1

REVIEW OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

FRAMEWORK


FE COLLEGES IN NORTHERN IRELAND.




















November 2013

Sir Robert Salisbury






2
Review Recommendations

Recommendation 1:

Though the Non-Teaching Negotiating Committee has been working satisfactorily the
other committees in the industrial relations framework are not fit for purpose so a total re-
think of present practices would seem appropriate.

Recommendation 2:

The sector needs to take ownership of its employee relations by moving towards an
employer led employee relations framework.

Recommendation 3:

The sectors should identify and implement a set of core values which encourage a
working model, to be followed by all parties, which moves from an instinctively
adversarial approach to the more collegiate, co-operative arrangements already found in
much of the negotiations evident in the Non Teaching Staff Negotiating Committee.

Recommendation 4:

As FE staff are currently subject to Public Sector pay and conditions, the statutory
negotiation should be undertaken by a single table Joint Negotiating Committee in
order to make procedures more streamlined and effective. This would have
representation from all unions and would meet once or twice a year to set pay and
conditions for:

* Directors and Senior Managers
* Middle Managers
* Lecturers
* Educational Support Staff

Negotiation would be exclusively on the statutory terms of pay, holidays and hours of
work. DEL would prepare an annual statement where pay limits are involved in advance
of the relevant meeting and the meeting would be chaired by a representative from CNI.
In exceptional cases where agreement cannot be reached a speedy deadlock-breaking
mechanism, unilaterally triggered, should be introduced and be conducted by a
representative of the LRA. The decision reached by the LRA will be binding thereafter on
all parties.
Time limits would need to be built in to all negotiations.





3
Recommendation 5:

That the nomenclature Non-Teaching Staff should be replaced in the future by the title
Educational Support Staff as this was seen as being less divisive and more presentative
of actual college practice.

Recommendation 6:

In order to move towards more harmonious employee relations practice the Joint
Negotiating Committee should consider creating one set of policies and procedures
common to all staff employed in the college sector. They should explore the merits of
developing a common Job Evaluation Scheme, based on a single salary spine which
encompasses the work of all staff and might in the future facilitate greater career
flexibility than the existing rigid divisions.

Recommendation 7:

That the Joint Negotiating Committee should consider the progress on the introduction of
common Job Evaluation Schemes already undertaken by some FE institutions in England
and by all colleges in Wales.

Recommendation 8:

That Northern Ireland FE colleges should continue with the practice of collective
bargaining as it is seen as being more cost effective, should create unity amongst
colleges and does provide a mechanism for collating local data which can influence the
strategic direction of all six colleges and the sector overall. However since the
implementation of central agreements have been interpreted differently by individual
colleges and has led to misunderstanding and mistrust, a transparent element of plant
bargaining should be introduced where matters only concern individual colleges.. All
consultation of a plant bargaining nature would need to be clearly defined and
documented by the development of an individual college policy.

Recommendation 9:

The starting point and emphasis for all consultation outside of statutory pay bargaining
should be based first and foremost within the individual colleges and should involve a
much wider cross section of all college staff. At the moment understanding and
involvement of staff in any change process appears at best haphazard and at worst non
existent so commitment to any adjustment in working practices or policy often
encounters opposition and suspicion. Greater involvement of all staff in consultation
should be achieved by the expansion or creation of Local College Forums, Drafting
Groups, Works Councils etc working informally and flexibly on all issues of policy or
change. These forums would consist of union representatives, non-union staff, college
HR staff and a more flexible membership depending on the expertise needed for any
particular subject under debate. All matters under review and their outcomes should be
4
communicated routinely to all college staff through core briefings or newsletters
which should begin to build better understanding and trust between groups.


Recommendation 10:

That consultation relating to the work of specific colleges should be considered as plant
bargaining and should not automatically become the business of any central consultation
forum. There may however be merit in considering collective consultations on a sectoral
basis on major issues that impact across all colleges.

Recommendation 11:

It is envisaged that these internal college consultation groups would undertake much of
the operational groundwork and any ideas or policies which were then deemed relevant
to all colleges and required some element of collective bargaining would then form the
agenda at a central Joint Consultative Forum for further discussion and signing off.

Recommendation 12:

The current structure of three negotiating committees for Lecturers, Directors and Non-
Teaching Staff should be scrapped and replaced by a single Joint Consultation Forum.
This would meet as and when necessary and would comprise a greater involvement of all
college employees. It would be chaired by CNI and its agenda would be determined by
matters emanating from the work of the college Works Councils or Staff Focus Groups.

