A training provider that helped deliver one of the UK’s biggest apprenticeship programmes at Morrisons is shedding a third of its 600-strong workforce, it has been claimed.

Two in every three of Elmfield Training staff were warned on October 4 they could be facing redundancy, according to a worker who wanted to remain anonymous.

Documents that appear to be from the company, leaked to FE Week, list jobs in business support, finance and communications, among others, as “at risk”.

Elmfield Training described the information as “inaccurate”, but failed to say whether any job losses were planned.

However, the documents supplied to FE Week highlighted how 157 of the planned job losses would be from positions on Elmfield’s bumper contract with Morrisons.

It follows a May consultation on redundancies that was reported in FE Week. However, the number of job losses on that occasion was not disclosed. And the anonymous member of Elmfield staff said there was new anger at the firm’s alleged job loss consultation branding it “unfair” on staff. They also said there were fears the cuts could affect learners.

“We’re not being treated with any consideration,” they added. “We’ve been told the consultation is going to last 30 days, but would like it to last 90 days. We think that would be fair to us and fair to our clients.

“It would be nice to have been given 90 days bearing in mind that we’ve put around 100,000 learners through for them. And learners will suffer.”
They said staff would be told whether they had one of the 196 “at risk” posts that would remain on November 4, and those that had not got a position would be given 30 days’ notice.

“Morale is the lowest I’ve ever known it,” they added. “We have gone through this before, but last time everyone was kept in the loop. We feel like we’ve all been left in the lurch. We all need the money, to pay off mortgages and stuff like that.”

A spokesperson for Elmfield, which was allocated £41m by the Skills Funding Agency for the current academic year, described the redundancy figures supplied to FE Week as “inaccurate, selective and misleading”.

“In our considered view, it is singularly unconstructive to focus on second-hand chit chat when the real investigation should be into the challenges confronting training providers and employers who want to help young people make the transition from education into work,” she said. “That’s what is most critical for the employment and skills system at the moment.”

We’ve been told the consultation is going to last 30 days, but would like it to last 90 days. We think that would be fair to us and fair to our clients.”

A spokesperson for Morrisons, which has been delivered around 100,000 apprenticeships by Elmfield since October 2009, said it had “confidence” in the scheme. “Our apprenticeship programmes have been mapped to the national apprenticeship framework,” he said.

“These standards are determined by the Sector Skills Council which in our case is SkillSmart Retail.” He added that Morrisons’ contract with Elmfield was up for review in 2013, when it was “likely to go out to tender”.

The latest alleged shake-up at Elmfield comes around eight months after its boss, Ged Syddall, was grilled by MPs on a business, innovation and skills select committee. He told the committee he had received 95 per cent of a £3 million dividend for their 2009/10 financial year.

“I set this business up from nothing and now we have 750 people,” Mr Syddall told MPs.

“The other thing we have done over the last three years, is 40 per cent of post-tax profits have gone into social impact programmes, which helped thousands of young people back into employment. From every £1 I’ve taken out in the last three or four years, I’ve put £2 back to helping other people who have not been as lucky as me.”

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply to Amanda Balls Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

39 Comments

  1. The information provided to your person who leaked it is very accurate. I don’t suppose Elmfield will supply you with any information! Thought not.
    What Elmfield have failed to understand is that by doing things this way they are going to unleash Assessors on the market place that have seen how Elmfield/Morrisons have conducted themselves in private and I sense they will not hold back on telling/showing people the reality of the contract. Elmfield need to have a massive rethink about their 30 day consultation. Treat people fairly.

  2. jason downey

    Is Elmfield Training untouchable ?
    They seem to always be in the press for something ?
    I am surprised that Morrisons have stuck with them through all of this. I can only think that they are not being shown the full picture and that Elmfield are keeping information from them. I have a friend that works for Morrisons and she says that she did her qualification in 1 10 minute visit. She was just told to sign something and that was it. I’m sure that Elmfield have covered their backsides very well.

  3. Malcolm Today

    During the bad days of short apprenticeships, Training Providers, as always, worked closely with Employers to try and meet the Employers’ needs. Which is exactly what NAS said they wanted.

    Colleges are not good at meeting employer needs so at the same time they just sub-contracted with dodgy Train-to-Gain/Here today/gone tomorrow inexperienced type providers delivering rubbish qualifications.

    But . . . the providers didn’t and don’t make the rules on length of stay and framework content. The Awarding Bodies and the Agencies did/do.

    Because of the welcome new length-of-stay rules it is inevitable that Providers will shed staff. In some cases their income has been halved. Colleges are also shedding loads of staff for the same reason.

