Thank you for taking the time to send your concerns to One Housing Group in your earlier
email. I would note that it is likely that strike action could have been avoided had the group
taken up our offer of referring the matter to ACAS. The organisation’s chair, Anthony
Mayer, has said that he advocates referral but executives have continued to refuse to take up
this option. Several other opportunities to avoid a strike have been rejected by executives. It
is to be hoped that they now work energetically to avoid a further strike next week.
Below I respond to some of the points in the email from their Fiona Wrighton which has been
handed to me.
Whilst it true that over 90% of One Housing employees have signed up to new contracts, it is
important to note how this figure was achieved. In December 2012, two hundred and forty
five letters were sent to employees the week before Christmas stating staff would be
dismissed if they didn’t sign up to the new lower salary by the 21st of December; neither
union was informed that these letters were being sent out. The following year, after
intervention by both unions, a delay in implementation was achieved and a compensation
payment was proposed. At the end of this period One Housing Group , sent out an ultimatum
to all affected staff to either sign up to the pay cuts or lose the delay period and compensation
payment and be dismissed. That frontline support staff could not afford to put themselves at
a financial disadvantage should not be seen as a sign that staff agree to having their pay cut
by up to £8,000. Management made it clear that signatures accompanied by the statement
‘signed under duress’ would not be accepted. That does not mean they were not signed under
duress; it would be worthy of Orwellian newspeak to suggest otherwise.
It is also worth noting is how the compensation payment is being funded. The annual bonus
of £550 that was due to be paid to support staff in July was cancelled to partially pay for the
compensation payments. This led to an unfortunate situation where lower paid staff such as
support or care assistants were effectively funding the severance packages of higher paid
staff. The protection of lower paid staff, particularly those paid less than £21,000 per year
were points rightly highlighted by Islington Councillors who showed concern about the pay
cuts at One Housing Group and attended picket lines during the first leg of strike action.
Central government has also instituted similar pay protection for NHS and Civil Service
employees.
We agree that the size of the care and support department has been increased by 500
employees. However it is quite wrong to imply that these are newly created jobs. The reality
is that the overwhelming majority of these posts already existed and have transferred into
One Housing Group from contracts won from other local government contractors. Those
staff that transferred over in April 2012, about 120 in total, were informed that they would be
facing a pay cut in their first month of service with One Housing Group, despite the contracts
being new with 3 to 5 years remaining of guaranteed funding and the contracts being in
surplus. Funding organisations are right to ask what is happening to the money they have
committed to these budgets. The group has boasted of its ability to undercut other providers,
for example, undercutting directly provided NHS services by as much as 80%. Staff feel this
is achieved at their expense and in some cases at the expense of service quality.
We would not dispute that the Chief executives pay is set by a remuneration committee but
the level should be a matter of public record. One Housing Group reported to the ‘Inside
Housing’ pay survey that it had actually cut the pay of its CEO but the annual accounts show
an increase in pay. When Unite drew attention to this last year One Housing representatives
told the press that they did not ‘recognise’ the figures from their own accounts. In Inside
Housing’s most recent report on this question One Housing are apparently now refusing to
discuss the discrepancies. When stock is transferred from local authorities, tenants, and other
stakeholders concerned at a loss of democratic accountability are assured that associations are
accountable and regulated. Recent reductions in regulatory oversight have been justified on
the basis that associations are open and accountable and the One Housing CEO has recently
argued for further reductions in oversight. In this light the lack of transparency around the
CEO salary raises real questions about the governance and accountability of the organisation.
As Chair of Unites housing branch I have written to the Chair of One Housing Group on this
matter (copy attached) and have received a standard response in similar terms to the response
to you letter which fails to address this important question. With remarkable timing, CEO
Mick Sweeney had an article in Inside Housing while his staff were on strike arguing that
housing associations should have lighter touch regulation because stakeholders were happy;
others will feel there are major questions regarding One Housing Group's accountability.
Yours sincerely
Paul Kershaw, Chair Unite Housing workers (LE1111)