Recommendation 13:

All consultations would be time boundand following a period of consultation,
management would make a decision and implement accordingly. In the case of statutory
negotiations, no one party would have the power of veto over matters under discussion
and in exceptional cases where agreement cannot be reached, a speedy deadlock-breaking
mechanism, unilaterally triggered, should be introduced and conducted by a
representative of the LRA. Outcomes from this process would be binding on all parties.

Recommendation 14:

New protocols and procedures for the conduct of the Joint Consultation Forum should be
devised to ensure that all parties involved in the consultative process have equal voice.
Any attempts to circumvent agreed procedures by any of the participating groups should
be investigated and exposed as this practice has in the past, inevitably lead to mistrust and
has repeatedly undermined the deliberations of the formal networks.




5
Recommendation 15:

Since the current industrial relations model is largely ineffective and dysfunctional a Task
Force comprising union representatives, college HR staff and DEL representatives would
need to be appointed immediately, under the auspices of the College Employers Forum
(CEF) in order to design a precise project brief, monitor the progress made, manage the
communication process and set out the expected timescale. Any delay in tackling these
matters would seem to be inappropriate and there is therefore an urgency to begin work
on these issues as soon as possible.

Recommendation 16:

As a starting point, all college staff , their union representatives, local politicians, DEL,
the media and any other stakeholders should be informed simultaneously by press
release about :

The apparent weaknesses of the current system:
The need for a model which gives a greater involvement of all staff in any
future consultation.
How their opinion on the creation of a new model will be sought.
The timescale for change.

Recommendation 17:


There is some confusion about the operational and strategic role of the Governing Bodies
of colleges and clarification of this may be helpful. Consideration might also be given to
the establishment of a Policy Forum comprising Governing bodies and DEL to liaise on
the future direction of the FE sector in NI.

















6

1 Introduction

I wish to thank the Board of Colleges NI for the opportunity to review the current
Industrial Relations Framework in the Further Education sector in Northern Ireland.

2 Aims of the Review

The full terms of reference for the review are attached as Appendix 1 but can be
summarised as follows:

a) To recommend an Industrial Relations Framework which is fit for purpose and
supports the needs of employers and all staff;
b) To review the functionality of the current system;
c) To meet with all relevant stakeholders; and
d) To recommend a course of action which addresses perceived weaknesses in the current
system.

3 Methodology

a) From the outset, it was considered vital that though this review had been
commissioned by the Board of Colleges NI, it should clearly be seen as impartial and
independent if a true and full understanding of the current position was to be attained.
With this in mind an open and collaborative approach to gathering information was
undertaken and a wide cross section of stakeholder engagements took place.

b) Between late September 2013 and early November 2013 I met with representatives
from over forty stakeholder groups from all six colleges including Chairs of Governing
Bodies, Directors and Senior Management, HR Directors, Curriculum Directors and Staff
Focus Groups. A broader range of stakeholders were also interviewed which included all
of the relevant trade unions, Association of Colleges(England), Colleges Scotland,
Colleges Wales, Labour Relations Agency, The Minister and Senior Officials of the
Department for Employment and Learning.

c) In all instances meetings were informal and stakeholders were encouraged to provide
frank opinions on the efficacy of the current arrangements and to provide suggestions for
change. It was emphasised at all meetings that Chatham House Rules would pertain and
that no individual opinion or contribution would be identified in the final report. This was
essentially a listening exercise and obvious bias or inaccuracy was not challenged
during the meetings in an attempt to discover the prevailing perceptions of the current
situation.

A full list of the individuals and organisations involved in the round of meetings is
included as Appendix 2.

7
d) Given the short timescale of this review, there was no formal call for evidence but
several organisations did submit useful written contributions which were helpful. Other
relevant papers, minutes of meetings and records of industrial relations going back
several years were also reviewed.

4 POSITION -Current Industrial Relations Framework in the FE Sector.

a) The current arrangements for the regulation of salaries and terms of conditions of
service in the further education sector have with some modifications been in operation
since incorporation in 1998. Basically there are three negotiating committees;

Lecturers

Non-Teaching Staff

Directors

In the interests of brevity, the detailed current arrangements for the negotiating
mechanisms for Further Education college staff are not itemised here but are contained in
a summary as Appendix 3

5 PROBLEM- Strengths and Weaknesses.

a) Though there are some positives in the current negotiating framework, the weaknesses
appear to greatly outnumber the strengths.

