Union slams plans to 'privatise' New Forest leisure centres

UNION leaders believe enlisting a private company to run New Forest District Council’s five health and leisure centres is “pointless” and have called on civic chiefs to scrap the move.

Branding the switch “unnecessary”, Unison representatives revealed three areas of contention remain between them and NFDC over staff contracts with the new provider.

NFDC is currently exploring bringing in a private operator for its health and leisure centres (HLCs) – a move it claims will save up to £400,000. It has been running a tendering process to choose the preferred contractor, although the identities of the firms in the frame have not been publicly revealed.

However, the move has been contentious, with critics – including the opposition Liberal Democrat group on NFDC – claiming it is “privatisation” and will see users lose out.

Amid the ongoing process, Unison has held talks with a delegation of senior council staff and its cabinet member for leisure and wellbeing, Cllr Mark Steele.

The union said the disagreements are over NFDC not requiring the chosen provider to include a full salary pension scheme or an annual pay award for any new staff employed.

Existing staff will have their current rights protected and continue to access the Local Government Pension Scheme, it has been stressed.

NFDC is also resisting the union’s push to give employees currently on zero-hour contracts the option of stating the minimum number of hours they work in a week in their new contracts; Unison claims that would ensure them a regular income and more employment rights.

Speaking to the A&T, Unison’s south-east regional organiser Peter Terry questioned the £400,000 saving figure – claiming changes to VAT mean it is actually closer to £100,000.

Given some 40% of the NFDC workforce are employed within the leisure sector, he believes the likely savings mean the scheme is not worth pursuing.

“Doing this will have massive implications for a large amount of its workforce, against a tiny deficit in the council’s budget,” Mr Terry said.

“For the amount of money, it really is in our view pointless. At the moment we cannot see many people wanting to bid for this in the current economic climate and we feel it is ill-conceived.

“It seems to be being done purely on an ideological grounds with no real financial reasons other than someone in the council thinks the private sector is better for the public.”

However, Mr Terry added: “The council has been engaging well and discussions [between NFDC and Unison] have been constructive; just because we disagree – and we do have strong disagreement on some points – does not mean we will not engage with them.

“It’s our intention to work with the new employers and help ensure that this business becomes a success. I am sure the community and the staff will want the benefits the new employers doing well will hopefully bring. We do not want to sabotage this.”

Asked to comment, a NFDC spokeswoman stressed HLC employees will ‘TUPE’ transfer to the new operator, protecting their rights. But new employees will “have the option to join the [pension] scheme administered by the organisation that employs them”.

All NFDC staff will transfer to the new operator on their current terms and conditions “which includes all pay rates and pay structure”, while NFDC has stipulated the contractor must match the district’s minimum pay point for any HLC staff, both existing and new.

“Third party operators may opt to utilise incentive schemes, rather than annual increases to basic pay as a way of financially rewarding their staff,” the spokeswoman went on.

“It is vital to the successful running of leisure centres that the operator be left to pay appropriate remuneration based on market conditions. The operators are required to share with the council all pay policies as part of the procurement process,” she added.

She said the use of “variable contracts” for HLC instructors was “a long-standing arrangement” that suited them and the council.

“All bidders have been provided with an anonymous staff list as part of the bidding process, this includes the actual hours instructors have worked. This doesn’t change as a result of a new potential operating model,” she added.

“Any employer who is running a leisure centre service will need to ensure they can both recruit and retain their staff on good pay, terms and conditions to ensure the successful running and financial sustainability of the centres.

“It will be down to any new operator to decide what these are for new employees and it is right that they have the flexibility to make those decisions if they become the employer.”

Answering Unison’s privatisation claim, she went on: “The council has always targeted an annual reduction in the cost of running the leisure centres at £400,000 per annum as a result of this change in operating model, and this continues to be the target, despite changes in VAT rules.

“The council has both a responsibility to the centre users to continue to protect and provide a sustainable leisure service, but also must balance this with the wider council taxpayers within the district who currently all subsidise the leisure service.

“The council will make an informed decision on the future running of the leisure centres, including the operator’s ability to meet the council’s objectives, expected service standards, and financial return.”