LC Cutbacks in 2006  last updated 19.12.06

Despite LC's unenviable record of customer service senior managers began in 2006 a  programme of cutbacks of leisure centre staff called unconvincingly the "'Customer First Review', placing even more pressure on local employees. Proudfoot Management Consultants assisted the review and no doubt were suitably reimbursed for their contribution. 

LCW chose not to publicise the cuts until it had written evidence. Following a Freedom of Information request to Wokingham District Council  (WDC) this became available in August 2006. Other centres have been assessed for cuts. Updates will be added as more information becomes available. As ever, LCW will also publish any corrections that are shown to be necessary or provide links to sites where others cited can comment on what is reported.

Mole Valley    Wokingham    Harrow    Ely    Easington

A Mole Valley Leisure Officer Wrote on 12.10.06

We were first informed by Leisure Connection of the 'efficiency savings' in June 2006 (document attached). This was following 6 -8 weeks of Proudfoot consultants looking at all aspects of how the centre operates, this included interviews with staff members, sitting and watching various sessions and looking at the flow of customers through the centre. 

Their conclusions were that there were too many staff on duty at certain times of the day. But what they didn't do was to do the research at different times of the year and different times of the day or sunny days as apposed to wet days. The other minor detail that Leisure Connection failed to tell us was that Proudfoot are not leisure consultants. 

Following the report, we were then told that staff cuts would be made mainly the reception and the gym. 

We were not particularly happy about this as we have always thought that LC have not staffed the building sufficiently, so to cut staff seemed ridiculous. After the initial announcement, it was clear that the problem had been compounded. Customers were calling me saying they couldn't get through on the phones, there were huge queues on reception and they couldn't get what they wanted. This went on for two weeks, after which I explained to LC that they were to re-instate the staff hours because it was having an effect on service delivery. This was done and there was also talk about investing in some more gym staff.

Things did improve after this but then the summer was upon us and we started having further problems with not enough cover on reception and on poolside, resulting in some days the learner pool being closed because they could not staff it and one receptionist being abandoned for hours lone working. As a Council we stepped in again and explained that they were there to manage the facility and provide a service, something that they clearly were not doing. Once again things did improve but then culminated in August with us having to issue default points...


Wokingham

Wokingham  Background 

Wokingham staff were irate at the cuts and the underhand way that LC attempted to introduce them. The anger is all the more understandable given the evidence that staff levels were already insufficient. Towards the end of 2005 both Carnival Pool and Loddon Valley Leisure Centre were inspected by QUEST. One of the categories assessed is Staff Supervision and Planning and this is rated under six headings including "Resources are allocated accordingly to meet the standards of service promised to customers" and "The shift planning system ensures that adequate time is allocated for handovers, meetings, training and personal development  of individuals." Both centres received the second lowest rating on the four-point scale used for these headings.

The Loddon Quest report noted  "…the present level of resource in place for Leisure Assistants appeared to be under-resourced…" and "...an area for improvement may be to consider the introduction of buffer staff at peak times or further cross-training, to enable further for cover during incidents of sickness or unplanned leave." 

At Carnival  "...It was evident during the Assessment that on a number of occasions there were insufficient backup staff to cover sickness and holidays. This was creating some tensions in the team as they were having to work extra hours or take on extra duties." 

Breach of Contract at Wokingham

From The Wokingham District Council Leisure Management Contract Quarterly Review Summary Report,  May – July 2006 (full file available on LCW)

 Issues concerning recommendations from consultants* have been at the forefront this quarter. LC didn’t communicate with WDC regarding any changes. WDC still have concerns regarding areas where staff reductions have taken place and there are not adequately trained staff to facilitate these areas e.g. cafeteria. WDC will continue to carry out a weekly monitoring programme at  Loddon Valley Leisure Centre until it is satisfied that LC are meeting the needs of their customers... As stated above in staffing (previous sentences) – LC were in breach of the contract in terms of not communicating any changes with WDC... (LC) Head office need to support local management in terms of dealing with ongoing service and development issues. Overall local management have been very effective within the contract and are doing the best they can with limited autonomy. However Head Office need to be aware of the issues on site and further communication with sites and WDC is paramount if the partnership is to prosper again.. . 