b) There was general agreement that given the small geographic area of Northern Ireland
the practice of Collective Bargaining as opposed to the stand alone model of individual
plant bargaining which exists in England and Scotland should be maintained. However
there were some confused messages here and impressions were that in practice this
arrangement was both a strength and a weakness. In theory it is seen as being more cost
effective, should create unity amongst colleges and does provide a mechanism for
collating local data which can influence the strategic direction of all six colleges and the
sector overall. If in the future it was decided to seek greater autonomy for the FE sector
undoubtedly some of the colleges would have the capacity and capability to deliver on
plant bargaining, but others would struggle to do so at present. Comment was made
that in practice competition rather than collaboration still prevails between colleges and
failure to implement agreements or the selective interpretation of policy does create
cracks and rifts which can be exploited by those initially opposed to any agreement.
This also creates a mistrust and lack of faith in the current system. There was also some
suggestion that individual colleges occasionally use the collective bargaining process as
a smokescreen to hide behind rather than addressing contentious matters internally.
Some felt any new system must enshrine the concept of collective bargaining for pay
and conditions of service but confusingly added that FE lecturers should not be classified
as public sector workers and should be treated in the same way as Higher Education
8
lecturers and be free to negotiate their pay with their employers which is in fact plant
bargaining.

c) The Non-Teaching Negotiating Committee has been working satisfactorily over the
past few years possibly because most matters are settled by the NJC beforehand, union
staff are trained in modern plant bargaining which ensures fewer problems and quicker
solutions and college management is treated with a respect which is reciprocated.
Meetings are very structured and business is conducted in a mature fashion.
Three of the colleges reported specifically that they have satisfactory relationships with
their support staff union representatives.


d) There is a clear distinction and identity between the three negotiating committees and
educational support staff particularly, thought this divisive and did not promote the notion
of wholesale sector identity. Most complained that the nomenclature Non-Teaching
Staff was in itself derogatory and gave the impression that their contribution was not as
highly regarded or as important as that of lecturing staff. Most educational support staff
felt that the title Lecturer had itself become redundant as more people are fulfilling roles
which bridge the traditional demarcations. Several staff commented that not having
one set of policies and procedures common to all staff employed in the college sector was
not good employee relations practice and the historic divisions are unhelpful and
artificial. Several commented that a Job Evaluation Scheme based on a single spine
which encompasses all staff should be developed and implemented. This structure is used
in some FE institutions in England and is currently nearing implementation in all colleges
inWales.

e) The Directors Negotiating Committee works satisfactorily but appears to meet
infrequently and last met two and a half years ago so its purpose and efficacy is unclear.

f) One union made that point that though Middle Management personnel have become a
key layer in FE they are under-represented in the current framework.

g) Clearly the operation of the Lecturers Negotiating Committee (LNC) is the forum
which has elicited most comment from the stakeholder groups and which appears to be
viewed as the most dysfunctional and fractious. Reasons given for this apparent tension
were;
* Attitudes on both sides which are adversarial, dug in and intransigent.
Comments made were often harsh and territorial with little sense of
compromise with a common theme along the lines of the main union is stuck in
the 1970s and what they have they hold to the directors who act like little tin
gods and have no idea of modern industrial relations. It was generally not easy
to find hard evidence of the causes of these entrenched perceptions.
* Lack of clarity about what is for negotiation and what for consultation.
* Issues in one college are brought to the table as regional issues.
* Existing protocols for conducting LNC meetings lead to the cult of personality
and grandstanding.
9
* The right of veto leads to impasse and a backlog of unresolved issues.
* There is no practical form of arbitration which is time-bound.


* Too little preparatory work is done by drafting Groups or Works Councils.
* Too much power and influence has been given to one union and the current
structure is a union-led employee model rather than an employer led employee
relations framework.


h) Most members of staff in the Focus Groups were largely ignorant of the general
principles and detail of their negotiating or consultation machinery though this awareness
did vary between colleges. There was a lack of consistency about how staff members
were consulted in regard to their employer relations and whilst some colleges had a staff
forum others said:
* Their opinions about terms and conditions were never sought. I have never
been asked what I think and I dont know anyone else who has.
* Internal communications are generally regarded as poor.
* Unions do hold branch meetings but attendance is small.
* Non-union members have no forum so who decided the agenda at the LNC?

i) There was a general lack of clarity about the role of Colleges NI in the negotiating
process and opinion was divided as to whether or not it was a neutral organisation
which represented all sectors of FE or whether its main purpose was as a mouthpiece for
the college Directors.

j) There was also division in terms of the Labour Relations Agency. Some viewed it as
independent and impartial whilst others saw it as tainted and prejudiced.

k) There was a lack of clarity surrounding the role of DEL in the current Industrial
Relations model.

l) There was some evidence that although the protocols and procedures for the conduct of
the current employee relations model are defined in precise detail, in practice a culture
has grown where on occasions when no agreement can be reached unofficial networks
are immediately brought into play which attempt to circumvent the official channels.
This may involve calls directly to DEL, calls to individual college governors, approaches
to politicians or leaks to the media, all of which serve to devalue and undermine the
recognised networks.

m) Most interviewees thought HR staff with delegated powers to make decisions would
be more appropriate in negotiations/consultations than Directors. Others felt that they had
become increasingly disillusioned by the abdication of members of Governing Bodies
from any responsibility for negotiations at the LNC.


