We're pleased to report a flurry of activity at Fujitsu Services Warrington. Since a small group of members with union recognition "TUPE transferred" back into the company from Celestica, the organisation has been growing fast. Robert Williams, better known as Wilf, is our rep there, and the group now has its own space on our web site: http://www.ourunion.org.uk/icl/war.
It just shows what's possible on any site.
A series of new structures for Amicus are being set up at the moment, and you may be interested in taking part. All these events are for the North-West region - similar events are taking place elsewhere. If you're interested, please get in touch as soon as possible.
Delegate conferences:
- NW Regional Sector Conference for Electrical Engineering, Electronics & IT. Monday 8 March. Open to reps only.
- NW Regional Women's Conference. Wednesday 24 March. Open to all female reps and H&S reps, plus our branch delegate (Annie Leach).
- NW Regional Retired Members' Conference. Monday 5 April. Delegate chosen by the branch.
Open to all relevant members:
- NW Black & Ethnic Minorities Conference. Friday 2 April.
- NW LGBT Conference. Saturday 24 April.
- NW Disabilities Conference. Thursday 1 April.
- NW Youth Conference. Saturday 3 April.
We had a vacancy on the reps committee, but Andy C Smith, a long-standing Health & Safety Rep, has agreed to be co-opted to join the team. A warm welcome to Andy.
All 11 rep positions will be up for election at our group Annual General Meeting, which takes place in March. No date has yet been fixed.
The next meeting of the Greater Manchester IT Branch is:
6pm-7:30pm, Thursday 4th March
Upstairs, Hare & Hounds pub, Shudehill, Manchester City Centre, M4 4AA
(near Shudehill tram stop)
All branch members are encouraged to attend.
The business will include workplace reports and discussion.
The TUC have made today (Friday) "Work Your Proper Hours Day", to highlight the scale of unpaid overtime. They have published a league table of the unpaid hours worked in different occupations. They've worked out the equivalent of how much of the year workers aren't being paid for. In some occupations, the average employee is doing so many unpaid hours that the equivalent of not being paid until March each year!
For more information, see http://www.worksmart.org.uk.
Advisory Service ACAS has updated its guidance for employees on Bullying and Harassment at Work. The guide summarises the responsibilities of employers, outlines various options and points to further sources of information:
http://www.acas.gov.uk/publications/AL05.html.
The minutes of the last meeting of the Fujitsu Services Consultative Forum are now available here.
Provided we can settle the dispute, people in the MAN05 bargaining unit will benefit from the settlement, which includes:
The Company is committed to a pay increase in April 2004 for all employees in the collective bargaining unit at MAN05, but excluding those identified as being unsatisfactory performers (i.e. those whose performance is being managed via the Conduct or Capability Policy) or those who are aware that they are 'red-circled' (which can occur when an employee has knowingly transferred to a less demanding role where his or her pay is significantly higher than others doing a similar job at a comparable level of competence and performance).
The draft agreement then sets out priorities for the remainder of the money:
Phil Tepper and Sulayman Munir are leading our negotiations for the April 2004 pay review, to put flesh on these bones, in line with the decision taken at our last General Meeting.
However, reps have serious concerns about the general approach to pay being taken by the company:
a) Pay Scales
In Company Announcement 03-04 (7 Feb 2003), the Group HR Director had said "We are also in the process of realigning the roles within a number of our Professional communities to reflect the current organisation and this work will be completed by the end of the financial year. As a result, our salary benchmark information needs to be reviewed against these new areas and will not be available until after April. Please talk to your HR contact if you would like access to this information after this point.". We knew at the time that this was misleading - pay scales were available and were used by managers in the 2003 pay review. Many employees interpreted this as a promise to make the pay scales available after April. This never happened.
b) Role Mapping
Until a few years ago, employees at least had the right to see the pay scale for their own Professional Community role and level (along with ones they were considering moving to). We had won this right by arguing that people couldn't make informed career decisions without knowing whether a change in role led to better or worse opportunities. Over the last couple of years there have been some major changes in the Professional Community structure. People have been "mapped" from one role/level (e.g. DEV/4) to another. In some cases, this has taken place without the employee's knowledge or involvement. The "mapping" has not been consistent, and in some cases has led to people being effectively demoted without their knowledge.
You can check your current Professional Community, Role and "Detail Code" on Self Service, or by asking HR.
