The company today announced that agreements (including union recognition) will carry over from MAN05 to the new Manchester site if no new agreements have been reached in the meantime.
This is good news, and begins to allay the fears repeatedly expressed by employees that the company intended to use the relocation to end agreements on union recognition, redundancy, pay etc.
However, the announcement also spells out that the disagreements over the "interpretation" of the agreements remain. These are the issues which led to the current dispute in the first place - and are very important indeed.
Much remains to be done...
We've now compiled all the comments made by Fujitsu Services employees as part of the Amicus survey of Fujitsu Services pay.
Initially, the comments are only available from CafeVIK here.
The Central Park site to which staff from various Manchester sites will be moving during 2005 was planned around a transport hub, at the heart of which was to be a Metrolink station. We knew that the new Metrolink line wouldn’t be in place when the new site opened, but the news in July that the government had withdrawn approval for the line came as a very nasty shock.
Amicus supported the campaign to "Get Our Metrolink Back On Track". The MAN05 Amicus group provided a spokesperson for the campaign video shown at the Labour Party conference this year.
You may have heard about Alistair Darling's announcement that (limited) funding is being restored. We reproduce his statement below:
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Alistair Darling): In July this year I told Parliament that because of excessive cost increases I would have to withdraw funding for the Phase III extensions to Manchester Metrolink.
Looking at the proposals, it has become increasingly clear there are real and persistent problems with the costs of the extensions. The public sector funding requirement has almost tripled since we first approved the project. Nevertheless, I have decided to commit over half a billion pounds, the sum previously agreed to fund Phase III, to Manchester's transport network. Manchester will also be able to bid for additional funds from the new Transport Innovation Fund. It is now up to the transport authority to come forward with proposals for how this funding is used.
Looking at the history of the Metrolink proposals shows the problems it has had with huge increases in public funding requirements:
The public sector funding requirement was going up and up - partly because of private sector pessimism about light rail, and partly because of failings in the original cost estimates. There was no guarantee that costs would not continue to rise. This led to my decision last July to withdraw funding for this project, and to ask GMPTE to work with us to look at alternatives that would benefit Manchester, but at a better price.
Following this decision, a working group was set up with GMPTE and chaired by Tony McNulty. Its purpose was to see whether light rail could be made affordable in Manchester and to consider alternatives. I also appointed my own financial and technical consultants.
The potential cost to taxpayers of the proposed extensions is now clearer:
In the light of this, I have considered the options for the way forward. GMPTE want me to agree to their continuing with their current procurement for the three lines. That would mean committing to upfront public sector funding of £900 million, when only four years ago we capped the figure at £282 million. I cannot do that. No Government could ignore these huge increases - a three-fold increase in just four years. And accepting this price would consume too much of the money that will be available for transport including in the North-West in future years. In addition, a scheme for substantially less than three lines would need a new procurement or risk legal challenge. I have therefore told GMPTE that the current procurement should not be revived.
Nor can I agree to GMPTE's alternative of starting a new procurement to enable construction of the three lines to be phased over a longer period. This would not address the fundamental problem of cost escalation.
I am however confirming that the £520 million budget is still available for Manchester, subject to GMPTE developing a satisfactory plan for these areas. This represents a major investment in Manchester, enabling a package of measures to address the transport problems in these parts of the city, which may include light rail improvements.
We have already provided some £170 million of the £520 million. Around £80 million was for GMPTE to buy the concession for the operation of Metrolink. This has continuing value to generate revenue for GMPTE and give them greater control over the tram network. The rest has been for advance works and buying land, some of which may still be required for the package that GMPTE now develop.
GMPTE are able to supplement this budget, both from their own resources and by bidding for funding from government through the Transport Innovation Fund. The TIF is available for authorities which propose innovative and coherent schemes to tackle congestion and encourage modal shift which could act as 'exemplars' for others facing similar challenges. This provides a real opportunity for Manchester to look at its transport policy across the piece and develop a bold integrated package.
The budget I am committing today provides the opportunity for a major transport investment package for these areas of Manchester. It is now up to the Manchester authorities to make the most of this opportunity, and to come forward with proposals that will deliver the transport improvements that these areas need.
At long last the results of the elections to the company's UK Consultative Forum (UKCF) are out.
We're pleased to report that union members once again fared very well in the election. Of the 18 seats, eight were won by Amicus members, three by PCS members, and one by a UNISON member. This result can only help promote effective employee representation across the company. It also shows that the company's pretence that trade unions have little support in Fujitsu is hollow.