10

6 POSSIBILITIES

a) The current system could be left alone with no changes made but it is clear that most
stakeholders feel that it is not fit for purpose and has not been so for many years.
Procedures are relatively trouble free with the educational support staff but in the LNC
they have become fraught and non- productive. Too many issues remain unresolved or
take far too long to reach agreement and this is damaging for the sector in general.

b) Northern Ireland FE colleges could move to a plant bargaining model where
individually they would have greater autonomy to run their own affairs as happens in
England but at the moment there seems little interest either from DEL or colleges in
taking this course. However if the current inflexibility of the collective bargaining
model continues to impact negatively on the operational flexibility and potential of all
colleges, there might come a time when the more progressive institutions deem it
preferable to manage their own affairs and go it alone. Interestingly, colleges in
Scotland, which have traditionally worked as stand alone institutions are currently
moving towards a more collective model.

c) It might be possible to make minor adjustments to the existing model by such
mechanisms as the introduction of external private arbitration consultants, or by making
all discussions and agreements more limited in scope and time bound but to some extent
this has been attempted before and has not proved especially productive.

d) Structures currently employed in the rest of the UK could be adapted to suit NI and
though there are some ideas which may be helpful, systems in Wales, Scotland or
England for various reasons would not meet our needs. FE structures in the south of
Ireland are not compatible.

e) Go for a total re-think of the current system which promotes harmonious working
relationships, is fair to all staff and enables the FE sector to provide a full user-led
educational provision fit for the 21
st
century.





7 PROPOSAL

a) The current system is not fit for purpose and the sector needs to take ownership of its
employee relations through an employer led employee relations framework so a total
re-think of present practices would seem appropriate.

b) This should identify and implement a set of core values which tries to encourage a
working model, followed by all parties, which moves from an instinctively adversarial
11
approach to the more collegiate, co-operative arrangements already found in much of the
negotiations evident in the Non Teaching Staff Negotiating Committee.

c) While ever FE staff are subject to Public Sector pay and conditions the statutory
negotiation should move towards a single table Joint Negotiating system with
representations from all unions which would meet once or twice a year to set pay and
conditions for:
* Directors and Senior Managers
* Middle Managers
* Lecturers
* Educational Support Staff

Negotiation would be exclusively on the statutory terms of pay, holidays and hours of
work.

DEL would prepare an annual statement where pay limits are involved in advance of the
relevant meeting summarising the annual limits of Public Sector Pay Policy for that year.

The meeting would be chaired by a representative from CNI.

d) To facilitate more harmonious working relationships across the sector it is proposed
that the emphasis for all other consultation outside of statutory pay bargaining should be
based first and foremost within the individual colleges. Local College Forums, Drafting
Groups, Works Councils etc working informally and flexibly on all issues of policy or
practice have proved to be highly productive and constructive in other parts of the UK.
These forums would consist of union representatives, college HR staff and flexible
membership depending on the expertise needed for any particular subject under debate.
A localised structure such as this would:

Allow the six colleges to consult on their particular operational issues and
where necessary accommodate an element of plant bargaining suited to their
particular geographic or developmental needs
Enable all staff or their representatives to be part of the process
Would be an automatic element in any change process
Would allow issues specific to individual colleges to be resolved within that
college.
Would massively improve internal communications and would hopefully
encourage greater staff involvement in the planning and implementation of
operational matters
Would increase commitment and enhance awareness and understanding of the
current issues facing the FE sector
Would begin to build trust and respect between all staff

This group would undertake much of the leg work on terms and conditions of service
with the overarching body ratifying this work.