    But don’t just look at Elmfield, look at your Grade 3 and 4 colleges that subbed out tens of millions of pounds to anyone that walked through their doors offering to spend their underspent allocations. Now of course they’re all off to India and Asia to see if they can launder their allocations out there. Personally I would rather my taxes were spent on Morrisons’ employees.

    Also, for every one disgruntled learner there are probably 20 that feel they benefitted from their Apprenticeship training at Elmfield. But I suppose it’s easier to focus on the negative eh.

  4. apprenticeship observer

    Malcolm is right to address the issue of balance and perspective.

    Why is it that FE Week is quite happy to report on any rumour or news from Elmfield but fails to follow up on other stories of job cuts which are affecting others in this market, such as the substantial sponsor, commercial partner and friend of FE Week, Pearson?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/supportservices/9566540/Pearson-starts-consultation-with-300-employees-of-IT-apprenticeship-arm.html

    Some balance, please? And perhaps some focus on the issue around funding which face all providers…the lack is not good for the credibility of your reporting…

  5. Kegwick

    Well said apprenticeship observer. I think the changes that FE Week thinks it has wrought will bite us all in the end; sledgehammer approaches to a relatively minor issue of quality benefit no-one. Minimum durations for example will have – and are having – an unintended consequence of making employers think that all apps should be 12 months (and don’t forget 1 day) long only. What will happen then? They’ll sack them.

    Subcontracted provision can and generally is, of high quality. It isn’t all bad Nick, and your focus may sell well, but will affect us all badly in time. A little more balance and impartiality please.

  6. Richard

    Very much agree with the comments about balance, everybody deserves the right to an opinion. However there’s been a crusading approach on this website and in some Linkedin groups by people who profess to be the all seeing eye as far as apprenticeships are concerned. The usual comments about Zenos/Pearson continue to go unnoticed.

    I agree with pretty much everything Malcolm has said, providers now face losing more than half of their income and will struggle to survive. I’m fully in support of minimum lengths of stay, but for ‘new job creation’ apprenticeships for all ages.

    There’s a definite need for adults already in work to, for example, do a Retail level 2 qualification, however if you’ve worked in your store for say 2 years you’re going to be working competently at that level. Dragging it out for 12 months is not a good use of time as they could be progressing to higher levels and enjoying a promotion as they do. It’d be a better/cheaper approach to introduce a better funded adult programmes (I.e. A better managed Train to Gain) to fulfill this requirement rather than house it all under ‘apprenticeships’.

    Numerous bodies sanctioned the Elmfield/Morrisons gig, now knee jerk reactions to it could lead to the loss of hundreds of Assessor jobs and implicate the quality of learning Morrisons now receive. At least Morrison’s learners are in work, unlike the ripped off young people who went through Zenos.

    Give providers and learners better channeled funding, listen to adult learners who want to up-skill, listen to employers who like to have some embedded development programmes and make apprenticeships for new job creation only – in my opinion!

  7. This is a very fair point re Pearson and one I made privately to FE Week earlier. “Investigative journalism” is all well and good, but it must be seen to be fair and balanced. When the Select Committee grilled Elmfield I was the only one who pointed out that the most vociferous MP was an “expenses cheat”. Articles based on “documents that appear to be from the company”, skate on very thin ice. The rapidly shifting economic and administrative landscape in which training providers operate would lead me to conclude that many training providers and even awarding bodies are going through the same process that Elmfield are alleged to be going through. Why not give Pearson, or City and Guilds a call just for the sake of balance?

    • Apprentice Scribe

      Journalism is all about being impartial. FE Week editor and his team seem to have a grudge against Elmfield. Go bark (or bite) at other training providers, I’d say. Fairness seems to have gone down the drain.

  8. education mattters

    This whole situation is getting out of control . Balanced reporting is required or FE Week will stop being interesting/respected or being taking seriously and a must read on a Friday, Also FE week would seem now to be creating the news with their new FE expert who would seem to be setting himself up as the guru of education holding his own review then reporting on his own findings in FE Week.

    but that love affair could be over with if twitter exchange is anything to go by

    @petertheteacher subscribe then 😉 Online it’s at the end of the front page article: http://bit.ly/RiICjt

    And to suggest that @FEWeek would not write about C&G is equally odd @petertheteacher. Read the articles on their CEO salary and Asda.
    From memory, not only does Zenos get a mention this week, but in at least 2 other @FEWeek articles this term. #justsaying @petertheteacher

    Find it rather odd that @petertheteacher & 1 other are criticising @FEWeek for not mentioning Pearson. Er…..see my editorial this week.

