The scrolling images above are of board members , directors and senior managers of SABP and MCCH Society Ltd. These images are already available online on SABP's and MCCH's own websites. Click on images for details of who these people are.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Transfer to MCCH Ltd


From Jill Goble

I have been on the phone to the Minimum Wage People about this missing investigation and have been told that as a third party I am still not allowed to know any details about the investigation even to the extent of whether one has been conducted or not. However the manager did say that one may be going ahead even if SABP are 'not aware' of it. He said all complaints ARE investigated. They have also taken down all the details a second time and promise that they will be investigated again but still as a third party I am not allowed to know any of the details. I have been given an email address to complain about this situation. The woman who took the details of the second complaint said she also had read about the scandal of how disabled people are not being paid the minimum wage they are entitled to in this country.

As far as the consultation document Fiona Edwards enclosed is concerned this is the Building on the Best Work Services Review published in Jan 2006 and this states that the old moat garden centre will go to MCCH Ltd and not the Richmond Fellowship.

MCCH Ltd are listed among social enterprises rather than as a charity. That means they have to publish their accounts and I saw they had a turnover of some £23 million for 2005. Their main work seems to be in providing supportive housing projects for disabled people. They do have a couple of work projects and significantly one of these Tuck by Truck is written up in the report 'Paying a Real Wage to People in Work Projects' which was edited by Helen Lockett. So MCCH publish Helen Locketts report and she as project manager sells them the garden centre. Cosy doing business with your friends isn't it...

The Tuck by Truck project does rely on a lot of volunteer labour from the disabled workers which I think is exploitative but they do also employ some of the disabled workers and pay them the minimum wage. They are also very clued up in the report about how to arrange work and paying wages with the complicated benefits legislation.

Anyway I have phoned MCCH and been given the name and number of Sandy Hampson as the project development manager for the garden centre project. I have left a message on her answer phone to ask her to ring me back to discuss whether MCCH will honour the agreement to pay the disabled workers their £3 a day or the minimum wage and generally what their plans are for the centre. I also want to know the timescale for the transfer and whether the promised review of all the disabled workers by Fiona Edwards will go ahead and be completed before the transfer takes place. I also feel that if the disabled workers are found to be entitled to the minimum wage then they may be entitled to large amounts in back pay and the transfer could jeopardise their entitlement to such back payments.

I wonder if MCCH will be any easier to communicate with than SABP have been? If SABP are speeding the transfer through as they seem to be from Fiona Edwards mail yesterday then we have to keep a close eye on what the MCCH plans are althoguh even now I am not sure if the transfer should go ahead given that SABP have all these outstanding promises they made in the board meeting last week like the letters of apology, reinstatement of the £3 a day payments and the promised review of every worker. Will they complete all of these promises before the transfer goes ahead or not?

posted by simply human @ 1:37 pm   Listen to this article Listen to this article 4 comments

4 Comments:

At 2:10 pm, Blogger simply human said...

"I also feel that if the disabled workers are found to be entitled to the minimum wage then they may be entitled to large amounts in back pay and the transfer could jeopardise their entitlement to such back payments."

I am also very concerned about this aspect Jill as there is a real conflict of interests here as SABP are to assess whether people worked for them or not knowing that they will owe them thousands of pounds if they determine that they did. SABP also has another interest in determining these retrospective assessments in its own favour, the contract it has already decided with MCCH. It did not involve the transfer of waged workers.

The garden centre workers need professional legal representation as the Trust, which has a Duty of Care , is in conflict with them but refuses to admit any conflict of interest even as it admits to treating the workers badly in the past.

SABP treated them badly as part of this very transfer process.

SABP is still treating these people very badly and MCCH doesnt offer much hope either .

 
At 2:34 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes it is very difficult to know where we can take the minimum wage issue when the complaints department on one hand say as a third party I am not allowed to know anything about the investigation and SABP on the other hand are saying they are not aware of any minimum wage investigation taking place. But I was assured by the manager at the minimum wage that every complaint is investigated. I was also given the email address of the technical team: nmw@hmrc.gov.uk to complain to about the situation.
If we had permission from one of the disabled workers to take up a complaint on their behalf then we would be allowed to know the details of the investigation. I am wondering whether to just go and ask the disabled workers themselves if they want this to happen. I am also wondering if Unison would take up their case for them as Unison have a lot of stuff on disabled people forming workplace unions and so on? To be honest SABP should recognise the conflict of interest themselves and take steps to protect the best interests of the disabled workers but are they rushing through the transfer in order to avoid having to meet their obligations?

 
At 6:29 pm, Blogger simply human said...

...and to avoid acting like an open accountable public service.

Good idea about Unison though.