12
e) Policies or issues resulting from the groundwork done by these college drafting
groups which then required some form of collective bargaining could form the agenda
at a Joint Consultative Forum for further discussion and final signing off.

f) The Joint Consultation Forum would meet as and when necessary and would comprise
a greater involvement of all college employees. It would be chaired by CNI. All
consultations would be time boundand following a period of consultation, management
would make a decision and implement accordingly. In the case of statutory negotiations,,
no one party would have the power of veto over matters under discussion and in
exceptional cases where agreement cannot be reached, a speedy deadlock-breaking
mechanism, unilaterally triggered, should be introduced and conducted by a
representative of the LRA. Outcomes from this process would be binding on all parties.

g) Elements of plant bargaining accepted by the Joint Consultation Forum would need
to be clearly defined and documented by individual college policy.

h) Time limits need to be built in to all consultations.


8 CHALLENGES

Given the recent history of industrial relationships in the FE sector over the past few
years, it is reasonable to assume there will be substantial challenge to any proposed
changes. This resistance will be exacerbated if:

Stakeholders have little understanding of the need for change
Politicians and DEL officials do not fully back the proposals
All six colleges do not act together
Communication on the proposed changes is not effective, transparent and
frequent
Consultation is not based on honesty, integrity and mutual respect
Agreed lines of communication are short circuited or by-passed


9 COURSE OF ACTION

If the Board of Colleges NI / College Employers Forum decide to move forward with an
employer led employee relations model a Task Force or Working Group comprising
union representatives, college HR staff and DEL representatives would need to be
appointed in order to:

Design a precise project brief
Monitor the progress made
Manage the communication process
Set out the expected timescale

13



10 DRAFT TIMELINE

This would be agreed by the Governing Bodies (in their capacity as employing
authorities) and staff of the individual colleges but in principle, given the apparent
weaknesses of the current system, further delay in tackling this matter would seem to be
inappropriate and there is therefore an urgency to begin work on these issues as soon as
possible.


11 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

There were a range of observations raised by various stakeholders which, since they were
well beyond the remit of this review, can quite justifiably be totally disregarded, but may
never- the- less be of some general interest:

a) Many of the people interviewed had no clear understanding of the role FE was
expected to play in the overall educational provision in Northern Ireland. When asked
How do you see the future of the sector? answers were generally vague, lacked any
notion of a common purpose and often hankered back to a past where conditions were
seen as much better then. If staff are being asked to be more flexible, innovative,
enterprising and adaptable in order to accommodate the demands of a less predictable
emerging economy in NI perhaps it is time to make sure this new ethos and purpose is
fully understood by all of the people expected to fulfil it? Colleges currently do an
excellent job for people with time on their hands but still have some way to go for
people with no time on their hands.

b) There was also some evidence of slight confusion about the precise role of the
Governing Bodies of colleges in these changing times. What is their strategic role in the
overall development of the FE sector in NI and how are their views incorporated into any
future policy development? Perhaps a Policy Forum for DEL and Governors would be
useful. Clarification of roles in terms of operational/strategic may also prove a helpful
dialogue.

c) Internal communications in some colleges were seen as being poor and in need of
review.

d)Most felt that the role of Colleges NI should be clarified.

e) Several comments were made that current contracts and structures do not allow scope
to reward staff financially for additional input or commitment which is a disincentive and
should be reviewed.


14
I would like to thank all those who took part in this short review for their honesty,
openness and professionalism.




Sir Robert Salisbury Nov 2013.







































15

APPENDIX 1


Review of Industrial Relations Framework August
2013
Terms of Reference

1. Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to provide a Terms of Reference for the review of the
Industrial Relations Framework in Further Education (FE) in Northern Ireland.
The paper defines the strategic context, aim and objectives of the review and the
structure and timeframe required. It is envisaged that this review will outline a
series of recommendations which will enable the FE sector to address the current
weaknesses in industrial relations.
2. Background
The current Industrial Relations Framework for the regulation of salaries and
terms and conditions of service in the FE sector has been in operation since the
incorporation of the further education colleges in 1998.
Prior to 1998 the salaries and terms and conditions of employment for lecturers
were negotiated by the Further Education Negotiating Committee (FENC), a body
comprising Education and Library Board (ELB) officers and Department of
Education (DENI) officials on the management side and NATFHE (now UCU)
and NASUWT members on the staff side. In addition, a consultative committee
made up of ELB officers, DENI officials and College Principals met twice a year
to discuss matters that were not for negotiation. The management side agreed to a
range of issues being discussed in the FENC and the outcomes of these
discussions transferred, under TUPE, to the Colleges at the point of incorporation.
Salaries and terms and conditions of employment for non-teaching staff were
negotiated by the National Joint Council in England modified where required and
appropriate by a local (Northern Ireland) negotiating committee comprising the
ELBs on the management side and the recognised unions representing non-
teaching staff.
In essence the ELBs were the employers for both lecturing and support staff.
In 1997, the year prior to incorporation, arrangements were put in place by the
Colleges, as employers, for three negotiating committees as follows:
Lecturers Lecturers Negotiating Committee (LNC) with
Directors on the management side and UCU and
NASUWT on the staff side.
Non Teaching Staff The NonTeaching Staff Negotiating Committee
(NTSNC) with Principals, and now HR Managers,
on the management side and recognised unions
representing non-teaching staff.
Directors Directors Negotiating Committee (DNC) with
Chairs of Governing Bodies on the management
side and AMIE, UCU, the Association of Principals
16
of Colleges and the National Association of
Teachers in Further and Higher Education on the
staff side.
There has been some modification to the above since 1998 but the basic structure
has not been changed. The opportunity was not taken at the point of incorporation
to review the fitness for purpose of the arrangements transferring to the
Colleges. The constitutions of the negotiating committees are attached at
Appendix 1.
3 Current position
The Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) commissioned a review of
industrial relations in North West Regional College (NWRC) which was carried
out last autumn. The outcome of that review, the McConnell Report, was
published in February 2013.