    • At least I write without concealing my identity!! I never used the word “review” in my “expert” piece, I said “conversations”, and if you read the article on DB Training, that was a direct result of one such “conversation”. If that’s “creating” the news, let’s have more of it!! That’s what’s good about FE Week — refreshing the parts that other journals cannot reach. And we are not filing for divorce 🙂

  9. Having worked on the Morrisons’ contract I can confirm that the management at Elmfield expected fast outcomes such as 10 Initial assessments in a day, NVQs completed on the second visit, learners not being able to choose their units etc. As an experienced assessor I maintained standards as far as I could and tried to get the Internal verifiers to allow some quality of learning. Having identified a couple of bad unit choices for the Retail NVQs at level 2 such as canteen staff carrying out the role of a visual merchandising expert and deli staff assembling goods (such as bikes at Halfords) I sent an email which eventually came to the attention of the lead verifier whose response was that ‘I had far too much time on my hands’. It is hard to believe that the awarding bodies sanctioned these units and that the inspection team missed them as we’ll, which all points to the system being focused on how much money each agency can make. Any suggestions by us experienced assessor’s were met with hostility, luckily I left before these redundancies as I was beginning to feel that I was selling my soul to the devil. I am now working for a ‘real’ provider and feel that I am making a difference to the lives of learners. Elmfield training are not the only company milking the coffers I have friends working for other providers who to be quite frank are far worse. It is time for an overhaul, providers and awarding bodies must go back to being very separate organisations and meet the needs of the learners and the employers.

  10. Delighted to hear there are far worse. Let’s focus on them, and also ponder on the phenomena in which people only blow whistles and leak documents once they feel insecure and then, and only then, all of a sudden discover their consciences.

  11. Actually I am not delighted — wrong choice of words. I should have said, I am not surprised. And while we are at it, let’s focus on those training providers forced into compromised delivery by the way their primes treat them — see the article on DB Training and my other article.

  12. Jason downey

    There seems to be 2 groups of people on this forum. The ones who have worked for Elmfield, both previously and are still with them. And a group of people that are defending them by saying that in some way FE Week should not concentrate on this as its not a balanced approach to be asking these questions of 1 provider without asking questions of another.
    The difference as I understand it is no other provider has claimed to deliver 100,000 qualifications in less than 18 months !!! It devalues all qualifications if you deliver them in this method and such a short period on programme. The majority of these so called learners had been with Morrisons for over 3 years. So it seems like it was just a paper exercise. If Elmfield and their supporters are so happy with the quality and length of stay open up all the paperwork for every learner to the SFA and Ofstead. Not just the selected learners and stores that they parade out to showcase their work. I am not surprised that this particular story has had so many comments lots of training providers have lots to loose if this is examined more closely. As for funding. Go out and find people who genuinely need Qualifications instead of offering them to people who quite frankly don’t.

  13. Questions to Annon2, how many NVQs have you completed on the Morrison’s contract in the last 2.5 years? How many times did you see each learner before completing the NVQ and on average how long do you spend on the initial assessment/sign up process? Are you employed as an assessor?Before you answer these questions do the maths.

  14. How about a bit of loyalty to the company if you are still working for them? Companies change with the climate, job losses were inevitable from the start, as anyone in their right mind knew that the Morrisons contract would not remain that big once the sheer amount of learners had been completed. Jamieboy I work on the Morrisons contract, It’s a question of your integrity as an assessor on how you treat your learners. If you work hard and plan your time, you can spend as long as you want with them…If your a slacker, that’s you’re downfall.. As for the quality. This was all given the go ahead. There is nothing shady about it. As for the leaks and the whisleblowing…shame on you, Maybe you need to grow up a bit and come down to reality…This is business after all.

    • jamieboy

      Loyalty works both ways though, don’t you think ?
      We know that the contract had to get smaller, but if in the first place they had planned better then we would not be in the situation we are now. If you seriously are trying to make the point that by putting 100,000 people through their qualification you could with any amount of planning spend “As long as you want with them” in a busy supermarket then you must be in the clouds and need to come back down to earth. YES it is a business, but it has responsibilities to the Learner, employer and Assessors. Seriously Kelsey and a few others. Whoever you are you are lone voices and it’s time that you examined your conscience in the same way that I have been wrestling with my conscience for perhaps too long.

