MINUTES OF THE EXTRA ORDINARY TRUST BOARD MEETING IN PUBLIC Thursday 29 March 2018 Seminar Room 2, SJUH

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF THE EXTRA ORDINARY TRUST BOARD MEETING IN PUBLIC Thursday 29 March 2018 Seminar Room 2, SJUH Present: Linda Pollard Chair Mark Chamberlain Non-Executive Director Carl Chambers Non-Executive Director Richard Corbridge Chief Digital & Information Officer Mark Ellerby Non-Executive Director Julian Hartley Chief Executive Suzanne Hinchliffe Chief Nurse & Deputy Chief Executive Moira Livingston Non-Executive Director Jas Narang Associate Non-Executive Director Dr Yvette Oade Chief Medical Officer Simon Neville Director of Strategy & Planning Bob Simpson Non-Executive Director Professor Paul Stewart Non-Executive Director Simon Worthington Director of Finance In Attendance: Jo Bray Trust Board Secretary Vickie Baines Trust Board & Membership Administrator Chris Carvey Deputy Director of HR Ross Langford Head of Communications Richard Pierce Senior HR Manger Jane Westmoreland Associate Director of Communications Observing: Chris Schofield Future Non-Executive Director Apologies: Dean Royles Director of Human Resources & Organisational Development Audience: Peter Aldridge Head of Fire and Security Denise Carr Nick Casey Jon Craven Head of Estates Iain Dalton Socialist Party, TUC Pat Kershaw Bill Nichols Medical Physics Engineer Megan Overhead Michael Parkinson Gilda Peterson Volunteer/ KONP Jon Pickett John Puntis Consultant/ KONP John Rattigan Unite Dave Slater Security Manager There was one member of Press in the audience. 1

2 Agenda Item 1 Welcome and Introductions The Trust Chair opened the meeting and explained proceedings for the extra ordinary meeting. Apologies for Absence Apologies for absences were received from Dean Royles. Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest and the meeting was quorate. 4 Wholly Owned Subsidiary 4.1 Context and Feedback from Staff and Stakeholder Engagement Julian Hartley summarised the communications and engagement activity which had taken place to date. He noted that each Board member had attended at least one of the staff engagement sessions. ACTION He reminded that no final decision had been made to the establishment of a Wholly Owned Subsidiary (WOS) and reiterated the principles that the Board were committed to during the engagement phase: Listening to staff views. Being open and honest Behaving in The Leeds Way Partnership working Julian Hartley presented an engagement update on the WOS which covered the following areas: What does this mean for staff? Why are we (the Trust) proposing this? Key feedback themes, which included: Not being part of the NHS. Concerns around terms and conditions (T&C). Understanding the commercial and financial reasons. Future of the new company. He noted that the Board had received several questions in relation to the WOS from members of the public which were presented with respective answers and had been circulated electronically to Board members prior to the meeting. He continued that these would not be addressed directly at the Board meeting but assured the Board that all questions had been answered appropriately and/or referred to the WOS QA document available at the meeting and on the website with the papers for today s meeting. He highlighted from the presentation the Trusts commitment towards the Living Wage for Estates and Facilities (E&F) staff noting that this was now 2

3 obsolete following the Government s national pay award announcement for Agenda for Change staff. He continued that the Trust would still commit to investing an additional 2M in this staff group. He referenced the drive for continuous savings within the NHS, noting that the WOS would generate income which in turn would allow for investment in buildings noting the Trust s ageing estate. He outlined his vision for the future for the Leeds Children s Hospital and Building the Leeds Way, the redevelopment of the LGI site. He reflected that with the establishment of a WOS the Trust would be able to provide services such as retail catering in-house rather than outsourcing. He reinforced that if the Trust did decide to pursue the option of a subsidiary company it would be owned 100% by the Trust and the LTHT Trust Board would be retain control. He commended the attendance at the WOS staff engagement events and thanked all staff members who had attended and engaged in the meetings. He summarised the next steps for the WOS proposal advising that the engagement phase with staff needed to be extended to fully listen and understand their feedback on this proposal. 4.2 Representation from Trade Unions The Trust Chair explained that no timetable had been put in place to establish the WOS to allow for full engagement and summarised the details of the WOS reviewed by the Board and other options explored. She reminded that a copy of the WOS QA was available online which contained the Trusts response to frequently asked questions. A printed copy of this document was provided for meeting attendees. Michael Parkinson sought clarity that the 2M additional staff investment cited by Julian Hartley was on top of the national pay award which was confirmed. Julian Hartley referenced the Trusts commitment to the Agenda for Change (AfC) pay award. Denise Carr handed a petition to the Trust Chair on behalf of and explained that this would be on on-going collection and moving forward would be a joint petition between and Unite. She continued that to date there were 1015 signatures to the online petition including comments which she had provided a printed copy of for the Trust Board, and 1017 signatures to the paper hard copy petition. Iain Dalton submitted a petition to the Trust Chair on behalf of Trades Union Congress (TUC). Denise Carr updated on s position on the establishment of WOSs which was to oppose them at both a national and local level. 3

