View Single Post
  #10567  
Old 13-05-2021, 03:25 PM
cockneyrebel cockneyrebel is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,875
Rep Power: 21474853
cockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipw View Post
Thanks for the negotiating advice and no surprise that you think the company somehow more to blame. We were instructed by shareholders to close the deal at the final negotiating meeting, where the summary of the conversation was along the lines of:

Company:' "each 'old contract' employee gets x in lieu of accepting new T&Cs, with future payrises for three years of CPI +y% (with a minimum of z% pa)"

Union: "we agree and can recommend to our members"

Company: "That's great - by the way we are also going to offer the future pay terms to the non unionised/'new contract' employees"

Union: "if you do that, we cant't recommend the deal to our members"

Company: "Ok, we wont do that then"

Union: "Great, deal will be recommended"

So, we voluntarily offered something that will have probably have cost the company more money at no cost to the unionised members. We then withdraw it because of a threat not to recommend the deal - and, as a consequence, the non unionised/new contract employees had less security of future pay increases. It may well have been an idle threat but there were no lawyers in the room - and even if there were, it would have served the company no purpose whatsoever in pushing the legal argument, i.e. at best it would have delayed the deal and wound them up by getting lawyers involved at the last minute. At worst, it could have risked the whole deal.

As an aside, this was procurement (of a previously poor performing service, both terms of quality and financial ) arranged by one of the most left wing councils in the country, with the T&C change supported by the council and local labour MPs.
It's a position that makes no sense to me I have to say. If they did that then you would think the position would be that they would want the money you would have spent on the other non-union members to be given as a further top up to union members.

However what you've said seems to confirm to me that it is a two tier TUPE situation. So the lines of what the union wanted wouldn't legally have been down to union and non-union members, but who was TUPE protected and who wasn't. And it might well have been that this also fell on union/non-union lines. Could that be the case?

It's a reaon I'm totally against having two tier agreements (which can also happen with pension agreements), as it ends up setting one set of workers against another.
Reply With Quote