

The Employment Tribunal has confirmed that it has reached a decision in the important test case of Ralton -v- Havering College, but the written details of the decision are not yet known. We have published on this website, a number of dates on which we were led to believe the full details would be made known, but on each occasion there has been a further delay. Members and other interested parties who frequently visit this web page, for information on the case, will simply have to sit tight. However, members may be assured that the details of the decision will be made known on this web page, the moment we have received and analysed the Tribunal's written commentary. It is anticipated that this could run to 50-60 pages. We remain very confident that justice will prevail in this case and that the Tribunal will declare the contracts of the Applicants in this case to be unlawful.  

  

In our last update, we quoted a small part of the statement our counsel, Eleanor Sharpston Q.C. submitted to the Tribunal. To give our members some further indication of the strength of her arguments in this case, we provide a further verbatim quotation from the 25 page "skeleton argument" our counsel submitted to the Tribunal. 

  

At page 19 of her submission she says, (.....) "the transfer and the contract change were intimately bound up in this case; the one was the purpose and the consequence of the other. 

  

Furthermore, the evidence has shown that: 

  

.....The variations were proximate in time, indeed planned in advance of the transfer, and carried out at the first opportunity of renewal/promotion of staff. 

  

..... The variations were purportedly geared to the changes which the Transfer was intended to effect, i.e. a change in the working culture of the College, to enable it to take on more students with the same numbers of staff. 

  

..... The College had been in receipt of legal advice and government guidelines as to the fact that the Transfer would permit and enable it to vary the contracts. 

  

Furthermore, the College would of course have been quite unable to vary the contracts in the absence of a transfer, save by a further collective agreement".  

  

Members must judge for themselves whether a Q.C. of Eleanor Sharpston's standing, would have made the bold statements we have published, if she felt there was no substance to the claims she has made. 

  

Members are therefore advised to view with caution any information that they may receive on these proceedings that comes through "management" channels or via other "forces of opposition". There has been a constant and continuing attempt to sow "seeds of uncertainty" in the minds of those who are willing to allow them to germinate. Their purpose is to seek to delay the growth of LEAF, for they desperately fear our developing power base - and rightly so. 

  

Our members, and those who are considering membership of this union, are informed that LEAF now operates within more than 100 colleges. That number is increasing on a daily basis.  

  

YOU MUST JOIN LEAF TODAY - IF TRULY YOU WANT THE PROSPECT OF A BETTER TOMORROW. 

  

  

  

  

  

NEWS Online Thursday 16 March 2000 

 

  

TRIBUNAL DECISION IMMINENT IN  

RALTON and OTHERS -v- HAVERING COLLEGE 

  

LEAF have been informed by the Tribunal that a decision in this very important test case can be expected by the end of March. Thousands of lecturers throughout the further education sector are waiting with bated breath for the outcome. The ramifications of LEAF succeeding in this case are very great indeed. 

  

Even NATFHE is now showing an interest in this case. Well, what a surprise, coming from an organisation that has sought to diminish the merit of LEAF's case at every turn. Their statement that - "LEAF's case has no reasonable prospect of success" - has now changed to referring to the case as being "significant". Lecturers' will need to consider very carefully who might be best placed to fight their corner in any future legal battles. 

  

We will of course have to see exactly what the Tribunal decide, but LEAF remain steadfast in the view that the Union will succeed. Why are we so confident that we can win this case? The simple answer is that we were able to clearly and irrefutably demonstrate that the changes to lecturers' contracts was directly and causally linked to the change of employer - from LEA to FEC. 

  

Indeed, we were able to produce unassailable evidence that plans were laid to change lecturers' contracts almost two years before colleges were removed from LEA control. We presented irrefutable documents that showed this was the clear intention, and that the removal of colleges from LEA control was the "hub" of the plan to achieve this. 

  

In a nutshell, European law states that any variation to an employee's contract of employment, that is causally connected to the change of employer, is unlawful. Our counsel's submission to the Tribunal makes this point very clear. At page 22 of that submission, Eleanor Sharpston Q.C. says: 

  

....."the very fact that the transfer caused the change in employment conditions puts the employer in breach of the Acquired Rights Directive and renders the contract unlawful. This is particularly so in the present case, which must be considered an extreme example of the genre, where the entire transfer [N.B. by statute] was designed to effect a negative change in employment conditions of the employees of Further Education establishments. This was thus a deliberate attempt to avoid the mandatory rules of the Acquired Rights Directive in direct contravention of Community law duties". 