4 She continued that it appeared that the driver for the project was cost reduction noting that no business model had been seen by, and they could not see any clear benefits for staff or patients. She referenced Airedale NHS Foundation Trust, noting their driver for establishing a WOS and recognising they were anticipating to save 1M on T&Cs and asked if this was a driver for the Trust. She raised that not enough information on the establishment of the WOS had been received by staff and Trade Union representatives which hindered a full engagement and consultation process. She reflected that the WOS could tout for business and potentially be sold on which would leave existing staff vulnerable. She reiterated s main concerns around T&Cs for existing and new staff and prevention of a two tier workforce. She exampled other trusts in the region who had set up a WOS, noting that each had ultimately created a two tier workforce, with worse conditions for new staff. She continued that according to research done by the national office only one trust (Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust) had created a WOS that had kept new and existing staff on NHS T&Cs and in the NHS pension scheme. She put forward a question about any partnership between the Trust and Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust. She continued that West Yorkshire Labour MPs were backing the s position and saw the establishment of a WOS as privatisation of the NHS. She concluded that if the decision to establish a WOS was approved the Trust would be facing challenge from and potential strike action. Michael Parkinson stressed staff loyalty to the NHS and reiterated s opposition to the WOS. He felt that the objectives the Trust were seeking from the creation of a WOS (including benefits to staff) could be achieved via an alternative in-house model. Iain Dalton raised a concern on the impact to new starters, noting the potential differentiation between pay rises for new and existing staff. He continued that as the WOS grew other pressures would be become apparent including a conflict between NHS services and private services, raising a concern of competition between the Trust and paying customers. John Puntis recognised that the WOS was addressing the issues of historic national underfunding in the NHS. He reflected that to a certain extent, trusts had been pushed down this pathway and enquired if the Board had felt pressured into this decision. He referenced the information provided on WOSs on the NHS Providers website: ( 4

5 nhs/key-points) noting that the majority of the key statements were overwhelmingly positive and in favour of the WOS. He continued that there was no mention of a two tier workforce or reference to privatisation. He explained that the WOS was classified under the World Health Organisations definition of privatisation, as the WOS would generate income ( He reflected that tax changes were an important driver behind this movement and stressed that the Trust be honest and open about this requesting a desire to see a detailed Business Case on the WOS. He recognised that there was no statutory obligation to undergo a public consultation but suggested there was a moral duty to engage with the public on this proposal. He reiterated that he felt the Trust was being forced to consider the WOS due to Government policies. He advised the concerns regarding privatisation could not be dismissed as he felt they had been. He concluded that he welcomed the staff engagement and discussion but noted the importance of listening and acting on the feedback received from these sessions. John Rattigan informed that there was a hum of discontent amongst staff in the organisation regarding the WOS proposal. He stressed that he did not agree with the QA statement staff will feel no change in their circumstances stating that if transferred to the WOS they would no longer be working for the NHS likening it to a divorce. He continued that if the Trust proceeded with the proposal there would be a ballot for industrial action by Unite members stressing that his perception was this would be a unanimous vote in favour. He summarised his concern for T&Cs for new starters, questioning the rate of pay for those who currently received enhanced pay in the NHS for working unsociable hours. He verified that he felt this was a step closer to the privatisation of the NHS. The Trust Chair reflected on the engagement session held with Board and Trade Union representatives on 21 March 2018 and reminded of the Boards action to defer a decision date to allow further engagement and consultation with staff. She reiterated that the Board were listening to all concerns and were looking at the alternative models that had been suggested. She committed to read all the comments associated with the petition provided by Denise Carr. Linda Pollard The Trust Chair stressed that people matter, and reminded of the engagement sessions that had been built by the Leeds Way which created understanding and respect of each other s positions. Denise Carr stressed the importance of the Leeds Way and did not want to see these values eroded. 5

6 John Rattigan explained that, in his view, it feels like staff are being disowned, though he recognised the Board were listening and engaging with feedback. He suggested that the Board had already made a decision. The Trust Chair challenged this suggestion, she repeated that the Board had made no decision on the establishment of a WOS nor would they do so within a set timeframe. She continued that the Board felt no political pressure to go down a particular path and the decision would be made on the best outcome for LTHT alone. Julian Hartley noted that Joe Cohen, Staff Side Chair was not present at this meeting but his comments had been taken into account in previous engagement sessions. He drew attention to the recommendations to the Board in the report provided: Note progress in developing proposals to establish a WOS company for the provision of estates, facilities, procurement and clinical engineering services. Consider the staff and Trade Union feedback received to date. Note the outstanding issues requiring further consideration. Defer the decision to establish a WOS and approve an extension of the period of engagement in order to allow the fullest possible engagement with Leeds Teaching Hospitals staff and representatives, including the review of alternative models. Approve the continued development of the current proposal. Note the financial impact of the consequence of any delays or failure to establish a WOS. Denise Carr commented that the report reflected that the Board had listened to the Trade Unions concerns. The Trust Chair invited further comments on the report. Chris Carvey commented there was still a lot of outstanding information which needed to be addressed. Prof Paul Stewart was positive of the engagement that had taken place with staff. The Board supported the recommendations as listed above. Michael Parkinson noted that staff were still cynical and felt they weren t been listened to, stressing they wanted to see the Board dispose of the proposal. Professional relationships and passion was recognised from both sides. The Trust Chair closed the meeting and thanked the audience for their engagement. 4.3 Board Discussion No further discussion took place. The Board received and noted the update and agreed to extend the staff engagement phase around the current model as well as reviewing 6

7 alternative models before making a final decision. 5 Any Other Business No other business was discussed. 7