Some of the standard "mappings" between roles can be found here.
The company is still denying people the right to see their pay scales. Some people are finding that they've been moved from roles where they were underpaid, to roles where they are overpaid, with no change in their actual work!
While some of the remapping was the result of changes in the Professional Community framework, in other cases it resulted from business units deciding that (for example) "we don't have developers". This is quite contrary to the company's view of what a role is. A role is NOT meant to be the "job" you do at a particular time. As one of the documents on CafeVIK makes clear:
"A role is what you are. A job is what you do. So a role profile is not a job description.
Role profiles do not describe the technical knowledge and capability. They describe the professional capability."
Your reps don't believe it's right to permanently demote someone simply because you're asking them to temporarily asking them to do a job which doesn't use their full capabilities.
If you find you have been re-mapped and believe this may include a demotion, you should raise this with your management as soon as you can, as it could influence the pay review.
c) Lowering the benchmarks
The last full pay scales were produced for the 2003 pay review. These consisted of "min", "mid" and "max" figures, which were derived from the "lower quartile", "median" and "upper quartile" of pay for that job in the external market. Amicus reps had analysed these, and found that a third of MAN05 staff were paid below the bottom of the company's own pay scales. Has the general response from the company been to address "underpayment"? No, it's been to move the goalposts. This year, managers are not generally being given pay scales when they consider your pay. They have no external market information at all. All they are given is a figure for the median pay for the Fujitsu Services workforce. We know that our workforce is underpaid compared to the external market. How are managers supposed to know if people in one role are all grossly underpaid?
Next steps
The company claimed that the new "Reward and Career Framework" would address many of our concerns, particularly the excessive secrecy. We have yet to see enough detail of these proposals to be convinced that this is the case. But even this will not be in place for the April pay review.
The proposed agreement for the MAN05 bargaining unit should protect the people it covers from the worst. We are at least getting management to refer back to the 2003 pay scales, not just comparing one underpaid employee with some others. However, every member should watch out for being "re-mapped" into a different role. If you're being compared against the 2003 pay scales matching your new role and level, and that's far lower than your old one - how would you know? Amicus members on the UKCF are trying to raise this as a national issue, as well as tackling it directly for MAN05.
The agreements to settle the dispute are still not finalised, but we are down to one single issue which is unresolved. We don't currently have a date for our next meeting with HR. While Amicus and Fujitsu Services were involved in another matter, management mysteriously became unavailable for discussion on any issue. We are now chasing this up, and hope to have a speedy resolution.
The Amicus negotiating team believe we had reached the basis of an fair settlement with the company. Over the last few days, all the issues left outstanding from Wednesday's negotiations have been resolved. However, HR have reversed their stance on one issue this week, and a further meeting this morning has left it outstanding.
The outstanding issue relates to a small group of employees who joined the company in the last few years, and whose contracts include the clause:
"Any other severance payments to which you are entitled at the end of your employment will be calculated in accordance with current terms on contract termination, which are subject to change from time to time. This is currently the ICL management severance payments scheme"
There is no doubt which terms applied to these people when they signed their contracts. The company are not claiming that they have notified these people of any change since.
This had been discussed in November, and the company had confirmed in writing that this would be treated as an "Express" contract term, and the company would not apply the statutory minimum redundancy payments to this group.
Just as we were on the brink of recommending an offer to members, the company are now saying that the letter in November was mistaken, and that these people are not entitled to management grade terms after all.
It's clear from our survey that we have members with this contract clause, and they believe they are entitled to M-grade terms. One of the general principles agreed with the company early in the negotiations was that we shouldn't be changing people's redundancy terms - just clarifying them.
We believe the group of people affected by this issue is relatively small, so the company can't justify its new position on cost grounds. However, the implications for individuals are serious.
We have asked the company to reconsider their position on this point.
The Amicus negotiating team believe we had reached the basis of an fair settlement with the company. Over the last few days, all the issues left outstanding from Wednesday's negotiations have been resolved. However, HR have reversed their stance on one issue this week, and a further meeting this morning has left it outstanding.
The outstanding issue relates to a small group of employees whose contracts include a clause like:
"Any other severance payments to which you are entitled at the end of your employment will be calculated in accordance with current terms on contract termination, which are subject to change from time to time. This is currently the ICL management severance payments scheme"
There is no doubt which terms applied to these people when they signed their contracts. The company are not claiming that they have notified these people of any change since.
