The Government’s changes to our redundancy system, the Civil Service Compensation Scheme (CSCS), tear up members’ accrued rights and would drastically cut redundancy payments, whether compulsory or voluntary.

The overwhelming majority of PCS members in the scheme would be worse off than previously, and in all cases it would be cheaper to make them compulsorily redundant – at a time when departments are facing mass job cuts.

But it’s not just job cuts. Many civil servants are facing transfers to independent bodies or to the private sector. Members facing privatisation would transfer with far less protection because of the cuts to their terms.

As a union we have argued that the unprecedented public sector cuts are unnecessary and that there is an alternative, based on collecting the billions of pounds of tax avoided or evaded; creating jobs to boost the economy; and using the assets of the nationalised banks to invest in growth.

We are a democratic union and balloted our members on the new scheme. Over 80,000 voted, with over 90 per cent voting to reject. We co-ordinated the ballot to coincide with that of our sister civil service union, the Prison Officers Association (POA). Together, we represent over 60 per cent of all civil servants. Their members voted 95 per cent against the new scheme.

This now gives us a strong mandate to launch legal proceedings in the High Court, having previously informed the Treasury Solicitor of our intention to take a judicial review of the government’s decision to lay a new scheme in Parliament.

We successfully overturned the previous government’s imposed cuts to the compensation scheme after proving in the High Court that it was unlawful to reduce rights that had accrued through length of service without the union’s agreement.

The new scheme removes the need for ministers to agree this or any future cut with its staff, meaning it can impose reductions at will. We believe this is a gross abuse of the government’s unique power as both employer and legislator.

Our case is that the cuts breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This case was strengthened in November when Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights reported that the government had not made the case for overriding civil servants’ rights. 

This is because civil servants have accrued a right to certain redundancy terms through their length of service, which is classed as a “possession” for the purposes of the ECHR, and should not be “interfered with” unless there is an over-riding public interest. The committee says the government has failed to explain the justification for applying arbitrary caps that would severely limit payments.

We are therefore optimistic that the High Court will find in our favour, but we really would rather not have to get into labyrinthine legal tussles with the government when they could simply re-open negotiations. So I have written to the Cabinet Office to ask that negotiations start again as soon as possible.

The minister’s fellow parliamentarians also share our view, which is why 186 of them – including 20 from the coalition parties – signed an Early Day Motion calling on him “to enter urgent negotiations with the union to seek a negotiated settlement”.

Now that the members of the two largest civil service unions have voted so overwhelmingly to reject the new scheme, surely there is an onus on Francis Maude to re-open talks and work to find the negotiated settlement that we have sought from day one.

Ironically though, Francis Maude has accused us of not wanting talks. He told Parliament in November: “I am sorry that the PCS, which represents so many civil servants, particularly lower-paid civil servants, has not chosen to take part in a constructive spirit.”

We met numerous times with the minister and senior civil servants. We even set out proposals, within the cost envelope set by the minister, to cap redundancy pay at a level which would provide sufficient resources to guarantee accrued rights to those in a redundancy situation. The minister rejected these proposals.

One could argue about the meaning of “constructive spirit”, I suppose. Were we willing to sign away our members’ accrued rights, as some of the minor civil service unions seemed to be? No; but we would have alienated over 90 per cent of our members, and the POA 95 per cent.
Given that the job of a union is to represent its members, we have a strong mandate to represent their displeasure at the imposed scheme. Of course, the minister too will have his own pressures, which is why we constructively offered a proposal within the cost cap he set.

The union and the employer didn’t start this process with the same aims, but surely the purpose of negotiations is to find a mutually satisfactory settlement? Now that members of the two largest civil service unions have so clearly rejected the scheme, it is only right that the minister should respond by re-opening talks.

CSWasked Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude about Mr Serwotka’s assertion that the PCS offered the Cabinet Office an alternative redundancy plan within the cost limit set by the minister. Mr Maude’s response can be seen here.

Written by Mark Serwotka