 
At 6:30 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sandy Hampson the person I was given to contact at MCCH Ltd regarding the takeover of the garden centre did not return y phone call today so I have written her the following email:

Ms Sandy Hampson

Project Development Manager

MCCH Ltd



Dear Ms Sandy Hampson,



I have been given your name and number as the person responsible for The Old Moat Garden Centre in Surrey by your Head Office. I left a message on your answer phone yesterday but so far have not heard from you. Since June I have been involved in a campaign to get justice for the disabled workers at the Old Moat Garden Centre and our campaign can be found on the internet at:

http://justice4sabtworkers.blogspot.com/



The campaign started when we found out that the disabled workers at the garden centre had their £3 a day wages cut to nothing by Surrey and Borders NHS Partnership Trust (SABP) who currently run the centre. In the course of the campaign we have complained to the Disability Rights Commission, on the Minimum Wage and to SABP who delayed answering our freedom of information requests. In the course of our investigations it became clear that there is a pattern of avoiding paying the minimum wage to disabled people in this country and that many are in exploitative situations without rights or equality. The best interests of the garden centre workers were not taken into account and they have been treated particularly badly.



Finally on September 28th at their board meeting SABP backed down and offered written apologies to all the disabled workers affected as well as return of their £3 a day payments which will be backdated to when payments ceased. SABP also agreed to conduct a review in which they would:



(c) Require the Director of Operations (Mental Health Services) and the Director of Services for People with a Learning Disability to develop an action plan
which will:

• Assess activities undertaken and develop guidelines to differentiate
between ‘work’ (for which the NMW or higher will apply), ‘therapy’, ‘training’ or ‘voluntary work’ (for which no payment, other than expenses,
will apply).

• Undertake individual assessments on those attending in order to ensure that payment for attending ‘work’ does not adversely impact on benefit.

• Ensure that the work centres (other work services are affected but we believe these are due to be taken over by the Richmond fellowship rather than MCCH Ltd) remain viable with any increased cost associated increased payments for work undertaken. Any change will be subject to further consultation.

The plan will be developed in conjunction with people using the services, their
families and carers and care workers. Legal advice will be sought on the action plan prior to its implementation.



While our campaign has been pleased with this progress on behalf of SABP in the best interests of the disabled workers we have also been informed by Ms Fiona Edwards, the Chief Executive of SABP, that the transfer to external providers will go ahead. I am therefore contacting you because we have many questions concerning your plans for the centre and your treatment of the disabled workers.



In particular I was especially concerned by a phase in Ms Edwards report that indicates MCCH Ltd as the external provider would now become reluctant to take over the centre because you would see the obligation to pay the disabled workers their £3 a day as well as be assessed for their entitlement to the minimum wage as a liability

Could you confirm whether or not you are going ahead with taking over the Old Moat Garden Centre under these circumstances and on what date you expect to take over?

Could you please also confirm that you do not see the disabled workers as a ‘liability’, are there to work in their best interests and will continue to honour their right to receive their £3 a day and preferably be employed properly on at least the minimum wage?



I have read the document ‘Paying a Real Wage to People in Work Projects’ which was published by MCCH Ltd and edited by Helen Lockett who coincidentally project managed the modernisation at SABP which cut the disabled workers £3 a day payments.

I am troubled by the emphasis you and Helen Lockett place on the unpaid labour of disabled ‘volunteers’ in these projects. The government also describes these ‘volunteering’ positions as exploitative in the report below:



From 'You can work it out. Best practice in employment for people with a learning difficulty' :

As services seek to help people find more meaningful activities than sitting around in day centres, employment is acknowledged as playing a crucial role in people’s lives. But success in getting people in to paid work remains woefully inadequate. Instead, services have created a world based on work for which few people get paid. There is a growing variety of training, social enterprises, work-related projects, work experience and volunteering schemes. There are people who to all intents and purposes are working, but who receive little or no payment.

This is illegal unless there is genuinely no obligation to attend and no obligation to do anything.

There are people who are described as volunteering- this conveniently gets around the issue of employment contracts and payments. These situations are exploitative.’

This guide can be found at:
www.valuingpeople.gov.uk/EmploymentGuides.htm

I am therefore very concerned that the disabled workers at the Old Moat Garden Centre will go from one bad situation of being exploited as very cheap labour by SABP to another with MCCH Ltd where they will be classed as ‘volunteers’ rather than workers entitled to at least the minimum wage and their exploitation will continue. Could you please reassure us at the campaign that you are not planning on using the disabled workers as unpaid labour and give us a full explanation of what your plans are to protect their best interests, make sure they are treated equally and not discriminated against because they are disabled.

I would also like to ask if you are planning on keeping the garden centre as a commercial business and expanding on the services it currently offers such as in internet and mail order sales and in increased opening hours? I ask this because although it is said that the garden centre is currently a commercial business it is not being run in a way to maximise the potential opportunities available for the disabled workers. This is important given recent reports that disabled workers all over the country are illegally not being paid at least the minimum wage they are entitled to and good opportunities are very limited. I would also like to ask if any purely therapeutic element of activity will remain at the centre given concerns by some campaigners that more vulnerable people might otherwise be excluded?

Finally I would like to say that we hope our campaigns communications with your organisation will be productive and all responses we receive or do not receive will be reported on our campaign blog.

Yours Sincerely

Jill Goble



Help us get Justice at:



http://justice4sabtworkers.blogspot.com/

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

toolbar powered by Conduit