    • Jason downey

      How arrogant to say “Job losses were inevitable from the start” this should never be a way of planning a business venture. People are being made redundant. I go back to what I said and agree with Hayley. If you have say a caseload of 200 learners how ion earth do you see them every month and ensure progression and learner journey. This may have been signed off at the start by the powers that be. However it does not mean that the delivery model was followed as it should have been. Redundancy should never ever be factored into the start of a program as has been suggested here.

    • I completely agree with Kelsey. We are in a business at the end of the day. No one wants to be out of a job but at the same time we should all stick together in both the good times and bad. The leaks are just as damaging to assessors whose jobs are safe as it is to those who have lost it. Bad publicity warns off potential clients making the situation worse for everyone in this industry and Elmfield is not immune. As for the people who claim the qualifications being delivered are a tick in the box exercise are well off the mark. I would be very keen to know the QIA’s who sign an apprenticeship off after 1 visit. 10 inital assessments is not a problem either as 100 can be done in a day. All you need to do is ensure learners are being invigilated well and Elmfield’s inital assessment takes a lot longer than other training providers who ask a few questions and regardless of what you achieve in the 5 minutes or so it takes to do they welcome you to the course which is not what Elmfield does. I wouldn’t entirely agree with Kelsey about spending a lot of time with learners as its not always possible but all learners can be seen and the level of interaction is up to each assessor. Everything Elmfield does is sanctioned by the SFA and if they were so unhappy then would pull the plug. Elmfield works in a highly digital environment and people forget there is no dodgy backdating of paperwork as may happen at other training companies, learners signatures cannot be forged and if this does happen then the idiot who would do this would be sacked for gross misconduct. ELmfield may not be the best company to work for but it has a lot of integrity in the way it conducts business acroos the board. I am talking from experience and have been at risk.

  15. anon123

    There’s understandablly a lot of anger, but people have chosen to continuie their employment with elmfield and to ‘assesss’ in a manner that provided no learner journey. All portfolios are to awarding organisation standards that’s why they go through, an IV can not ask us to go back and do more visits for the sake of it or create fake a8s even if my manager does, which I choose to refuse to do.

  16. Jim Bob

    I think some people should be working rather than posting on social sites during their work hours?
    This mud slinging is not helping anyone. If you had concerns then you should have raised them following the correct appeals procedure rather than keeping quiet. If you are unhappy in your role, then no-one is forcing you to stay.
    Morrisons is not the only contract Elmfield have and the negative comments do not reflect the entire business at all.
    Let us take stock, and no matter how unpleasant the situation is, we are faced with the decisions that are being made at the moment.

  17. Joe Soap

    The big question should be, why are Elmfield paying Morrisons £60 every time one of there employees attend a development day to complete their key skills. Morrisons wanted their staff to complete qualifications so they should be making time for this to happen and covering any costs involved, government funding was not intended to subside the employer

  18. I work on the Morrisons contract and have been doing so for the past 2 1/2 years, I found that quality went out the window at certain times but overall as a team we did try to ensure our work was of a good standard. I and my team have all been asking for a long time ‘what happens when the 100,000 is done’ but have never had a decent response, so realistically we were fully aware this was enevitable, but as we all had families and mortgages to pay for, although we did look around for alternative employment, found that there wasnt enough out there to lure us away from this job. As unproffessional as it may sound, the job itself was quite quick and easy and as all the training was already completed and pre mapped, it was quite simple to complete the QCF, however the keyskills were completed fully from scratch and at times this was hard as the levels of learner are not always competant to do so. But I dont feel as an assessor I have wasted my time as I got to use up to date tech and methodologies and expanded my CV.I am dissapointed at the way they have conducted themselves since the announcement, and how we are all left hanging without the information we all need to go forward, and this ‘business as usual’ approach is not working for us as we are so de-moralized under the circumstances, without any motivation to do anything. I agree with the comments on it should have been 90 days and it is underhanded to do it for only 30 but have to say I dont think I could last 90 days without knowing what is going on. I am saddened that this is happening but in actual fact quite looking forward to embarking on a more rewarding job… obviously got to get one first…with a company who not only warrants my abilities but cherishes the experience I have as an assessor and will listen to my opinions with regards to standardisation issues. Job security is everything, but as always we are just a number!!!

  19. It is sad that people loose their jobs, it truly is. Those jobs existed in the first place because of Morrisons and 100’s, yes 100’s of jobs were created when every man and his dog were shedding staff as fast as they could. Ged Syddall is a genuine man, who would have been torn apart by shedding jobs, that only a few weeks ago he proudly sat in front of a Select commitee and was proud of. Whistle blowers who do so after the event, are cowards, pitiful and lack integrity. If honesty is really a value, it’s unconditional. Put those energies into finding your next role.