Next week, the joint Probation unions and employer will be meeting with the Arbitration, Conciliation and Advisory Service (ACAS).
This is an opportunity for the parties to try and find a resolution of the long-standing dispute raised by Napo and our sister unions about the failure of the employer to abide by the Probation Modernisation Agreement that was reached in 2018 on pay progression. This resulted in the introduction of the Competency Based Framework (CBF). The CBF was designed to ensure that eligible staff who had yet to reach the top of their pay scale would progress to their next incremental pay point on 1st April each year subject to them demonstrating that they had achieved and demonstrated a series of core competencies appropriate to their job role.
Unfortunately, in recent years successive governments have failed to deliver on their end of the deal to pay up on the due date, and the unions have had to campaign to secure what their members have been entitled to. This has resulted in delayed payment of incremental progression including that due on 1st April 2026, and it has understandably been the source of considerable anger amongst our members.
Because of this, the unions submitted a formal dispute through the National Probation JNC procedures, but the refusal of the employer to agree to the 1st April pay out date until clearance is received from HM Treasury, and their position that CBF should form part of the total annual Pay Remit is unacceptable. We contend that the employer has an obligation to abide by a contractual agreement and that CBF should be an entirely separate matter to the traditional cost of living claims submitted by the unions.
We will bring you more news following the meeting with ACAS as soon as we can.
6 responses
This is welcome news, hopefully ACAS will be able to mediate an outcome that will enable members and all colleagues receive the pay progression payments we are entitled to speedily.
What arrangements will be made to recognise and reward experienced staff who have reached the top of their pay scale.
Really good news ACAS are involved but please don’t forget your long servng colleagues. I have been at the top of my scale since 2010
I wanted to highlight an issue that I know is being raised by a number of colleagues regarding the handling of pay progression under the Competency Based Framework (CBF), particularly in the context of recent pay discussions.
The CBF was introduced as part of the 2018 Probation Modernisation Agreement with a clear expectation that staff who met the required competencies would progress through their pay bands annually, typically on 1 April. My understanding—and that of many colleagues—was that this formed a distinct element of the pay structure, rather than something to be absorbed into wider annual pay negotiations.
However, what we have seen in practice over recent years is delayed payment of increments, including those due on 1 April 2026, alongside a position from the employer that progression is dependent on wider pay remit approval. This appears to represent a shift away from the original intent of the agreement.
While there has been understandable focus on those still progressing through the pay bands, I think it is important to explicitly recognise that those at the top of their pay band are now experiencing the most significant disadvantage in real terms. Without access to incremental progression, they rely entirely on annual pay awards. Where these awards have been limited, delayed, or constrained, many staff are experiencing what are, in effect, sustained real-terms pay cuts against the backdrop of rising living costs. I am hearing increasing frustration from colleagues who feel they are now financially worse off than they were a decade ago, despite significantly increased demands, workload, and responsibility.
There is also a growing perception among staff that the way recent pay proposals have been communicated has lacked sufficient clarity, particularly regarding the inclusion of CBF. In some cases, this has created the impression that CBF progression formed part of a new pay “offer”, rather than an existing contractual expectation. This distinction is important, as it may have influenced how members understood and voted on the reported 6% pay award, with some potentially believing that progression was contingent on accepting the deal, rather than already due under the existing framework.
I am aware that the unions have escalated this through formal dispute mechanisms and that ACAS discussions are imminent. Given the strength of feeling locally and more widely, it may be helpful to ensure that these concerns—particularly the real-terms erosion of pay for those at the top of the band, alongside issues of transparency and adherence to the original agreement—are clearly reflected in those discussions.
Separately, there may also be value in clarifying for members whether individual grievances are appropriate in circumstances where staff believe they have been financially disadvantaged or where agreed progression arrangements have not been honoured, alongside the collective approach already underway.
I’m sharing this as an observation from discussions with colleagues and in the hope it supports ongoing work to address what is clearly a long-standing and increasingly contentious issue.
This is very good response and I agree!
The issue of staff at top of pay band is interesting. Logically if one is at the top of a pay band , unless promoted , they will remain on the extant top pay of that band . The conclusion is they can’t progress in banding therefore the CBF is redundant in these cases . If that is so , then the CBF itself is nothing other than a mechanism for pay progression and any semblance of professional development attached to the CBF is merely that: a semblance.
Managers have been known not to do a CBF with certain employees, even though they are mandatory. I wasn’t aware of their existence, and neitherin 2024 2025 and 2026 I didn’t get one.