  

We are confident that justice will prevail in this case, because the facts demonstrate the correctness of our position. LEAF firmly believes that the evidence given to the Tribunal cannot be ignored and a decision that did not reflect those facts would be perverse in the extreme. This is not a question of finding a smoking gun. The employers have been caught with the gun in their hand! 

  

So you would be wise to keep your eye on this web-site, and keep your colleagues in touch with events as they unfold. Join LEAF and support a Union whose officers have given up seven years of their lives to fight this important case on behalf of lecturers throughout the UK. And remember, LEAF aims to recover your lawful rights - not give them away! IT REALLY IS TIME FOR CHANGE. 

  

  

  

LEAF INVITED TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

  

Those of you who have followed our efforts to recover the lawful rights of lecturers will know that in 1995 we presented a Complaint to the European Commission under Article 169 Treaty of Rome. Our contention was, as it remains now, that there was a monumental legal sleight of hand involved in the worsening of lecturers contracts. In our formal Complaint to the Commission, we asked that the Commission bring proceedings against the United Kingdom on the grounds that it had committed a serious breach of the spirit and purpose of the Acquired Rights Directive. That point is replicated in the statement of our Q.C. in Ralton -v- Havering College [see above quotation from submission]. The Commission have been kept informed of events in the national courts and could not take any action while the case was in process in the UK. We have now been invited to Brussels for a meeting with the head of the "labour law, industrial relations, fundamental rights and anti-discrimination unit". We will be meeting with Mr Gonzalez Dorrego and his colleagues on the 18th of April 2000. 

  

  

  

  

  

NEWS Online Thursday 9 March 2000 

 

  

YORK COLLEGE LECTURERS DISGUSTED AT PRINCIPALS 'REDUNDANCY' PROPOSALS 

  

At a meeting of LEAF members at York College, held on 17th February, a resolution relating to recent events was discussed and unanimously agreed ----that the fellowship propose a vote of no confidence in the Principal, Management and Governors of this college.  

  

The plans to replace about forty professionally qualified and experienced lecturers with thirty-odd 'grey' instructor level positions, were firmly rejected by lecturers as being detrimental to the processes of education, the future continuation of many courses, a further act of intimidation and harassment upon an already much reduced work-force, and no solution to the actual problems of the college. Correspondence. 

  

The proposals follow a sudden management about face from a financial position, cited in the December 1999 Governors minutes of a forthcoming balance sheet in profit, to nearly £1 million deficit by February 2000. 

  

After nearly seven years of continual restructuring, reorganisation, budget-cutting and pay-freezes, the college is no nearer getting its act together than it was in 1994. This is despite gaining an enormous financial advantage from the dunning down of staff salaries, promotions and terms of service. This continuing downgrading of the FE environment, however, has been paralleled by an accompanying expensive glossing up of the corporate image, and glorification of the processes of management at a great cost to lecturers health, morale, and consequent educational provision for students. 

  

A previous vice-principal of the college, Janet Price, was forced out of her job as Principal of Inverness College for taking them from a position of profit on her arrival in 1995, into a deficit of £3.8 million by her dismissal in 1998. York seems to have had a particularly unlucky run of unstable management, and lecturers are deeply concerned that circumstances seem to spiral ever downward without any particular sign that things will improve.  

  

This is also a nationwide problem. One piece of Government legislation defined in Circular 99/30 obliges all colleges to have mandatory representation from local authorities on their board of governors as from August 31 1999. How many colleges have fulfilled this statutory duty?  

  

York College has not, and it could be said that its attempt at racing through 'redundancies' for profiteering motives is a deliberate attempt to short-circuit this democratic intervention. Action is now being considered by LEA and City Council representatives. 

