We've still just got one issue outstanding, relating to redundancy terms for a minority of staff (see previous entry).
We haven't had any negotiations with the company since 11th February, and this is causing us serious concern. It doesn't seem sensible to hold up agreement on one issue after the amount of work all the parties have put in over the preceeding months.
It is true that HR are very busy with a range of issues including the Aspire contract, pay review, FC/FTSI merger etc. However, reps are chasing the company to bring the negotiations to a conclusion.
Reps have asked the company to use the interlude to get the drafts checked by their legal advisors, to avoid any last minute snags being found. Reps have also been using the time to do more research into the outstanding issue, ready for when we get a date for talks.
In particular, we've gone back to the results of the survey of members, to see what the effects of this issue would be on (the small group of) individuals. From the members who responded, it appears that all would effectively change from M-grade terms to SEA terms if we took the company's view.
Information provided by the company back in November suggests that there may be other employees who would be moved from M-grade terms to statutory minimum. We are seeking clarification. While within the bargaining unit this group would still benefit from redundancy terms better than the statutory minimum, but these would still be far worse than M-grade, and they would lose even this benefit if they transferred out of the bargaining unit.
Amicus reps aren't just worried about the consequences for individuals. There are also principles at stake. We don't believe the company has the right to retrospectively alter people's terms and conditions without even notifying them, let alone consulting them through Amicus.
We have now set a date (18th March) for the group Annual General Meeting, and would very much like to be able to report progress by then.