In assessing the state of industrial relations in NWRC, the author of the report also
made reference to employee relations at regional level. He found a general
consensus that the Non-Teaching Staff Negotiating Committee tends to be more
productive and less confrontational than the Lecturers Negotiating Committee
(LNC). In part, this was seen as due to the significance and complexity of the
LNCs remit.

McConnell reports the operation of the LNC as being regarded by management as
dysfunctional and by staff as fractured and that both sides regarded regional
issues to be at a standstill. He cites the need for the Committee to be chaired on a
permanent basis by the LRA and the existence of protocols to regulate the conduct
of participants as indicative of the poor state of industrial relations at regional
level.

DEL takes the view that the reports references to LNC, in particular, need to be
addressed and they anticipate the Northern Ireland Assemblys Departmental
Committee sharing that view. DEL has stated that they would welcome a response
from the sector to the issues raised, possibly through the establishment of a formal
review of industrial relations at regional level.

Recent chronology
Autumn 2012 DEL: commissioned review of industrial relations in
NWRC.
February 2013 Report on the review of industrial relations in NWRC (the
McConnell report) published.
22 March 2013 DEL letter to CNI seeking a sectoral response to
McConnells references to the operation of LNC, in
particular.
Early June 2013 Draft terms of reference for a review of Industrial Relations
in FE


17

4. Aim of the Review
The aim of the review is to recommend an Industrial Relations Framework which
is fit for purpose, flexible and supports the needs of employers and all staff. The
outcome of the review and subsequent recommendations and decisions will be
taken forward by the College Employers Forum (CEF).
5. Structure of the Review
The review will be conducted by Sir Robert Salisbury and will result in the
production of a draft report to the CEF by November 2013, outlining coherent
proposals and recommendations for establishing and implementing a new
Industrial Relations Framework.
6. Objectives of the Review
The objectives of the Review are to:
Review the functionality of the current Industrial Relations Framework at
regional level within the FE Sector in Northern Ireland including strengths
and weaknesses. This review will include the current role of DNC, LNC,
NTSNC and the Labour Relations Agency. It will also examine the
function of Governing Bodies and the CEF in relation to current Industrial
Relations.
Undertake appropriate and meaningful engagement with sector relevant
stakeholders, namely employers and recognised trade unions.
Explore options and set out clear recommendations for an Industrial
Relations Framework which addresses the weaknesses in the current
model. The recommendations are to include but not be limited to:
Identifying the scope for negotiating machinery;
Identifying challenges in implementing a new Industrial Relations
Framework
Recommend a course of action to implement solutions.
Provide a realistic timescale for the implementation of the
recommendations.
7. Timing of the Review
The review should be complete by the first week of November 2013 at the latest
to facilitate discussion at the CEF meeting on 19
th
November 2013.







