I have just received a reply from Tom Hardacre.
Dear Russell
Further to your email of 10th January, I have received a number of other emails which followed the same template as yours. I am therefore replying to you as the main correspondent for you to disseminate to other colleagues accordingly in reply to you all.
I do fully appreciate the situation these men find themselves in. Thank you for keeping your questions concise and brief, which I can answer as follows:
1. Why didn't the Union agree a deal for the ECITB members to gain an assessed route to the CISRS?
The answer is that there was never one on offer from the employers to resolve the situation once and for all, despite our repeated arguments for it, and this position has been consistent from the AEEU right through to the Amicus section of Unite within the Engineering Construction sector. If we had been in a position to agree such a deal as you put it, then we obviously would have done so.
It has to be appreciated that we are where we are as there has been a historical divide in the UK construction sector between the engineering and building sides as they are two separate industries within the sector. Therefore please appreciate in union terms that historically Scaffolders on the Engineering side (NAECI blue book) predominantly have belonged to the evolving CEU, AEU, AEEU and then Amicus, who were not recognised or represented on the Working Rule Agreement in the Building and Civil sector, in trade union terms that was the domain of UCATT and the then T&GWU.
In 2007, the ECITB proposed the closure of the ECI Skills Database, as the ACE card scheme covering the core engineering disciplines they primarily serve (which is detailed further on in this response) had firmly embedded itself within the industry.
However, the union would not agree to this, requesting that the ECI Skills Database remain open in order for the Scaffolders within the industry to transfer over to their appropriate card scheme for their trade being CISRS. The ECITB therefore put a three year extension on the ECI cards to enable this process (which has now been extended for another 12 months, which I shall explain later in this response).
Furthermore, the Engineering Construction industry negotiated with the Building and Civils sector an extension to the assessed route of entry to CISRS for ECI Skills Database card holders. Nevertheless as you know the Building and Civils via CISRS placed a time limit on this, so eventually the route of entry deadline passed, and although I understand many Scaffolders went through the process successfully, we still find that the issue has not been completely resolved. Having an assessed route of entry is perfectly valid in my opinion, but the Building and Civil engineering sector took that decision to close it, not the stakeholders in the Engineering Construction industry which has been implied.
2. Why is a union representative named as a scheme owner of the CISRS?
&
3. What exactly is a scheme owner?
It is my understanding as the National Officer for Engineering Construction, Mechanical and Electrical Contracting, from discussing this with colleagues who cover Building and Civil Engineering within Unite that the ownership of the CISRS scheme sits with the CIJC (Construction Industry Joint Council) as a distinct entity in its own right.
The CIJC has delegated the administration and management of the scheme to NASC, but the CIJC remains the owner, with the CISRS itself as an independent affiliate to the larger CSCS and engaging with training organisations, HSE and others, as for instance are other schemes specific to other trades and their relevant working rule agreements (e.g. the JIB and SJIB ECS scheme for electricians, the ACE scheme for Engineering Construction, CPCS for plant, JIB-PMES for plumbers etc).
The CIJC is the body responsible for the Working Rule Agreement in Building and Civil Engineering (note that the NJCBI and CECCB, in 1998 were brought together, as in the old grey and yellow books into the now CIJC pink book).
The Council is made up of numerous employer trade associations on the one side for the employers, and the unions (GMB, UCATT and Unite) on the other side for the operatives.
Historically, in regard to Scaffolders in Building and Civil Engineering, the unions who represented them were UCATT and the T&GWU (the latter now part of Unite). The scaffolding employers are represented by NASC. Therefore, due to this historical structure inherited by the CIJC, those three organisations are the ones who now sit on CISRS.
The CIJC, as the owner of the scheme (i.e. the record scheme of registered Scaffolders) then appoints Employer and Operative Secretaries from both of those sides of the Joint Council in regard to the CISRS scheme. Unite, nor any of the other unions or employers trade associations who belong to the CIJC, or the individuals who are appointed by the CIJC actually own CISRS, as said ownership is with the Joint Council as its own distinct entity which is made up of the relevant parties. There is nothing unusual in such a structure, this is how many public bodies, boards, charities, NGOs, non-profit sector and other associations etc are governed, to ensure as far as can be that such bodies are independent and representative, and therefore achieve joint consensus when possible.