Head office need to be aware of what is happening at local management level and how their decisions can have a major impact on customers. Further monitoring and supervision of the wetside facilities (Carnival and LVLC) is required, as the current cleaning standards are not acceptable. Next quarter will see the introduction of the GP referral and LC need to be focussed to ensure that there are adequate staff in place to meet the demands. The contract manager need to continue to work closely with WDC’s Sports Development Manager to ensure that new initiatives are being set up and also different funding streams are being addressed.  

* The consultants employed by LC are understood to be Proudfoot Management Consulting.

In the "Contractor's Comment" appended to the report, the local LC managers have noted, "A fair report based on the issues with communication above site level..." This suggests that local managers were instructed not to inform the Council of the cuts. How senior does the dishonesty go; who has apologised to WDC or still owes an apology? And does LC need to employ consultants to be devious or is this something senior managers are competent in already? 

Following discovery of the cuts Wokingham issued a default notice on 18 July. This included,  "It is also not acceptable to have the contracts manager working in the cafeteria whilst he is suppose to be in meetings. The requirement is for Leisure Connection to give WDC assurances that the cafeteria will be in FULL operation immediately. If this is not achieved further defaults will be issued." 

LCW congratulates WDC on its willingness to confront LC over cuts and poor standards. See also Wokingham page.

Harrow

As yet uncorroborated by any official document, is a claim that in Harrow LC have axed management and supervisor posts as part of the consultant assisted  programme of cutbacks.  Whereas previously there were 11 such posts they have now been reduced to 8. 

Harrow leisure centres have a history of poor service and health & safety issues and it is not clear how standards can be maintained let alone improved with the reported 27% cut. If my source is correct,  the prospects for leisure users are even worse as untouched by the cuts are the Functions, Catering and Sales Managers. Take these out of the equation and the reduction is an eye-watering 62.5%!  It is still not clear the extent to which other grades are being reduced.

Speaking of functions, in the summer of 2006 regular leisure users were frustrated to find such a large wedding being catered for at Harrow Leisure Centre that they could not park anywhere near the centre. Some of those who had managed to park before the guests had difficulty exiting. No doubt all this added to LC's profits but did nothing to improve the experience of the those who wanted to exercise. 

Ely 

LC claim the cuts in Ely, amounting to over 24 hours a week, were arrived at locally and not as part of the "Customer First Review". So it is quite by coincidence that the cuts were made in the summer of 2006, while Proudfoot were recommending cuts elsewhere.  

Easington   From Minutes of SERVICE DELIVERY SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 31.7.06

With regard to staffing implications, the Senior Cultural Development Officer explained that Leisure Connection had completed a national review of all its sites in order to make efficiency savings to improve the service offered to its customers and clients. In addition, the company had seen significant rises in utility costs. Leisure Connection as part of the national review were proposing a number of changes, including some staff losses, re-training of staff and the introduction of multi-skilling.  1. Such pure motives, as if making more profit does not interest this company!  2. But were all councils consulted about the review? PB

The District Council had only recently been informed of the changes proposed by the company and as consultation was currently being undertaken with staff it would not be appropriate to go into full detail. The Director of Community Services and himself had met with senior management at Leisure Connection and expressed concerns about the lack of involvement to date. Agreement was reached to provide further details, which would allow a proper consideration and review of the proposed changes prior to any implementation.

A Member referred to the catering at Seaham Leisure Centre and explained that he thought catering was one of the most profitable professions. The Senior Cultural Development Officer explained that Leisure Connection had advised that they were making a loss in this area and that they would be reviewing the levels of staff employed providing this service. The Senior Cultural Development Officer explained that he would keep Members informed of any new developments.

In October 2006 the Council awarded LC a "default notice" related to cleaning and a November site visit report noted cleaning was an "ongoing problem". See Easington page. To what extent the dirt might be linked to "efficiency savings to improve the service offered to its customers" is not clear. PB

Further reports of cuts and their effects are sought. Thanks to Shiny, Tooter,  Bingo and Greenie for their contributions.

Paul Burns