The University’s Problem Resolution Framework (PRF) is a collective agreement first negotiated about a decade ago.  It brought together under a single umbrella grievance, disciplinary, sickness absence and other policies which were previously separate. The overarching aim was to make sure that staff were treated fairly and with dignity and respect.  The policies are contractual, but framed by legislative requirements and in line with ACAS codes of practice.  Any changes to the PRF need to be agreed with the four recognised trade unions, including UNISON, and from time to time policies over the years have been reviewed and amended.  

The Unions are currently involved with management in reviewing the PRF as a whole, as it is a long time since it was written.   Unions and management do agree that there are some aspects of PRF that we would like to change – for example, the investigation process often takes too long to complete (although it is quicker than it was).   However, we no doubt have different perspectives on other issues, and about the best way to improve things.  

It is important to emphasise that the PRF exists to help deal with issues where normal line management tools have been exhausted, or where a complaint is sufficiently serious to be made formal straight away.  It should never be used as a threat or as a sanction in itself.   We expect managers to line manage effectively, which should help resolve most problems.  Of course, that means that line managers – many of whom are trade union members themselves, of course – need the training and support to help them do so.    The PRF cannot be seen in isolation in this respect.

 Your UNISON reps spend a lot of time supporting members involved in PRF processes, and so we know how stressful the experience can be.  When you may already be struggling with your health or other issues, it is difficult to also engage effectively with an unfamiliar process you may not trust or feel confident about and in which it can feel as though your employer is lined up against you – of course, this is why trade union representation is so important!    Of course, we also have to recognise the necessity of having formal processes like PRF.  What we want to do is improve the experience for our members.  

 How do you think the PRF could be improved?  If you have experiences of PRF – what worked well, what didn’t work so well – which you would like to share with us to help inform the review, please get in touch.”

Job sharing is a way of promoting equality in the workplace by making otherwise full-time posts available to those who cannot work full-time for any reason.

 According to information on the HR Directorate intranet (https://portal.shu.ac.uk/departments/HRD/polproc/jobshare/Pages/home.aspx), “The University actively supports job sharing where it is reasonable and practical to do so and where operational needs will not be adversely affected.”    Furthermore, the guidance on recruiting to posts considered unsuitable for job sharing states that “All posts are considered eligible for job sharing unless a manager can demonstrate that job sharing of a specific post is unsuitable on the grounds of operational requirements.” (https://portal.shu.ac.uk/departments/HRD/polproc/jobshare/Pages/unsuitableforjobshare.aspx).   Managers have to submit a business case if they think that a post should be exempt for being available on a job share basis.

UNISON is keen to ensure that as many vacancies as possible are considered suitable for job share and are advertised on that basis.   However, casework and feedback from members told us that there are concerns that job share opportunities are drying up in some areas.  There is a perception that managers are becoming less willing to offer posts on a job share basis, and that the bar for exempting posts is set too low.   Is this true, and if so what has changed (we are not aware of any University policy change)?

 The Branch wanted to investigate the situation, and so a couple of activists – Phil Henshaw and Tracey Holland – volunteered to collect statistics on current vacancies.  It turned out that between October 2015 and January 2016, there were 15 administrative-type vacancies at grades 5 and 6 that were classified as unsuitable for job sharing: this seems a very high number.   A number of these were short-term contracts, but that wouldn’t necessarily be a reason for ruling out a job share arrangement.   

We are keen to explore this issue further and to take up members’ concerns with management.   We are interested to hear about your job-share experiences (good or bad) – so get in touch!”