  

FE Colleges are now in breach of the Working Time Regulations which guarantee paid holidays to all employees. These regulations took effect in national law on the 1st October 1998. However, the underlying European legislation, the Working Time Directive, took legal effect for State employees on the 23rd November 1996. FE lecturers are, without exception, employees of the State and should therefore have received paid holiday entitlement from the date the Directive took effect. A retrospective entitlement to 12 weeks paid holiday has therefore arisen. 

  

Many governors may be taken unawares by their personal financial liability in future actions brought against college managements for failure to comply with this legislation. This liability exists right now, and entitled lecturers can bring an individual action on their own behalf at any time.  

  

In Gibson v. East Riding of Yorkshire Council (1999 IRLR 358 EAT), an appeal from the respondents (ERYC) was rejected, and the employee of the Council (Gibson) who brought the action was found to be fully entitled to four weeks annual paid holiday under the European Directive. This is now sound case law. 

  

Lecturers are aware that many current problems were inherited from the previous Government, but FE college executives have cashed in greatly on the loopholes that have allowed them to hijack what is a public trust. Lecturers look to the present Labour administration to bring about a return to the rule of law in Further and Higher Education, to preserve what is best in the educational process, and to fulfil a historic role that has only fleetingly been present in Government this century-- to support equal opportunity for all participants in FE in order to provide the cultural and technical backbone for the future development of Britain in a new millennium.  

  

  

  

  

  

NEWS Online Friday 3 March 2000 

 

  

NATFHE ACKNOWLEDGES LEAF's EFFORTS FOR LECTURERS....ALMOST 

  

The following commentary was downloaded from NATFHE's web-site on the 1st of March 2000: 

  

"EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL DECISION IMMINENT" 

  

"Many branches will be aware of a significant tribunal case, Ralton and Others v Havering College. The applicants' claims were heard by the Tribunal on various dates in 1999 but a decision is unlikely before the end of February. NATFHE supports the efforts of any lecturers working to improve their levels of pay and conditions of service and will be examining the implications of the Tribunal decision for our members and issuing advice where necessary". 

  

"The claims relate to attempts to change lecturers' contracts of employment at Havering College in 1994. At that time an independent legal team advised the union that any such litigation would be protracted, excessively complicated and expensive. It was estimated that any legal strategy would take five to seven years to resolve. Whilst the union strongly opposed the employers' actions over contracts of employment, our strategy was to resist through collective negotiation and the combined efforts of our members." 

  

Without giving credit to LEAF, NATFHE has decided that it will, after 7 years, "issue advice" to its members after the decision in the case LEAF brought is given. Let us hope that their "advice" is not as bad as their earlier advice; see final sentence of second paragraph. 

  

Let us analyse what NATFHE has said in their web-site communication. 

  

1. "NATFHE supports the efforts of any lecturers working to improve their levels of pay and conditions of service...".  

  

For the record, not a single word or penny of support has ever been offered by NATFHE to assist us to bring this very important legal action. In fact they have done quite the opposite. NATFHE has consistently supported the employers' views that we cannot win this case and have sought to discredit the action we have taken at every turn. 

  

2. NATFHE say "it would have taken five to seven years to resolve".  

  

Yes, a union worth its salt requires the application of intelligence, tenacity, and the guts to take on the biggest of the bullies, to carry a case like this through. LEAF clearly has these qualities. Can the same be said of NATFHE? THE TIME IS NIGH! 

  

3. NATFHE say "the case was excessively complicated".  

  

Members' should reflect carefully on this comment. NATFHE has at its disposal a wide range of legal advice, and considerable financial resources to access that advice, yet NATFHE failed to take the necessary steps. LEAF on the other hand had limited resources, yet has been able to bring this case to fruition. 

  

4. NATFHE say that "bringing the case would have been expensive"  

  

...and imply that this was another reason why they stood shy of it. The true "expense" of NATFHE's failure to test the lawfulness of the contracts has of course been borne by those thousands of staff who have been cheated out of their employment rights. In relative terms, if NATFHE with 70,000 members considered it "expensive" to bring this case, how do you think LEAF has managed to do so? For the record, we estimate that some 30 million pounds has found its way into NATFHE's coffers by way of lecturers membership subscriptions since this case was first lodged. 

  

5. NATFHE say their strategy was "collective negotiation".  

  

Well, the least said the better on this one. Locally negotiated contracts that worsen lecturers' conditions dramatically? No thanks! 