Please see the Notes on page 2 and the Foreword on page 4 of the CISRS General Information Booklet for more details, which can be downloaded at: http://www.cisrs.org.uk/documents/Cisrs_Cap_609_000.pdf
4. What is the reason for extending the now useless ECITB ticket for another year?
This has to be answered in the full context. The ACE initiative (Assuring Competence in Engineering Construction: visit www.ace.uk.net for more details) is now the CSCS affiliated competency card scheme for the core Engineering disciplines (i.e. Steel Erectors, Industrial Pipefitters, Welders, Mechanical Fitters, Instrumentation etc). Alongside this in Engineering Construction, allied trades such as electricians have the JIB card, plus CISRS for Scaffolders sitting currently alongside the 12 month extension on the ECI Skills Database card for ECI Scaffolders which we are discussing here.
The ECI card isn’t a competency card; it replaced the old NJC card for the database of disciplines within the engineering construction sector, basically logging the individual’s trade background, along with their grade for NAECI pay purposes, and access to the project list regarding locations of current and future projects and sites. Proving actual competency would still have been required via production to an employer of the relevant evidence and/ or qualifications.
The aforementioned ACE scheme now does this for the core engineering disciplines through assessment including APL (Accreditation via Prior Learning), also the JIB card for the electricians certificates them accordingly and has done for many years.
However, the abovementioned historical divide in Scaffolding between the building and engineering sectors, saw the ECI Skills Database being used as “the ticket” in Engineering Construction by the employers, when we know the focus should have been on the evolution of the wider CISRS scheme. It appears that Scaffolders who worked exclusively in Building and Civil went down the CISRS route as a matter of course. Likewise, those Scaffolders who moved between the sectors have also in the main attained CISRS. Therefore, the problem that needs resolving is particularly acute amongst that Scaffolding workforce who have predominantly or exclusively worked within Engineering Construction.
On different sites and projects around the regions, Scaffolders within Engineering Construction have successfully gained Scaffolder and Advanced Scaffolder CISRS cards including through effective trade union organisation on site via their shop stewards, utilisation of grievance procedures, and bringing the issue to the attention of Project Joint Councils etc. However, it is apparent that the group of workers we are discussing have not been able to achieve this or had the time / facilities to do so, despite the assessed route of entry having been available previously.
We are aware that some employers will contend that some Scaffolders may have not fully appreciated the seriousness of this deadline until it had passed, however, the employers must shoulder a significant part of how the situation has developed, as they were fully aware of the implications and demands from industry and clients, and they were the ones best placed to manage the process. Instead, sadly it appears that despite even when funding was available for assessment; some employers instead chose to ignore what was happening as it would have meant them having to pay some wages whilst the Scaffolder was away from the productive workface. Such an attitude by some employers was therefore irresponsible to say the least, i.e. evading their responsibilities by leaving it to others to sort out and hoping the problem would go away (and saving themselves money), and actually ending with people either funding CISRS themselves in their own time out of their own pockets, or being left with no CISRS card.
In the light of all this, the Engineering Construction industry (and I stress Engineering Construction) has therefore extended the validity of the ECI Skills Database card on in-scope Engineering Construction sites for a further 12 months whilst a remedy is sought, to enable individuals to keep working in the Engineering sector whilst the industry endeavours to put mechanisms in place to deal with the issue if this is possible, and I must stress that this can only be possible with the support of scaffolding employers.
Following requests from the stakeholders to the NJC which include Unite, the ECITB contacted CISRS, leading to the ECI Skills Database and CISRS within the confines of data protection, running a correlation between their respective databases to ascertain the number of individuals affected in late 2010.
This month I have been informed that approximately 600 individual Scaffolders have been identified since that exercise commenced in November. Some of those may have left the industry altogether, however, we see this number as substantial and an issue that must be addressed as a matter of urgency for the industry in the best interests of the operatives employed therein.
