Is the Code of Practice on public sector staff transfers really preventing two-tier workforces? By Greg Cain
Under pressure from the unions, the Government has tightened-up public-sector contracting exercises involving staff transfers. First came the Cabinet Office Statement of Practice on Staff Transfers in the Public Sector in 2000, followed last year by the Code of Practice on Workforce Matters in Local Authority Service Contracts and accompanying guidance. The code's purpose is to restrict suppliers' ability to recruit staff onto public-sector contracts on inferior terms to former public-sector employees with TUPE-protected terms.
The code requires that private-sector providers employ transferred staff on their existing terms and conditions (with specific protection for pension entitlements). This is already covered by the Cabinet Office Statement of Practice. In addition, new staff recruited to work alongside the transferred staff must be given terms that are "overall, no less favourable" than those of the authority's former staff. The code also requires consultation on new recruits' terms, membership of a "good quality" pension scheme, and monitoring and enforcement arrangements.
The code's impact
This raises questions, however, as to whether this has prevented further examples of the two-tier workforce developing. Or are the new rules simply adding to the costs heaped on private-sector providers, thus ensuring that as much work as possible stays in the public sector?
Do the changes go far enough?
One view is that because the code applies only while the contractor retains employees who transferred from the authority, it will never achieve "best value"; contractors and subcontractors will be free to drive down terms once they are free of former public authority staff. This is even more likely to become a reality for staff working on contracts that have been re-let to new providers. Another view is that the code is simply a sop to the unions to mollify them about the Government's wider privatisation agenda.
Anecdotal evidence suggests there is no shortage of private-sector providers queuing up for public-sector work - and nor is the public sector showing any reluctance to give it to them. Further, some contracts are undoubtedly entered into outside the strict terms of the code, particularly given that it is still relatively new.
All this suggests that the code should be strengthened to ensure that providers cannot drive down terms by sacking former authority staff. However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that there are no plans to widen the code's ambit.
One obvious impact is to increase the costs faced by private-sector providers, which are simply charged back to the public authority. A problem for providers is employing new recruits on the same, or overall no less favourable, terms than employees transferred from the public sector. This may create equal pay issues between the new recruits and the provider's other employees. Providers may be able to argue that the differences are because of a material factor, not the difference in sex. Nevertheless, providers tend to be unhappy about the resulting pay structure anomalies.
Encouragingly, another effect has been to increase the prominence given to workforce issues throughout the contracting process. Previously, the focus was on a minimal level of compliance with TUPE information and consultation obligations. Now it is frequently on building workforce issues into the process as a whole. This has encouraged authorities and providers to deal properly with workforce issues. In that respect the code has succeeded.
In many cases, however, the spirit of the code may not be fulfiled, if the provider concerned no longer has any former authority staff. If this loophole is exploited, "best value" may remain an elusive objective.
Greg Cain is an employment lawyer at City law firm Field Fisher
Waterhouse
Points for HR managers of private sector providers
By the Local Government Best Value (Exclusion of Non-commercial
Considerations) Order 2001, workforce matters ceased to be
"non-commercial" matters to the extent that they are relevant to
"best value", or to a TUPE transfer. Such matters are therefore no
longer deemed to be irrelevant to the procurement process.
Xpert HR related content on Adoption Rights
XpertHR - Online HR Intelligence