  

LEAF's action was necessary because there was a glaring need for action to defend the lawful contractual rights enjoyed by lecturers before 1993. Only LEAF was resolved to take the employers and the Government on and defend those collective rights. That is why lecturers who have fought so hard to defend conditions of service are joining LEAF.  

  

YOU SHOULD JOIN LEAF TODAY. JOIN THE BEST AND REJECT THE REST!! 

  

  

 

NEWS Online Wednesday 1 March 2000 

 

  

TRIBUNAL COMMITTEE MEETS TO DISCUSS RULING 

  

LEAF has been informed that the Tribunal in the Havering case met on Monday 28 February for further discussion. There still is no indication as to the outcome, and we are unable to speculate on what may yet transpire. The due consideration that is being given, in what has been undoubtedly a lengthy business, only serves to underline the importance in law of this case, which not only has fundamental consequences for Further Education itself, but other sectors of employment across the board.  

  

We believe that the care that is being taken to decide the legal detail under European Law is a positive recognition of LEAF's contentions, and due respect must be reserved for this process, while hoping for what we believe to be the right outcome: the rule of law in further education employment, with national and international protection for lecturers terms and conditions of service. 

  

  

  

  

NEWS Online Tuesday 29 February 2000 

 

  

LEAF CALLS FOR 25% INCREASE IN SALARY LEVELS 

OF FE LECTURING STAFF  

  

LEAF is submitting a claim for an adjustment in salary scales, which will result in a 25% increase in lecturers' pay by September 2000. This increase should be paid in instalments of 10% now, 10% in June and 5% by 1 September. All lecturers should revert to a 1 September pay settlement date.  

  

Our claim is not based on what we think lecturers 'deserve', nor on factors related to individual college finances, but on the losses suffered by the failure of colleges to pay past increases, rises in the cost of living over the last seven years, and a comparison with changes in comparable salaries for other professions during that period. The claim is also motivated by the fact that the work levels of teachers in the sector show no sign of levelling off. Further, the range of skills, the nature of the actual teaching and assessment is now more specialised and vocationally specific than ever before. Finally, the claim recognises the need to recruit and retain good staff, in competition with schools, universities and other professions in the next few years. The emphasis given by the present government to the place of further education in placing the economy on a world competitive footing also informs this claim.  

  

In the above context, we do not consider that it is necessary to justify or apologise for the size of the pay claim. No other public sector group has suffered the degree of pay decline endured by FE lecturers. The claim has also to be considered in the light of the huge increases in workload since incorporation. This massive increase in productivity has been largely unremunerated.  

  

Our claim is without prejudice to our rights to secure back pay and compensation for previous unlawful alterations to contracts of employment, and the unlawful withholding of cost of living pay increases.  

  

  

HOW IS A FAIR, VIABLE AND JUSTIFIED PAY CLAIM ARRIVED AT IN A FRAGMENTED FE SECTOR?  

  

Unlike all the other unions in the sector, LEAF has consistently argued that the National Collective Agreement on pay and conditions of service, frozen by the employers in 1993, must remain the benchmark for all subsequent adjustments. We hold to this view as we have every year since incorporation. Our percentage pay claim is the figure by which our profession has fallen behind other professions since 1993.  

  

  

ONLY LEAF'S CLAIM MAINTAINS THE LINK WITH A NATIONAL AGREEMENT  

  

LEAF's claim is derived from the salary rates of Silver Book staff. Our other action on contracts is aimed ultimately at restoring a National binding agreement on pay and conditions. To argue on any other basis is to accept the legitimacy of the employers' unlawful actions, and to endorse the patchwork quilt of 450 odd separate contracts and pay scales. LEAF will never accept a settlement such as this.  

  

An across-the-board percentage increase is the only way to preserve in a clear and logical united front to the employers, which does not compromise our claims for redress for past misdeeds. Unlike the 'recognised' unions, LEAF rejects the fragmentation of FE, and the convenient fiction of so-called 'independent' colleges. All are part of a single, national, post-16 system.  