Following that, the ECI Skills Database / ECITB, in December 2010 wrote out to all those identified with a questionnaire (please see the attached).
That questionnaire requests for data protection purposes agreement from the individual that the data can be confidentially shared between the stakeholders involved to try and address the situation. I therefore advise that is in the best interests of the workforce to indicate that they are happy for the data to be shared appropriately in order for the industry to help them.
Furthermore, some individuals may not have kept the ECI Skills Database up to date with their current address, and in that case would obviously have not received that communication. I would therefore advise that they contact the ECITB to update their details accordingly as a matter of priority, otherwise they will risk losing out if the industry finds a way forward.
5. In your opinion why should a 47 year old man with over 20 years experience become unemployable as he (if he can afford to) will only be graded as a trainee if he takes the only options available to him?
&
6. What is your union going to do to keep these men working?
I agree that ideally they should not have to be subjected to a 'Trainee' card, when they have been working in the ECI section of the industry for many years, if not decades, and furthermore, Unite believes funding should be available to manage this situation.
With that in mind something that may be worthy of consideration is that In Electrical Contracting as an example, there is available a “provisional” electrician JIB ECS card to accommodate experienced and qualified workers with JIB firms who simply need to have their competency assessed, without resorting to calling them ‘Trainees’ (which they obviously are not), as the term Trainee would be an inappropriate and derisory term in such circumstances. That card is normally valid for 18 months from issue for the electrician and the assessor to put together the assessment portfolio of evidence for the awarding of an NVQ, whilst simultaneously enabling the individual access to work as normal with funding integral to that.
Unite fully supports skills competency accreditation via the CSCS affiliated card schemes, and the dividends these bring to competency, employability and improving the health and safety record of the industry, and I want to see a pragmatic remedy brought forward as soon as possible by the industry to help these men. However, I must stress that despite what the Union and the workforce may want, any remedy would be subject to the agreement of the other industry stakeholders.
We will continue to argue the case for the workers affected, and endeavour to see this situation regarding the cards satisfactorily resolved.
I would also suggest to anyone or company who are part of the SCCR but not members of Unite, to raise the issue with the Employers Association that they are members of. I understand that the SCCR includes employers from small to medium sized enterprises. I would suggest that as employers they therefore bring to bare their influence and leverage on their respective employers associations being NASC, and also ECIA if they undertake work in the Engineering Construction Industry.
Unite policy fully supports skills competency accreditation via the CSCS affiliated card schemes including CISRS, with the dividends these bring to competency, employment opportunities and improving the health and safety record of the industry. Industry should deliver this for the common good of accrediting a world class workforce, but must respect and recognise the needs of the workforce to deliver this together.
With that in mind I must stress that despite what Unite may want, it is not our decision to make in isolation; any remedy would be subject to the agreement of the other industry stakeholders. I sincerely hope that a sensible solution through consensus can be reached between the industry bodies.
I assume that you may consider posting this reply on the SCCR Forum, I therefore ask that if you choose to do so that you reproduce it in its entirety including the ECITB attachment for reference.
Yours fraternally
Tom Hardacre
National Officer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Swift [mailto:russ@figoni.fsnet.co.uk]
Sent: 10 January 2011 23:32
To: Hardacre, Tom
Subject: A few questions
Hi Tom,
as a member of the S.C.C.R. a member of your union and a C.I.S.R.S carded scaffolder I would like to ask you the following questions.
1. Why didn't the Union agree a deal for the ECITB members to gain an assessed route to the CISRS?
2. Why is a union representative named as a scheme owner of the CISRS?
3. What exactly is a scheme owner?
4.What is the reason for extending the now useless ECITB ticket for another year?
5. In your opinion why should a 47 year old man with over 20 years experience become unemployable as he (if he can afford to) will only be graded as a trainee if he takes the only options available to him?
6. What is your union going to do to keep these men working?
I appreciate you are a busy man but you also must appreciate the situation these men find themselves in,
Kind regards
Russell Swift
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are private and intended solely for the
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please return it to the address it came from telling them it is not
for you and then delete it from your system.