18


APPENDIX 2


LIST OF ORGANISATIONS WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO THIS REVIEW

Further Education Colleges

Chairs of Governing Bodies of:

Belfast Metropolitan College (BMC)
Northern Regional College (NRC)
North West Regional College (NWRC)
Southern Regional College (SRC)
South Eastern Regional College (SERC)
South West College (SWC)

The Director and senior management of:

Belfast Metropolitan College (BMC)
Northern Regional College (NRC)
North West Regional College (NWRC)
Southern Regional College (SRC)
South Eastern Regional College (SERC)
South West College (SWC)

Human Resource Directors and Curriculum
Directors of:

Belfast Metropolitan College (BMC)
Northern Regional College (NRC)
North West Regional College (NWRC)
Southern Regional College (SRC)
South Eastern Regional College (SERC)
South West College (SWC)

Focus groups of:

Belfast Metropolitan College (BMC)
Northern Regional College (NRC)
North West Regional College (NWRC)
Southern Regional College (SRC)
South Eastern Regional College (SERC)
South West College (SWC)

19



Trade Unions:

Association of Teachers
and Lecturers / Association of
Managers in Education (ATL / AMiE)

National Association of
Schoolmasters and
Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT)

Northern Ireland Public Service (NIPSA)
Alliance

UNISON
UNITE
University and Colleges Union (UCU)

Other individuals and Organisations

Agenda NI
Association of Colleges (England)*
Chair of the Industrial Court

Chair of the Lecturers, Non-teaching staff and Directors
Negotiating Committees

The Minister and senior officials of the
Department for Employment and Learning

Colleges Scotland*
Colleges Wales*
Labour Relations Agency
New College Nottingham*


* Conference call







20

APPENDIX 3

SUMMARY OF THE NEGOTIATING MECHANISMS FOR
FURTHER EDUCATION COLLEGE STAFF


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Three committees were formed as the machinery to negotiate the salaries
and conditions of service of the following groups of staff, employed by
Further Education Colleges:

Directors/Deputy Directors - Directors Negotiating Committee (DNC)
Lecturers - Lecturers Negotiating Committee (LNC)
Non-teaching staff - Non-teaching staff Negotiating Committee (NTSNC)

1.2 A constitution for each committee determines the following:

Interpretation defines the meanings of expressions used in the
constitution
Functions
Membership
Secretariat
Chairmanship of meetings
Period of office
Appointment of members
Withdrawal by either side, with the appropriate notice
Organisation and management of the Committees
Amendment of Constitution
Rules of procedure

21
1.3 This paper summarises the various mechanisms under which each
committee operates.

2. GENERAL SHARED PROCESSES

2.1 All three negotiating committees operate on the same basis, regarding the
following:

Secretariat:
Management and staff side appoint one member each to act as secretary
for each side.

Period of Office:
The Committee runs for 4 years, beginning 1 April and ending 31 March.

Appointment of members:
Each organisation, which is entitled to representation on the committee,
informs the chairperson, in writing, of those it wishes to be members, in
good time for the incoming period of office.
A Member of the committee ceases, as such, if an organisation withdraws
his appointment.
If a vacancy occurs on the committee, it shall be filled by the appropriate
appointing organisation, so as to preserve the committees composition.

Organisation & management of the committee:
A vacancy or defect in any appointment will not invalidate the committees
proceedings.
If a member cannot attend, his/her organisation may send a substitute.
Substitutes have the same rights as substantive members.
The committee can appoint sub-committees, as necessary, and delegate
powers as it sees fit. Both sides may only co-opt two persons to the sub-
22
committees which are not members of the main committee. The sub-
committees members appoint the chairperson of that sub-committee.
The chairperson shall rule on any matter not covered in the constitution or
rules of procedure.
Communications with the chairperson should normally be made through
the secretariat.

Amendment of constitution:
This is subject to the agreement of each of the organisations represented
by Management Side and Staff Side of the committee.
Proposals for amendments shall be sent to the chairperson (through the
secretariat), who shall circulate a copy of the proposal to each member of
the committee.
The amendment shall not be considered by the committee until at least
four weeks after the date of circulation.

Agenda:
This is decided in consultation between the Chairperson and the joint
secretaries.
This is circulated at least 7 days before the meeting and includes date,
time and place.

Minutes:
These are to include:
Minutes of previous meeting.
Matters arising (other than those itemised on the agenda).
Reports (including sub-committee reports).
Other relevant substantive matters.



23
Business:
Only items on the agenda may be discussed at the meeting, except with
the agreement of the chairperson and both sides.
The secretariat provides papers, 7 days prior to the meeting, to the
chairperson and members of the committee.
The committees decisions are reached by agreement of both sides and
recorded in the minutes and circulated to the employers forum and the
department and others, as appropriate.

Topics:
A topic can be presented by either side after consultation with the
representative organisations and the membership of that side; this does
not necessarily preclude other members of the appropriate side from
taking part in discussions.
Topics shall not relate to individual cases.

Deliberations:
If a matter is agreed by both sides of a committee, a statement about the
deliberations of the committee may be issued after any meeting by the
Secretariat with the agreement of the Joint Secretaries.
The deliberations of a committee are in confidence.
However, members of a committee may, during the progress of
negotiations, consult the executive or similar bodies of their parent
organisations, and may reveal on a confidential basis, to such bodies,
such information as may be necessary for receiving instructions as to the
action to be taken by the members of that committee.