  

  

NATFHE's PAY AND CONDITIONS STRATEGY IN TATTERS  

  

NATFHE has called for a £2,500 across-the-board increase to FE lecturers on all grades. Although attractive on the face of it (we could all do with a little extra cash, after all), the claim would do nothing to solve the problems of poor pay and exploitation in the sector. The reasons for this are not difficult to understand.  

  

NATFHE's fixed cash claim would, even if conceded in full, lead to the 'fixing' of existing inequalities in pay and conditions, and the legitimisation of the increasingly confusing patchwork of contractual arrangements. NATFHE, you will know, has called off any dispute it had with the employers on conditions of service. LEAF sees pay and conditions as inextricably linked. One can imagine the scenario that is likely to open up even now.  

  

The AOC, with whom NATFHE boast good relations, might respond to the pay claim by saying that they cannot recommend such a 'large' increase. They know that their member colleges obviously cannot afford it. However, given the extra money in the pipeline for further education expansion, they could perhaps recommend an across-the-board £250, or even £500! Not as much as was asked for, but undoubtedly fair, in the sense that everyone would receive it, across-the board. Moreover, the essential principles of the union claim would be preserved. All would receive the same, and the settlement would meet NATFHE's stipulation that any increase should benefit those on the lower ends of the pay spectrum. After all, £500 is worth more to you if you earn £10,000 than if you earn double that figure.  

  

NATFHE's General Secretary has recently signed a new procedure and recognition agreement with the AOC, which recognises the right of colleges not to pay any recommended increase. Don't believe us? Check for yourself. Ask a NATFHE branch official. He or she may be aware of it.  

  

In February 2000, writing in 'The Lecturer', Paul Mackney, NATFHE's General Secretary, writes that, "We will be demanding that the recommendation this year redresses the downward drift...But it seems that it is still the college which will determine the actual sums involved." 

  

He knows that the decision on how much, if any, pay staff will receive, is firmly in college hands. That is because his union, among others has again endorsed this situation a week or two before, in the brand new procedure and recognition agreement.  

  

Joint approaches with the AOC will not work. NATFHE has set much store by its round-table discussions with the AOC, and joint approaches to the government. The government's recently announced settlement for FE contains more money ('more than ever before'). Of course it does. But all of these extra funds are earmarked. And none is earmarked for lecturer's pay increases.  

  

A depressing scenario is likely to open up again this year, with some colleges paying some money, some paying less, and some paying nothing at all. Many colleges are already psychologically preparing their teaching staff for disappointment this year through announcements in staff bulletins. Perhaps your college is one of them. LEAF is interested in receiving any such information.  

  

If NATFHE is claiming a 'special relationship' with the AOC, then it is at the expense of your pay and conditions interests.  

  

NATFHE's dilemma is that the AOC is perfectly entitled to say to them: "You have accepted our economic arguments, that our member colleges could not in past years pay an acceptable rise to teaching staff ( half have failed to pay the recommended minimum). Nothing has changed. The situation is the same today. Why, therefore, are you seeking a dispute with our member colleges? Neither we nor they determine the sums for Further Education. That is the responsibility of the Government" 

  

If NATFHE demur, and claim that they have to act in their members interests, they in turn would be entitled to invoke the 'special relationship', and ask for AOC support for their claim. This ludicrous scenario is illustrative of NATFHE's dilemma. Lecturer's interests can never be served in a context in which conditions of service are constantly being surrendered for cost of living pay increases. Most lecturers simply cannot give any more. As LEAF has said many times, many lecturers are now working at absolute physical limits.  

  

NATFHE's stewardship of the pay, conditions and career interests of the profession has all the elements of a Greek tragedy. You know the end long before you have arrived at it. Because the NATFHE leadership is so mediocre, the employers and Government are effectively shooting into an empty net.  

  

Lecturers need a strong and independent union to represent their interests. LEAF is the only union which can effectively represent those interests. You are urged to join now and add your voice to those of others in nearly 100 Colleges of Further Education. Spread the word to your colleagues.  

  

STAND UP AND BE COUNTED !  

  

JOIN LEAF NOW AND SUPPORT OUR PAY CLAIM. 

  

A 25% INCREASE ON SALARY SCALES BY 1 SEPTEMBER 2000.  

  

You may print off and freely circulate this bulletin.  