Dear Russell
Further to your email of 10th January, I have received a number of other emails which followed the same template as yours. I am therefore replying to you as the main correspondent for you to disseminate to other colleagues accordingly in reply to you all.
I do fully appreciate the situation these men find themselves in. Thank you for keeping your questions concise and brief, which I can answer as follows:
1. Why didn't the Union agree a deal for the ECITB members to gain an assessed route to the CISRS?
The answer is that there was never one on offer from the employers to resolve the situation once and for all, despite our repeated arguments for it, and this position has been consistent from the AEEU right through to the Amicus section of Unite within the Engineering Construction sector. If we had been in a position to agree such a deal as you put it, then we obviously would have done so.
It has to be appreciated that we are where we are as there has been a historical divide in the UK construction sector between the engineering and building sides as they are two separate industries within the sector. Therefore please appreciate in union terms that historically Scaffolders on the Engineering side (NAECI blue book) predominantly have belonged to the evolving CEU, AEU, AEEU and then Amicus, who were not recognised or represented on the Working Rule Agreement in the Building and Civil sector, in trade union terms that was the domain of UCATT and the then T&GWU.
In 2007, the ECITB proposed the closure of the ECI Skills Database, as the ACE card scheme covering the core engineering disciplines they primarily serve (which is detailed further on in this response) had firmly embedded itself within the industry.
However, the union would not agree to this, requesting that the ECI Skills Database remain open in order for the Scaffolders within the industry to transfer over to their appropriate card scheme for their trade being CISRS. The ECITB therefore put a three year extension on the ECI cards to enable this process (which has now been extended for another 12 months, which I shall explain later in this response).
Furthermore, the Engineering Construction industry negotiated with the Building and Civils sector an extension to the assessed route of entry to CISRS for ECI Skills Database card holders. Nevertheless as you know the Building and Civils via CISRS placed a time limit on this, so eventually the route of entry deadline passed, and although I understand many Scaffolders went through the process successfully, we still find that the issue has not been completely resolved. Having an assessed route of entry is perfectly valid in my opinion, but the Building and Civil engineering sector took that decision to close it, not the stakeholders in the Engineering Construction industry which has been implied.
2. Why is a union representative named as a scheme owner of the CISRS?
&
3. What exactly is a scheme owner?
It is my understanding as the National Officer for Engineering Construction, Mechanical and Electrical Contracting, from discussing this with colleagues who cover Building and Civil Engineering within Unite that the ownership of the CISRS scheme sits with the CIJC (Construction Industry Joint Council) as a distinct entity in its own right.
The CIJC has delegated the administration and management of the scheme to NASC, but the CIJC remains the owner, with the CISRS itself as an independent affiliate to the larger CSCS and engaging with training organisations, HSE and others, as for instance are other schemes specific to other trades and their relevant working rule agreements (e.g. the JIB and SJIB ECS scheme for electricians, the ACE scheme for Engineering Construction, CPCS for plant, JIB-PMES for plumbers etc).
The CIJC is the body responsible for the Working Rule Agreement in Building and Civil Engineering (note that the NJCBI and CECCB, in 1998 were brought together, as in the old grey and yellow books into the now CIJC pink book).
The Council is made up of numerous employer trade associations on the one side for the employers, and the unions (GMB, UCATT and Unite) on the other side for the operatives.
Historically, in regard to Scaffolders in Building and Civil Engineering, the unions who represented them were UCATT and the T&GWU (the latter now part of Unite). The scaffolding employers are represented by NASC. Therefore, due to this historical structure inherited by the CIJC, those three organisations are the ones who now sit on CISRS.
The CIJC, as the owner of the scheme (i.e. the record scheme of registered Scaffolders) then appoints Employer and Operative Secretaries from both of those sides of the Joint Council in regard to the CISRS scheme. Unite, nor any of the other unions or employers trade associations who belong to the CIJC, or the individuals who are appointed by the CIJC actually own CISRS, as said ownership is with the Joint Council as its own distinct entity which is made up of the relevant parties. There is nothing unusual in such a structure, this is how many public bodies, boards, charities, NGOs, non-profit sector and other associations etc are governed, to ensure as far as can be that such bodies are independent and representative, and therefore achieve joint consensus when possible.
