Read reports before attacking

May 12 2008 by Our Correspondent, Huddersfield Daily Examiner

I AM writing in response to the letters that appeared in the Examiner (May 6) from Ray Deans and Ian from Deighton – “What about the watchdog’s report then, Mr Johnson?” and “Damning review of the company.”

In response to the ‘damning’ Care Inspectors’ Report, it was reported in the Examiner on June 11 2007 as follows:

“The CSCI carried out an unannounced inspection in March. It found that shortfalls in staff recruitment, training and supervision were compromising care. The inspection came shortly after Unique sacked 16 care workers – about half the staff – for going on an illegal two-day strike. They had walked out in protest at the dismissal of home care manager Sonia Senior.

“Mr Johnson said the problems caused by the strike and subsequent sackings were responsible for the inspectors’ criticisms.

“He said: ‘We never for one moment thought they would leave the people we care for in a vulnerable situation. Once they went on strike we couldn’t continue with the uncertainty and had to sack them. We then had to make arrangements to cover those people. When half your staff walk out without regard for the people they are leaving behind it is bound to cause problems. They were responsible for criticisms in the report and yet we have managed the best we can.’

“The commission rated Unique’s performance in five categories.

“It gave the company a ‘poor’ rating for protecting people who used its services and for management and staffing. But it graded it ‘adequate’ for the personal care it provided and the organisation and running of the business. User-focused services were rated ‘good’. The report said: ‘Unique Care have maintained as much consistency in the last few months as they possibly could, considering that they lost half of their staff in one week. Service users have been very understanding about these difficulties and few complaints have been made to the service.’”

Examiner October 25 2007:

“A CARE company embroiled in a long-running industrial dispute in Huddersfield has improved immensely, says a Government watchdog. A report by the Commission for Social Care Inspection has praised Unique Care.

“In January Unique Care sacked 12 care workers after they went on unofficial strike in protest at the dismissal of home care manager Sonia Senior.

“Four other employees who were either sick or on holiday at the time were also dismissed. Since then, the 16 women have campaigned against their sackings.

“The CSCI carried out an unannounced inspection in March. It found that shortfalls in staff recruitment, training and supervision were compromising care. But an inspection on September 4 found that staff recruitment had improved considerably. Unique Care checks references and any criminal convictions of potential employees more thoroughly. Manager Andrew Johnson is pleased. He said: ‘We’ve scored pretty well and met the standard in all areas.’”

If Mr Deans had been following this story it is clear that the company has proven itself as an exceptional care provider despite the difficulties created by the strike, the staff at Unique Care have worked tirelessly to ensure that our standards of care were maintained.

CSCI recognised our efforts in both reports and commented on the levels of service-user satisfaction. I encourage anybody that wants an objective assessment of Unique Care standards of care should read the reports in full and not be influenced by comments taken out of context. The report is available on line, maybe Mr Deans should have read the reports before writing a letter with such an obvious, politically-motivated agenda. I am proud of our achievements. We were assessed as having no shortfalls in eight out of 12 of the care standards considered, and having minor shortfalls in the other four and there were several encouraging comments from the Inspector and very little criticism made.

In response to Ian’s letter, I have read the Scrutiny Management Committee report and can reiterate that there were no damning comments made about Unique Care, we were certainly not labelled as corrupt as Miss Mills documented in her leaflet. Any criticisms were internal KMC matters with relation to our relationship with KMC, the provision of services to diverse communities and performance monitoring.

The truth of the matter is that UNISON could not persuade the sacked women from staging an illegal strike that left vulnerable old people in real danger. Motivated by the necessity to support the women following their dismissal, they have staged a never-ending bitter campaign against Unique Care Providers. This is despite the UNISON members losing two industrial tribunals and withdrawing a further three, the tribunals’ findings completely exonerated Unique Care from any harassment, bullying or ill treatment of the women in question.

The real reason for the continued persecution is political. UNISON is against private homecare provision and believes that the care should be provided through council-employed carers. This dispute has been a perfect stage for UNISON to push its own agenda.

Unique Care has had many proud achievements as a local charity, including developing the first Extra Care Sheltered Housing Scheme in Kirklees before this dispute altered perceptions. UNISON efforts would have been better placed in negotiating with the sacked workers not to stage the illegal strike and to return to work before the company was forced to dismiss them.

The real losers in this dispute were the staff that were persuaded by a small group of ring leaders to forget their caring principles and take part in an illegal strike that resulted in them losing their jobs.

Andrew Johnson

Unique Care