  

  

  

  

NEWS Online Monday 14 February 2000 

 

  

AWAITING THAT TRIBUNAL RULING! 

  

The decision in Ralton -v- Havering College of Further and Higher Education, which we had been informed would be available by the 10th of February, is now expected by the end of February. We realise that members across the country are as keen as ourselves to learn the result of this case. However, after seven years of effort, we have become accustomed to the "long haul". We hope you too can bear with us.  

  

LEAF firmly believe that a just outcome will eventually emerge and that lecturers throughout the UK will benefit from our perseverance. 

  

  

  

  

NEWS Online Tuesday 8 February 2000 

 

  

YORK COLLEGE DECLARES PROGRAM OF DEPROFESSIONALISATION 

  

In a sudden announcement today, Tuesday 8 February, the Principal of York College, Mike Galloway, outlined his policy to reduce academic staffing levels, by substituting non-professional grades of staff for lecturers within teaching programs. Voluntary redundancy for lecturers and potential compulsory redundancies to follow in short order. 

  

In a continuing spiral of overspending since incorporation in 1993, and the recent merger with York Sixth Form College, management has proved yet again that they are unable to balance the books without making lecturers pay for the errors of judgement that have dogged the college since it became a stand-alone corporation. Coincidentally, the problem seems to have emerged post-merger, despite the avowed intention that the merger would NOT result in redundancies. The results seem to justify most lecturers, parents and students fears of a decline in provision. 

  

Lecturers were subjected to an hour of statistics proving that the college has to dispose of lecturers because 'everyone else is doing it'. The statistics were provided, no doubt at great expense, by an external consultant. It is intended to replace academically qualified and professionally experienced lecturers with low-grade technicians, demonstrators or instructors, in order to cut the number of lecturing staff. At no time was the impact on education discussed. No questions were allowed for, or elicited. 

  

Most lecturers at the college feel that this would precipitate a further and irreparable drop in academic standards, that have been in steady decline since incorporation. A student now undertaking a two-year diploma course now effectively receives only one years worth of actual contact time with tutors. Because lecturers are now spread over more courses, there is now a lack of continuity in teaching, fragmentation of course elements, and a growing inaccessibility of staff to students. The amount of clerking level paperwork has assumed blizzard levels. Some teaching is now being handled by support staff, with no academic qualifications. 

  

The focus of the Principal's presentation concentrated solely on lecturing staff and did not cover support, clerical, and management positions, in which there has been a 200% increase since incorporation. Non-teaching staff now outnumber lecturers by two to one, yet it is lecturers that generate the actual income of the college by recruiting students, retaining them and maintaining professional standards of achievement within the course studies programs. "Foot" and "shooting", "in the", spring to mind, or perhaps, "goose", "golden", and "killing the", as an alternative. Clearly, it could be expected that for every lecturer dismissed, two non-teaching staff would go. 

  

Students come to the college expecting to further their education and receive training for industrial, commercial or professional roles, yet the emphasis seems to be to recruit students at all costs, whether or not these requirements can be met. The hardships that students have to undergo, including payment of fees, virtually non-existent support materials budgets, and having to maintain jobs in the private sector to afford to come to college in the first place, is making FE an increasingly unattractive option. This has a direct bearing on recruitment, retention and achievement, and an immediate effect on college income. 

  

Cheating students of their future is a logical development of cheating lecturers of their careers. Since incorporation, the college sector, no less at York, has capitalised furiously by not paying inflation rises to Silver Book staff, and working new contractees for nearly 50% more hours for minimal increments. With this kind of holiday from reality, colleges have still found themselves unable to manage even with these enormous financial advantages. York still discriminates against Silver Book staff, and has not implemented the law regarding the European Working Time Directive, regarding paid holidays. Lecturers at present only are paid for term-time weeks. 

  

Lecturers see questionable spending on an almost daily basis. Technical infrastructure has been badly conceived, often below specification, and required expensive replacement within a couple of years. Due to failure in arresting basic building fabric deterioration, £70000 was lost through water burst damage done to new, and unused, 'Centre of Excellence' computer equipment in Business Studies. The smell of raw sewage from suspect drains blows through some corridors, roofs leak in other buildings causing electrical hazards, and general maintenance is poor and lack lustre. 