This had been discussed in November, and the company had confirmed in writing that this would be treated as an "Express" contract term, and the company would not apply the statutory minimum redundancy payments to this group.
Just as we were on the brink of recommending an offer to members, the company are now saying that the letter in November was mistaken, and that these people are not entitled to management grade terms after all.
It's clear from our survey that we have members with this contract clause, and they believe they are entitled to M-grade terms. One of the general principles agreed with the company early in the negotiations was that we shouldn't be changing people's redundancy terms - just clarifying them.
We believe the group of people affected by this issue is relatively small, so the company can't justify its new position on cost grounds.
Our negotiating team has made clear to the company that such an unjustified and detrimental change in their position at this late stage is unacceptable. We have asked the company to reconsider their position on this point.
We apologise for the delay in sending out the offer to the vote, but believe it is better to have all the issues resolved now, rather than fudge them.
In response to our request for volunteers from the MAN05 FC membership to act as an Amicus rep during the process of merger into Fujitsu Services, we're pleased to report that John Lacey has come forward. He'll be working alongside the Fujitsu Consulting UK Consultative Forum (FCCF) reps to ensure the needs of employees are considered during the process. John will be introducing himself in a newsletter shortly.
We had previously reported the company's intention to set up "employee forums" in various parts of the company. The company already has a "Fujitsu Services Consultative Forum" (FSCF) that considers company wide (international) issues, and a "UK Consultative Forum" (UKCF) for UK issues. Though we don't regard these as any substitute for union recognition, Amicus members have participated in these forums as part of a wider strategy to give employees a stronger voice.
Fujitsu Services is now beginning to roll out these employee forums in Core Services. DNIS have sent out a request for nominations, which close on Wednesday 18th February.
To maximise the benefit of such forums to employees, we need to make sure that they complement, rather than undermine, more formal structures such as Amicus union recognition and the UKCF. To achieve this, we need people on the forums who can call on support from Amicus, and are ready to cooperate with Amicus and the UKCF over the various issues that come up. We don't want the company playing off one structure against another.
If you've been nominated (or are thinking of standing), please let us know. We can then try to ensure we don't have union members unwittingly standing against each other, and use the Amicus network to help our members in the election campaign.
Last Wednesday's negotiations made good progress on a wide range of issues, but left six outstanding, despite negotiations continuing late into the evening. The company said they needed the weekend to consider their position on several of these. We had expected to be sending an "offer" from the company out to members for the vote by the end of last week.
Regrettably, the company has missed this target, and we don't expect to be able to put an offer to you until tomorrow (Tuesday).
Watch this space...
Our timetable had included an offer from the company going out to the vote by "the end of the week".
Wednesday's talks made good progress, but despite carrying on until well after 9pm, six issues remained unresolved. We now know the company position on three of them, but they tell us that they need the weekend to resolve all the rest.
Once we've seen the company's stance on these remaining issues, the negotiating team will need to assess whether the balance of the six points is good enough to recommend the deal to members.
In short, "the end of the week" appears to have slipped from Friday to Monday.
Yesterday we held an Extraordinary General Meeting for members at MAN05 (including some home-based employees).
1) DISPUTE
Lynne Hodge reported on the progress of the negotiations, which have made significant progress over the last few months. Further talks are due to take place on Wednesday 11th February, and this session is expected to resolve all outstanding issues, or show that a deal is not possible. The negotiating team intend to send out an offer from the company to members at the end of the week, for members to consider and vote on.
Reps thanked all those who had completed the survey, which had proved helpful to the negotiating team. The prize draw was made, from all those who had completed the survey, and two members won £25 prizes.
The dispute and negotiations have changed the relationship with the company for the better. All Amicus members ever wanted was a reasonable negotiated settlement to the dispute. The company seemed intent on breaking long-standing agreements, and unwilling to agree a way forward. The negotiating team believe that acceptable solutions have now been found to all the issues which caused the dispute. However, new issues have arisen during the negotiations, and some of these have yet to be resolved.
2) PAY CLAIM 2004
Phil Tepper explained the context to the April 2004 pay review. The negotiations around the dispute had reached an understanding which means that everyone in the bargaining unit will get a pay rise in April 2004, except those who have been disciplined for poor performance, or are "red-circled". [See the draft settlement document for more details]. The understanding also means that priority will be given to those paid below the bottom of the company pay scales.