The successful candidates who are union members are:
London, South and East: Ken Stainsby (UNISON, Stevenage)
Midlands and the North: Alasdair Lewis (Amicus, Home, Mobile Engineer), Andy Batchelor (Amicus, Solihull), Gordon Shepherd (PCS, Telford)
Northern Ireland: none
North-West: Ian Allinson (Amicus, Manchester), --- (Amicus, Crewe)
Scotland: Andy MaClennan (PCS, Cumbernauld)
Thames Valley and South-West: Jonathan Jenner (Amicus, Bracknell), Joe Harrison (Amicus, Bracknell), Robert Dimmick (Amicus, Staines), Sheila Leatherdale (Amicus, Slough)
Wales: Andy Fryer (PCS, Swansea)
The first meeting of the new UKCF is expected on 25-26 January. The new UKCF reps will also have to decide who will attend the Fujitsu Services Consultative Forum (FSCF) meeting on 18-19 January.
Thanks to everyone who stood, and to everyone who supported the union-backed candidates.
We have recently reported that the company was not implementing the pay deal in full, with two areas of difficulty:
1) Remapping. The company changed the Professional Community "role codes" for many employees, which has a knock-on effect on their pay & benefits progression. In many cases this was done without the knowledge of the employees, let alone their consent. The company had agreed to write to each individual telling them what had happened and giving them the opportunity to appeal.
2) Helpdesk shortfalls. The company unilaterally decided to use "special" helpdesk pay scales instead of the ones referred to in the agreement. The impact of this has been to deny many helpdesk staff the benefit of "shortfall plans". Elsewhere in the MAN05 collective bargaining unit staff have been benefiting from pay rises as part of these plans, which will ensure that nobody remains below the bottom of their 2003 pay scale.
We are still talking to the company about the "remapping" issue.
On the helpdesk shortfalls issue, the company position seems to change every time we speak. For a long time, they tried to claim the problem was cost. Amicus reps offered to go through the figures with them to explore a way forward which could be put back to members. It quickly became clear to both sides that the cost of implementing the deal was not a significant problem. The latest company position is to claim that they have implemented the shortfall plans – ignoring the fact that they moved the goalposts by using the wrong (generally lower) pay scales.
Members should continue to keep the pressure up - don't forget to pass round the petition on CafeVIK.
This issue isn't just for helpdesk staff - how can we have meaningful negotiations on any issue if the company feel they can pick and choose which bits of an agreement to implement?
The company are not prepared to carry out the "confidence building" measures members asked for at the General Meetings in August and November.
The company has still not told your negotiating team what their position is. They refuse to reach an agreement on how members are treated now, or to lift the threat that a move to the new site would result in employees no longer being protected by a range of union agreements.
Remember, the issues in dispute include:
The company now can't or won't:
The dispute no longer just affects MAN05 staff. Employees from other Manchester sites will be moving to Central Park, and will be directly affected by the outcome. Employees elsewhere in the company will be affected indirectly too - if the company succeed in undermining employee rights in Manchester - what chance will others have?
Employees have been incredibly patient with the company, offering opportunity after opportunity for a negotiated settlement. Instead of taking these opportunities and building trust with employees, the company have taken the opportunities to indulge in more stalling and time-wasting.
Managers keep giving us "warm words", but these are not matched by the company's actions. They seem to expect employees to trust the words and ignore the deeds, despite the clear message members sent at the last EGM:
a) Trying to refuse members union representation in individual matters (e.g. negotiating Compromise Agreements)
b) Failing to consult Amicus over changes which result in employees losing their current jobs and being forcibly redeployed
c) Failing to hold meetings to discuss collective grievances
d) Pressing ahead with changes without hearing grievances first
e) Unilaterally deciding not to implement the March 2004 pay agreement fully for helpdesk staff
f) Threatening to stop talking to Amicus over any issue
g) Threatening reps with disciplinary action for carrying out their duties
We instruct our reps to ensure that the following issues are high on the agenda for the next negotiating meetings:
1. Agreeing how the company will honour the existing agreements while they remain in force
2. Agreeing how the existing agreements and arrangements are extended to cover the new site until new ones are agreed
3. Agreeing how the company will raise issues of concern without immediately resorting to bullying and threats
4. Agreeing how the company can ensure these agreements are "on behalf of the company", apply to everyone covered, and cannot be rescinded without due notice
5. Agreeing effective joint communication of these agreements to employees
We believe that these measures would create confidence among employees that the process was moving in the right direction. This would relieve the pressure we currently find ourselves under to consider returning to industrial action to defend employee rights.
If our reps are unable to reach agreement on these issues quickly (by the end of 2004 at the latest), we instruct our reps and officers to step up preparations for any campaign that might prove necessary.
Your reps are now reporting to you that the company is unwilling to reach agreement on these issues quickly, and that we will therefore be following members' instruction to step up campaigning preparations.
You can read some of the recent key correspondence for yourselves, on our CafeVIK community.