  

Meanwhile, they see vast sums being wasted on superficials, such as the college corporate identity revamp after the merger with the Sixth Form College, which included painting the logo on a fleet of new vehicles. High maintenance and replacement floor carpeting is prioritised over proper equipment almost everywhere in the college, and money is handed over to expensive external consultants for almost any reason, because it appears there are insufficient professional skills within the college to run things effectively. There has been a frenzy of office redecorating, new furnishings and equipment to provide Wall Street-like working environments for clerical and management workers, while lecturing staff have been left to survive in the Bowery slums. 

  

While management basks in their continuing self-rewarded pay increases, they complacently soldier on comforted by the fact that any shortfalls they create themselves could be confidently subsidised by sacking a few more lecturers. 

  

The news is finally out. The lecturers heard it all from the horse's mouth. But this time lecturers will be taking the students with them.  

  

(LEAF Press Release......please copy) 

  

  

LEAF would be interested in hearing details of any similar policies being applied in other FE Centres around the country. 

  

  

 
 

NEWS Online Tuesday 1 February 2000 

 

  

EVENTS SWIFTLY MOVE ON--- FINAL RULING DUE ANY DAY 

  

It is expected that the result of the Havering College Employment Tribunal will be known on or about 10 February 2000. 

  

Information will be posted here as soon as the ruling is published.  

  

  

  

  

NEWS Online Tuesday 25 January 2000 

 

  

AS THE TRIBUNAL DECISION NEARS, LEAF APPOINTS A TOP COMMERCIAL TEAM TO ASSESS AND MANAGE LECTURERS' CLAIMS. 

  

COMPENSATION WILL BE CONSIDERABLE 

  

As the decision in the National Test Case brought by LEAF draws near, LEAF officers have appointed a leading company, specialising in the recovery of large scale financial losses, to handle the thousands of claims that are anticipated to arise. The organisation we have engaged has one hundred and fifty years of experience in the business and is recognised as a leader in the field of claims handling. 

  

It is clear that compensation and damages claims, in respect of lecturers who have worked in the sector over the past seven years, will be considerable. Further there will be substantial variations in regard of lecturers' individual losses. This will need to be taken into account. For this reason we have appointed a company with the necessary professional expertise and a track record of proven success in loss adjustment. You must be clear that the process LEAF is entering into is designed to ensure that you receive a personal settlement of your claim for losses. Each claim will therefore be tailored to your personal circumstances. It is by following this route that your claim will maximised and your losses recovered. There is little doubt that only LEAF will adopt this professional approach, that tailors your claim directly to your losses. 

  

  

WHY YOU NEED TO BE WITH LEAF 

  

Many of you are awaiting the result of the Employment Tribunal, and perhaps wondering what the outcome will be. We repeat our firm belief that we will win this action. We are also aware of a "developing interest" from other organisations, which claim to have lecturers' interests at heart. Our advice to you is to be very sceptical about claims made by other organisations, be they unions, "professional organisations" or employer bodies. 

  

Only LEAF has pursued the claim that the new contracts were unlawfully introduced and that European law afforded lecturers protection. If you want your losses recovered in full, LEAF is unquestionably the organisation most likely to achieve that aim. 

  

  

WHAT ARE THE VIEWS OF OTHERS? 

  

The AOC is on record as saying that our claim does not have a "chance in hell of succeeding". That did not stop them throwing thousands of pounds of public money in the fight to defeat us, and we believe they will shortly be eating their words. 

  

NATFHE has repeatedly said that we have "no reasonable prospect of success" and has desperately attempted to stem LEAF's advance by discrediting our action in every way they could. 

  

You are advised that your interests are unlikely to be served by allowing any future claim in this matter to be "negotiated" by any other body than LEAF. It could cost you dearly. That is why we have now appointed specialists in the field of loss recovery. You have only to review the calamitous events of the last seven years to know the price you may pay for mediocre representation. It has taken LEAF all of that time to recover the situation. Make sure that no one is allowed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. 

  

Every LEAF member will have a personalised claim lodged and professionally handled. This service will be exclusive to LEAF members, and you are invited to join LEAF now in order to secure your claim. 