Involving the Labour Relations Agency:
If agreement cannot be reached between both sides of the committee, the
dispute may, with the agreement of both sides, be referred for conciliation
by the Labour Relations Agency.
24


3. GENERAL INDIVIDUAL PROCESSES

3.1 In addition to the above processes, which are operated in the same way
by each negotiating committee, there are some areas in which each
committee operates slightly differently to their counterparts. These are
detailed in the table below.



25

Differences in the Negotiating Mechanisms for FE College Staff
Directors Negotiating Committee
(DNC)
Lecturers Negotiating
Committee (LNC)
Non-Teaching Staff
Negotiating Committee
(NTSNC)
Function:
To negotiate the remuneration and
conditions of service of directors/ deputy
directors of constituent colleges.

Membership:
Management 4 members from among
the governors, appointed by the
employers.
Staff max. 3 members -1 (if they have
members at 4 colleges), 1more (if they
have members at 9 colleges) and a
further 1 (if they have membership at 13
colleges).



Chairmanship of committee:
Both sides, having agreed to a
chairperson, consult with the Labour
Relations Agency (LRA) and appoint a
mutually-agreed chairperson. If the
Chairperson is unavoidably prevented
from attending a meeting, those present
can agree to a chairperson from among
Function:
To negotiate the remuneration and
conditions of service of lecturers of
constituent colleges.

Membership:
Management 2 members from
among the governors, appointed by
the employers.
Staff 1 representative for each 300
members of a trade union, provided
that a trade union with less than 300,
but at least 150 members, shall be
given one place; such members to be
full-time permanent lecturers in
constituent colleges.

Chairmanship of committee:
Both sides, having agreed to a
chairperson, consult with the Labour
Relations Agency (LRA) and appoint a
mutually-agreed chairperson. If the
Chairperson is unavoidably prevented
from attending a meeting, those
present can agree to a chairperson
Function:
To negotiate the remuneration and
conditions of service of non-teaching
staff of constituent colleges.

Membership:
Management 6 members from
among the employers forum.
Staff 3 representatives to be
appointed by NIPSA
1 representative to be appointed by
AT&GWU
1 representative to be appointed by
UNISON
1 representative to be appointed by
GMB/APEX.

Chairmanship of committee:
Both sides, having agreed to a
chairperson, consult with the Labour
Relations Agency (LRA) and appoint a
mutually-agreed chairperson. The
chairperson shall not be a member of
either Management Side or Trade
Union Side. The chairperson shall
26
their number.






Withdrawal:
Each party could have withdrawn prior to
the completion of the first period of the
arrangements.

Organisation & management of the
committee:
The quorum is 3 representatives on each
side.


Rules of Procedure
Calling a meeting:
The committee meets when business
requires. The chairperson must call a
meeting within 21 days of a request of
either secretary.


Arbitration:
Failing any settlement, the committee
shall meet to discuss whether the issue
should be submitted to arbitration. The
form of any arbitration will be in
from among their number.






Withdrawal:
Each party can withdraw from the
arrangements by giving 3 months
notice to the chairperson.

Organisation & management of the
committee:
The quorum is 4 representatives from
staff side and 2 from management
side.

Rules of Procedure
Calling a meeting:
The committee meets when business
requires. The chairperson must call a
meeting within 21 days of a request of
either secretary.


Arbitration:
Failing any settlement, the committee
shall meet to discuss whether the
issue should be submitted to
arbitration. The form of any arbitration
hold office for the same period as the
committee. If the Chairperson is
unavoidably prevented from attending
a meeting, those present can agree to
a chairperson from among their
number.

Withdrawal:
Each party can withdraw from the
arrangements by giving 6 months
notice to the chairperson.

Organisation & management of the
committee:
The quorum is 3 representatives on
each side.


Rules of Procedure
Calling a meeting:
The committee meets 4 times a year,
when business requires. The
chairperson must call a meeting within
21 days of a request of either
secretary.

Arbitration:
Failing any settlement, the committee
shall meet to discuss whether the
issue should be submitted to
arbitration. The form of any arbitration
27
accordance with an arbitration procedure
agreed by both sides of a committee.
will be in accordance with an
arbitration procedure agreed by both
sides of a committee. In the absence
of agreement, the LRA will decide the
form of the arbitration to be used.
will be in accordance with an
arbitration procedure agreed by both
sides of a committee.