There was considerable discussion about the pay situation. Members were angry that pay scales were kept secret. The company's proposed 3% pay "pot" (including promotions etc) didn't offer much scope for tackling the pay problems.
The following motion was carried:
We note that the Company proposes a pay “pot” of 3% for April 2004, including 0.5% for promotions, contingency etc. This compares poorly with the increases in earnings across the UK economy over the past year, and many individuals currently remain well below the minimum for their Professional Community benchmark.
We note that the Company once again proposes a “Sharing in Success” bonus for employees not covered by other bonus schemes. Last year this was paid in June.
In negotiating our 2004 pay claim, we instruct our Reps to seek a settlement which:
a) Accepts the same pay “pot” as the rest of the company for April 2004.
b) Distributes that pay pot in line with the “Fair Pay” element of our draft settlement agreement.
c) Includes a plan to bring all employees up to the bottom of their pay scale (the lower quartile for the external market for that role and level).
d) Allows individuals to voluntarily convert some or all of their bonus entitlement into a pay rise, to address the problems caused by the small pot, and to rectify under-payment more quickly.
e) Includes improvements in fringe benefits to help staff retention as the labour market picks up
f) Prioritises those who received 0% rises last year
3) PENSIONS
Dave Francis reported on the company's proposals for the defined benefit (final salary) pension scheme. The following motion was passed:
We note the crisis in pension provision and condemn the lack of protection for pensions.
We welcome Fujitsu Services acceptance of its responsibility to fund the deficit in the Defined Benefit (final salary) scheme.
Under current circumstances, we believe the company's proposal to reduce pension costs (and benefits) by increasing Normal Pension Date (NPD) by 5 years to 65 is the best achievable compromise.
We reluctantly accept this proposal, subject to the company agreeing to put in place safeguards for the future:
1) Sharing any future surpluses
2) Undoing benefit reductions if company contributions fall below the proposed level
3) Keeping the proposal to reopen the scheme under review and reporting to members on results
Dave explained that he will be holding "drop-in" sessions at MAN05 in the next few days, where members can discuss the proposals in more detail.
4) NEC REPORT
Ian Allinson gave a short report from the Amicus National Executive Council meeting.
On a more light-hearted note, someone has analysed what lessons for union organising can be drawn from the Harry Potter books:
http://www.unions21.org.uk/articles/potter.htm.
Amicus rep Alan Child is pursuing the issue of how people working away from home are managed. In parallel to this we are concerned with excessive working hours in certain areas. This was identified as a problem in a recent Health & Safety inspection carried out by Amicus H&S reps in one area.
Coincidentally, the Trades Union Congress have called a "work your proper hours" day for Friday 27 February, to highlight the unpaid overtime done by many UK employees. See their web site for more information:
http://www.tuc.org.uk/theme/index.cfm?theme=itsabouttime
We need your ideas for our 2004 pay claim, ready for the EGM. Please email Rep Phil Tepper.
You might like to consider:
The rules for this year's Sharing in Success bonus have been quietly published on CafeVIK.
The next meeting of the Greater Manchester IT Branch will be:
6pm-7:30pm, Thursday 5th February
Hare & Hounds pub, Shudehill, Manchester City Centre, M4 4AA
(near Shudehill tram stop)
As well as the normal business, the main item will be a discussion on pensions led by our very own Pensions Rep Dave Francis.
All branch members are encouraged to attend.
All Amicus members based at MAN05 (or who are home-based with a MAN05 admin base) should attend this vital EGM:
3pm-4:30pm
Tuesday 10th February
MAN05 restaurant
If your manager might need to arrange release for you to attend, please contact them NOW. If you have any problems getting release, contact your rep immediately. If you leave it until the last minute, we may be unable to help.
The agenda will include:
a) Report on negotiations, and discussion of the latest draft agreements
b) Proposals and decisions on our April 2004 pay claim
c) Report and discussion on the proposed changes to the pension scheme, and a vote on our response
d) Prize draw for those who responded to our members survey
We've now agreed with the company a timetable for bringing our dispute to a conclusion. We'll need help from every member in these closing stages. Here's the plan:
It's important that members take the time to read and comment on the drafts that go out this week, and to read, consider and vote on the offer from the company which should come out at the end of next week.