  

  

NATURE OF CLAIM 

  

Lecturers' have suffered in two main ways. Some remained on the Silver Book contract and have [with very few exceptions] not had a pay rise since the 1st of September 1993. The majority signed a new contract that substantially deteriorated their terms and conditions by more than 40%, without proper recompense for the additional hours they have been required to work and the loss of holiday entitlement. It is these matters that will form the basis of a breach of contract case and in relation to these matters that we shall be seeking the recovery of losses for our members. However, other variables will be built into the claim. For example the additional cost of child-care resulting from a longer working year, additional travel costs, adjustment to pension entitlements etc. 

  

  

TIME LIMIT IN THE NATIONAL COURTS 

  

In court proceedings, the time limit for a breach of contract case is six years. The six years would count from the signing of a new contract [in 1994 for many lecturers] or from the 1st September 1994 for those remaining on Silver Book contracts. You are advised to compile and retain all evidence relating to your contractual situation and related circumstances until this information is called for. In due course LEAF will compile a list of documentary evidence that may be called for by the loss adjusters. Our objective will be to simplify and smooth the claims process as much as possible. 

  

  

DECISION 

  

We anticipate the decision of the Tribunal to be given in February 2000. Our advisers have informed us that the sums involved will include statutory interest, which when compounded over a six year period could reach many thousands of pounds per person in many thousands of cases. May we strongly advise you to take the steps outlined earlier, to secure your situation?. You have now seen how LEAF works; always professionally, always carefully, and always making use of professionals in their chosen field. Please remember we will only be processing the claims of LEAF members. 

  

  

MEMBERSHIP OF LEAF 

  

A membership form and standing order form can be downloaded from this web-site. Please take the action we have outlined and spread the word among your colleagues. 

  

IT COULD BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND PRODUCTIVE WORK YOU HAVE DONE, IN YOUR INTERESTS, FOR SEVEN YEARS! 

  

Please print off and freely circulate this bulletin. 

  

  

  

  

NEWS Online Monday 17 January 2000 

 

  

LECTURERS' PAY - RESTORE THE DIFFERENTIAL WITH PRINCIPALS 

  

You may have seen the TES survey recently on principals' salary packages in the incorporated sector (TES FE Focus 7th January 2000). The figures confirm LEAF's longstanding assertion that principals (and other senior non-teaching staff, not featured in the article), have enjoyed a pay bonanza since incorporation. 

  

The figures did not highlight the percentage changes in principals' salaries over the past seven years. However we have compared a sample of salaries for principals in the year before incorporation, where we have figures, with the salaries today. These show increases over the period of between 80 and 120%. 

  

For lecturing staff on the new contract who received the recommended increases (less than half of colleges have met the increases) the percentage increase over the period is not greater than 18%. Less than half of staff have managed this paltry figure, which has only comprised a 'cost of living' increase, and has not matched inflation. 

  

For the majority of Silver Book staff, the increase over the entire period is 1.5%, as they have endured a pay freeze since 1993. By taking the figure for salary change since 1991, a truer picture of the widening differential is arrived at. This is because many colleges made upward salary adjustments to the packages of principals and other senior staff in this period immediately before incorporation itself, which partly masked the huge rises over the period since that time. 

  

Since all lecturers (and particularly lecturers) have contributed to the huge efficiency gains achieved by the sector since incorporation, it follows irresistibly that there has been a major shift of salary resources away from lecturing staff. We maintain that this was done unlawfully, and we are seeking redress. In a nutshell, that is LEAF's task for this year. 

  

Very shortly, we will make available via this website, a software package which will enable every lecturer to calculate his/her losses over the period. The losses are considerable, and we will be seeking to publicise this fact widely. 

  

We shall not be campaigning for a reduction in principals' salaries or making any claims about 'fat cats'. Instead, we are demanding that lecturers' salary differentials with the principals be restored to the 2.5:1 ratio which was the norm before incorporation. 

  

The software package will be made available shortly to LEAF members. Please check this site regularly, and encourage your colleagues to do the same. 

  

  

  

  

 

 

© LEAF 2000

Keep LEAF members informed of events at YOUR College. E-mail us about any breaking news for inclusion in ONLINE News at leafunion@hotmail.com  

Return to top of Page