Please see the Notes on page 2 and the Foreword on page 4 of the CISRS General Information Booklet for more details, which can be downloaded at: http://www.cisrs.org.uk/documents/Cisrs_Cap_609_000.pdf
4. What is the reason for extending the now useless ECITB ticket for another year?
This has to be answered in the full context. The ACE initiative (Assuring Competence in Engineering Construction: visit www.ace.uk.net for more details) is now the CSCS affiliated competency card scheme for the core Engineering disciplines (i.e. Steel Erectors, Industrial Pipefitters, Welders, Mechanical Fitters, Instrumentation etc). Alongside this in Engineering Construction, allied trades such as electricians have the JIB card, plus CISRS for Scaffolders sitting currently alongside the 12 month extension on the ECI Skills Database card for ECI Scaffolders which we are discussing here.
The ECI card isn’t a competency card; it replaced the old NJC card for the database of disciplines within the engineering construction sector, basically logging the individual’s trade background, along with their grade for NAECI pay purposes, and access to the project list regarding locations of current and future projects and sites. Proving actual competency would still have been required via production to an employer of the relevant evidence and/ or qualifications.
The aforementioned ACE scheme now does this for the core engineering disciplines through assessment including APL (Accreditation via Prior Learning), also the JIB card for the electricians certificates them accordingly and has done for many years.
However, the abovementioned historical divide in Scaffolding between the building and engineering sectors, saw the ECI Skills Database being used as “the ticket” in Engineering Construction by the employers, when we know the focus should have been on the evolution of the wider CISRS scheme. It appears that Scaffolders who worked exclusively in Building and Civil went down the CISRS route as a matter of course. Likewise, those Scaffolders who moved between the sectors have also in the main attained CISRS. Therefore, the problem that needs resolving is particularly acute amongst that Scaffolding workforce who have predominantly or exclusively worked within Engineering Construction.
On different sites and projects around the regions, Scaffolders within Engineering Construction have successfully gained Scaffolder and Advanced Scaffolder CISRS cards including through effective trade union organisation on site via their shop stewards, utilisation of grievance procedures, and bringing the issue to the attention of Project Joint Councils etc. However, it is apparent that the group of workers we are discussing have not been able to achieve this or had the time / facilities to do so, despite the assessed route of entry having been available previously.
We are aware that some employers will contend that some Scaffolders may have not fully appreciated the seriousness of this deadline until it had passed, however, the employers must shoulder a significant part of how the situation has developed, as they were fully aware of the implications and demands from industry and clients, and they were the ones best placed to manage the process. Instead, sadly it appears that despite even when funding was available for assessment; some employers instead chose to ignore what was happening as it would have meant them having to pay some wages whilst the Scaffolder was away from the productive workface. Such an attitude by some employers was therefore irresponsible to say the least, i.e. evading their responsibilities by leaving it to others to sort out and hoping the problem would go away (and saving themselves money), and actually ending with people either funding CISRS themselves in their own time out of their own pockets, or being left with no CISRS card.
In the light of all this, the Engineering Construction industry (and I stress Engineering Construction) has therefore extended the validity of the ECI Skills Database card on in-scope Engineering Construction sites for a further 12 months whilst a remedy is sought, to enable individuals to keep working in the Engineering sector whilst the industry endeavours to put mechanisms in place to deal with the issue if this is possible, and I must stress that this can only be possible with the support of scaffolding employers.
Following requests from the stakeholders to the NJC which include Unite, the ECITB contacted CISRS, leading to the ECI Skills Database and CISRS within the confines of data protection, running a correlation between their respective databases to ascertain the number of individuals affected in late 2010.
This month I have been informed that approximately 600 individual Scaffolders have been identified since that exercise commenced in November. Some of those may have left the industry altogether, however, we see this number as substantial and an issue that must be addressed as a matter of urgency for the industry in the best interests of the operatives employed therein.
Following that, the ECI Skills Database / ECITB, in December 2010 wrote out to all those identified with a questionnaire (please see the attached).
That questionnaire requests for data protection purposes agreement from the individual that the data can be confidentially shared between the stakeholders involved to try and address the situation. I therefore advise that is in the best interests of the workforce to indicate that they are happy for the data to be shared appropriately in order for the industry to help them.
Furthermore, some individuals may not have kept the ECI Skills Database up to date with their current address, and in that case would obviously have not received that communication. I would therefore advise that they contact the ECITB to update their details accordingly as a matter of priority, otherwise they will risk losing out if the industry finds a way forward.
5. In your opinion why should a 47 year old man with over 20 years experience become unemployable as he (if he can afford to) will only be graded as a trainee if he takes the only options available to him?
&
6. What is your union going to do to keep these men working?
I agree that ideally they should not have to be subjected to a 'Trainee' card, when they have been working in the ECI section of the industry for many years, if not decades, and furthermore, Unite believes funding should be available to manage this situation.
With that in mind something that may be worthy of consideration is that In Electrical Contracting as an example, there is available a “provisional” electrician JIB ECS card to accommodate experienced and qualified workers with JIB firms who simply need to have their competency assessed, without resorting to calling them ‘Trainees’ (which they obviously are not), as the term Trainee would be an inappropriate and derisory term in such circumstances. That card is normally valid for 18 months from issue for the electrician and the assessor to put together the assessment portfolio of evidence for the awarding of an NVQ, whilst simultaneously enabling the individual access to work as normal with funding integral to that.
Unite fully supports skills competency accreditation via the CSCS affiliated card schemes, and the dividends these bring to competency, employability and improving the health and safety record of the industry, and I want to see a pragmatic remedy brought forward as soon as possible by the industry to help these men. However, I must stress that despite what the Union and the workforce may want, any remedy would be subject to the agreement of the other industry stakeholders.
We will continue to argue the case for the workers affected, and endeavour to see this situation regarding the cards satisfactorily resolved.
I would also suggest to anyone or company who are part of the SCCR but not members of Unite, to raise the issue with the Employers Association that they are members of. I understand that the SCCR includes employers from small to medium sized enterprises. I would suggest that as employers they therefore bring to bare their influence and leverage on their respective employers associations being NASC, and also ECIA if they undertake work in the Engineering Construction Industry.
Unite policy fully supports skills competency accreditation via the CSCS affiliated card schemes including CISRS, with the dividends these bring to competency, employment opportunities and improving the health and safety record of the industry. Industry should deliver this for the common good of accrediting a world class workforce, but must respect and recognise the needs of the workforce to deliver this together.
With that in mind I must stress that despite what Unite may want, it is not our decision to make in isolation; any remedy would be subject to the agreement of the other industry stakeholders. I sincerely hope that a sensible solution through consensus can be reached between the industry bodies.
I assume that you may consider posting this reply on the SCCR Forum, I therefore ask that if you choose to do so that you reproduce it in its entirety including the ECITB attachment for reference.
Yours fraternally
Tom Hardacre
National Officer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Swift [mailto:russ@figoni.fsnet.co.uk]
Sent: 10 January 2011 23:32
To: Hardacre, Tom
Subject: A few questions
Hi Tom,
as a member of the S.C.C.R. a member of your union and a C.I.S.R.S carded scaffolder I would like to ask you the following questions.
1. Why didn't the Union agree a deal for the ECITB members to gain an assessed route to the CISRS?
2. Why is a union representative named as a scheme owner of the CISRS?
3. What exactly is a scheme owner?
4.What is the reason for extending the now useless ECITB ticket for another year?
5. In your opinion why should a 47 year old man with over 20 years experience become unemployable as he (if he can afford to) will only be graded as a trainee if he takes the only options available to him?
6. What is your union going to do to keep these men working?
I appreciate you are a busy man but you also must appreciate the situation these men find themselves in,
Kind regards
Russell Swift
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are private and intended solely for the
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please return it to the address it came from telling them it is not
for you and then delete it from your system.
Last edited:
