Amicus lodged a national pay claim with Fujitsu Services for the first time this year. This is the second of a series of newsletters highlighting particular aspects of the claim and how it would benefit you. The home page for the pay campaign is http://www.ourunion.org.uk/pay2005.
Today’s newsletter focuses on how your Professional Community role code affects your pay and benefits, and some of the potential pitfalls when your role code changes.
1) Professional Community roles and Pay Scales
What is a Professional Community Role?
Your Professional Community Role helps the Company to determine your pay and benefits. Each one groups together people with similar capabilities or doing similar jobs. It provides the equivalent of a rough “job description” and a “grade”. It defines which other employees you will be compared with when considering your pay and benefits, and makes it easier to compare you with employees doing similar jobs for other companies. The company provides managers with guideline pay and benefit levels for each role at pay review time.
Making sure you are recorded in the correct role has a big impact on your pay and benefits – probably bigger than your appraisal.
What is your Professional Community Role?
You can look it up on SelfService on CafeVIK – simply log in and choose “Employment Details” from the options. There are three pieces of information you are looking for:
1. Your “Professional Community Code”
2. Your “Role Code”
3. Your “Detail Code”
Together these tell you which role you are in. The “Professional Community Code” is a broad category which groups together a number of “Role Codes”. The “Detail Code” (sometimes called a “benchmark” or “level”) is like a grade within the role. So you need all three to know where you fit in the company’s pay and benefits structure.
You will also notice a “Role Code Description” (if you can read it) which is a text version of the Professional Community Code and the Role Code.
If you look at “Communities” on CafeVIK you will see that a few of the ones listed have a little yellow shield next to them with a “P” in it. Each one of these corresponds to a “Professional Community”. For example, Service Delivery and Software and Solution Development are amongst the biggest. If you go into the CafeVIK community for your own Professional Community you’ll probably find a section describing the “roles” or “role profiles” within it. A “role profile” is a description of a particular role and the levels within it (which – on a good day – correspond to the “Detail Code” you found on SelfService).
We apologise if this is confusing – unfortunately the company’s use of terminology is far from consistent.
What are the pay and benefit levels for your role code?
Up until 2003, the company used to use market research to find out what the UK “going rate” was for each role – producing external-market-based pay and benefit scales. Though by 2002 the company had already ended the practice of publishing its pay scales, employees still had the right to see the scale for their own role, and for any role they were considering moving to. Though this was secretive, at least employees could make informed decisions about their own careers.
For the 2003 pay review, the company produced new pay scales, and announced (Company Announcement 03-04) its intention to publish the pay scales again – welcome news. Unfortunately, the company broke this promise, and the scales became completely secret. Only union reps at MAN05 (using legal rights arising from union recognition) had access to them, and the company imposed confidentiality restrictions to prevent the reps passing the information on to members.
Since 2003, the company hasn’t even produced externally benchmarked pay and benefit scales. The scales produced for the 2004 and 2005 pay reviews only compare us with each other – hiding the fact that so many of us are paid below the market rate.
In 2005 Amicus members in MAN05 have instructed their reps to refuse to accept the new pay scales on a confidential basis, and to pursue all avenues to force disclosure of the information without such restrictions. The MAN05 reps will be discussing with their Regional Officer whether an application can be made to the Central Arbitration Committee to order disclosure.
At the moment, the only pay and benefit information available to employees is from the second batch of results from the recent Amicus pay survey.
Amicus has also produced a leaflet advising members how to use the Data Protection Act to force the company to tell you the pay and benefit levels that apply to you. Members should have received this through the post, but it is also available on the Internet here.
The text of the model letter is as follows:
To: hrdirect@uk.fujitsu.com
cc: line manager
I am writing to request the disclosure of certain personal information that I believe the company holds about me, under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998. The information relates to my job category and grade (sometimes known as Professional Community Role and Benchmark) along with the associated pay and benefit scales. I would like the information in relation to the 2003, 2004 and 2005 pay reviews.
I believe that for the pay reviews, the company held in a database and/or spreadsheet format information relating to my pay and benefits. Can you please provide all such information associated with me, either directly or by indexation into other tables and can you please include the names and/or explanations of each of the fields.
To be clear – I am not asking for the entire spreadsheet or table, but I am asking for the complete “row”(s) identified by my name and/or personnel number, along with the names and/or explanations of the columns.
I would hope and expect this to include, but not be restricted to, information about my current (at the time the data was generated) Professional Community role, pay and benefits. I would also expect it to include guideline benefit levels the company associated with me (e.g. pay scale applicable to me, standard levels of bonus, medical scheme or car entitlement applicable to me).
Please indicate the applicable date for each set of data provided. The Information Commissioner has advised that:
“It is likely that in the spreadsheet you have described the row which corresponds to each employee will be their personal data and they will have the right to receive a copy of the information contained in that row if they make a subject access request”.
If you require any further information, don’t hesitate to contact me.
Many thanks for your help.
Freda Bloggs
Personnel number: Ukxyzxyz
Email: freda.bloggs@uk.fujitsu.com
If you have any information about pay and benefit scales, please send it to us by email or post. The union will protect the confidentiality of its sources.
Secrecy leads to inconsistency
One of the consequences of pay and benefit information not being openly shared with employees is that we are treated inconsistently – and for no good reason. Not everyone receives pay and benefits according to the company’s own guidelines – and it’s hard for individuals to challenge this if they can’t see the guidelines. A culture of secrecy is a fertile breeding ground for discrimination of every kind.
The reps in MAN05, who have access to pay and benefit information, know of many incidents where employees were given pay information by managers – but it was false or grossly misleading information. A culture of secrecy protects incompetent or dishonest management.
2) Changes to role codes – “remapping”
Given how important your “role code” is to your pay and benefits, you’d have thought that any change to it would be treated as seriously as a promotion. Unfortunately that isn’t always the case in Fujitsu Services.
We have heard innumerable examples of people’s role code being changed without their knowledge, let alone their agreement. In some cases the changes amounted to an effective demotion, or a promotion without a pay rise.
The biggest group of changes occurred around April 2003, when the company broke up the “Engineering” Professional Community into several pieces. The company described the process as “mapping” people onto new role codes, but in reality, the changes were carried out inconsistently and many people lost out as a result. Many of them probably still don’t realise this. The UKCF highlighted many of these issues in a letter sent nearly a year ago.
The Amicus group at MAN05 was successful in beginning to get these issues addressed as part of their 2004 pay deal. Unfortunately the company has yet to apply these principles in the rest of the country, where the problems were just as bad.
For part of last year Amicus worked with the UKCF and the PCS union on a project to improve the way the company dealt with its pay and benefits, and the company has made commitments which we hope will avoid any recurrence of the problems as a result of the impending role code changes in the TSS and CSE roles.
Even if you know how your role code changed over the last couple of years, it’s still hard to know what impact that has had on your pay and benefits without access to the secret pay scales. The Amicus group at MAN05 have produced some remapping guidelines aimed at their own members to help make this assessment – the guidelines will offer some help to members elsewhere. We must stress that the impact depends on individual circumstances – this is a guideline only.
Please study the results of the pay survey and the remapping guidelines before contacting your rep – otherwise they will be inundated with hundreds of queries.
3) How would the pay claim help?
The Amicus national pay claim for 2005 contains a number of elements under the heading of “Fair Pay” which would help address the problems outlined above.
Pay claim section 1 a)
“The Company to publish lower quartile, median and upper quartile pay figures for Fujitsu Services staff in the UK for each Professional Community role and level, along with the equivalent figures for the Professional Community roles and levels in use in March 2003.”
The importance of March 2003 is that this was the last time externally benchmarked pay scales were used, and it was before the break-up of the huge old “Engineering” Professional Community, when most mis-mappings took place.
Pay claim section 1 b)
“The Company to publish its externally benchmarked pay scales used for the March 2003 pay review, and agree a suitable basis for future benchmarking with Amicus to create meaningful pay scales.”
Pay claim section 1 d)
“Agreement on pay progression within and between roles.”
Pay claim section 1 f)
“Clear criteria and appeal processes to be established before any more role code ‘mappings’."
Amicus have produced a second paper-leaflet as part of the national pay campaign. This focuses on the need for employees to have access to pay scales, and explains how employees can exercise their rights under the Data Protection Act to see the scales appling to them.
You can download the artwork for the leaflet here.
Members of the “Defined Benefit” (final salary) pension scheme should have seen from the announcement on 1 February that the trustee intends to reduce the “Late Retirement Factor”. We need to discuss the impact of this with one of the groups of members who are likely to be affected.
If you are a member of the scheme and 59 or over, please email our pensions rep Dave Francis so that he can keep you informed.
The “Late Retirement Factor” is the amount your pension is increased each month past the age of 60 if you are not drawing it. The figure is currently 1%, but the company have accepted the Trustees recommendation to reduce this to 0.75% from 1 April 2005.
The new UK Consultative Forum (UKCF), elected late in 2004, had its first meeting at the end of January. We hope the minutes of the meeting will be available soon.
While the UKCF is no substitute for effective union organisation, it can play a part in helping ensure employees are informed and consulted about key issues.
Union members did extremely well in the elections – winning a comfortable majority of the seats. When the company often tries to pretend that the union only exists in Manchester, it’s interesting to note that across the country as a whole, a majority of the employees who voted put openly union-backed candidates as their first choice. You can read a summary of the results here.
The TUC’s second “Work Your Proper Hours” day takes place on 25th February, to highlight the extent of long-hours working and excessive unpaid overtime in the UK.
The second batch of results from our pay survey highlighted that long-hours are a major problem in Fujitsu, with over 60% working the equivalent of 3 weeks or more per year, and 12% saying they normally broke the 48-hour week limit set by the Working Time Directive.
While the Amicus presence across Fujitsu continues to grow, allowing more effective campaigning and support for members, the subs rates have been frozen – no increase this year. This follows a reduction the previous year. Union membership continues to provide a lot for your money. Do you know a colleague who might want to join?
Members often want advice from reps about whether they are entitled to X, or whether the company can insist they do Y. To answer the question, your rep often needs to know what your contract says or what your Terms & Conditions are. Sometimes you may need this information in a hurry – for example if the company intends to “TUPE transfer” you out to a new employer. Sometimes the company may disagree with you about what your contract says – so you may need evidence to back up what you say.
Your contract is the whole agreement between you and your employer. Parts of it may be on a piece of paper with “contract” written on the top, but it is likely to include other things too – such as the letter you get when you are promoted, or any letters changing Terms & Conditions. It may also include things that are not written down – custom and practice.
Amicus advises members to keep a file in a safe place including important documents about your employment such as:
· Any contract you’ve signed
· Any changes the company has notified you of
· Any letters of promotion or pay rise
· Annual benefit statements
These days the company relies on the Intranet to provide employees with most of their information about their contracts. Many of us find this easy and convenient. However, it does mean you need to remember to print off the information from time to time, so that you have a permanent record.
You can find your key employment information on CafeVIK’s SelfService secure area:
https://secure.cafevik.fs.fujitsu.com/selfservice/selfservice.asp
All employees have a legal right (under the Employment Rights Act 1996) to a written statement of particulars of the principal terms of their contract. If you don’t have these terms clearly documented, it can be useful to ask the company for an up-to-date statement of this kind. If you get one, please keep it safe, but it’s also important to check it. If there are mistakes in this statement and you don’t challenge them at the time, it could make it more difficult to contest them later.
Bear in mind that a statement from the company is only as accurate as the information it is based on. Many personnel files are incomplete for a variety of reasons – for example an astonishing number seem to have been in the Arndale Centre when it was blown up. Don’t just assume a statement is correct – does it match what you expect?
The Amicus national campaign on Fujitsu pay is clearly causing a stir, with many members and non-members taking an interest. Many employees seem to have spotted the media coverage of the campaign, and have been drawing it to the attention of colleagues.
Remember, though the company’s policies on use of IT do allow “reasonable personal use”, sending messages to big d-lists is likely to be frowned upon unless it’s what the d-lists were intended for.
The company policy on “Use of Email and Internet Applications” is here, though you should be aware that some parts of the company may operate under additional restrictions.
Amicus lodged a national pay claim with Fujitsu Services for the first time this year. Over the coming weeks, these newsletters will be highlighting particular aspects of the claim and how it would benefit you. Members should also be receiving a second paper newsletter within the next week. The home page for the campaign is http://www.ourunion.org.uk/pay2005.
Today’s newsletter focuses on the aspects of the claim relating to pensions and retirement – coinciding with the TUC day of action on pensions.
Pensions are for the future. Many people see pensions as dry, uninteresting and hard to follow. A few facts about deteriorating pension provision may get your attention:
· A woman aged 49 will get roughly £20,000 less in state pension than a woman aged 55 – even though she contributes the same. She gets 5 years less pension, worth about £4000 per year.
· If you’re in the company’s Defined Benefit (final salary) pension scheme (the good one!) and you lose your job at 55 and have to start drawing your pension, the benefits you earn each year now will be worth at least 15% less than benefits you earned each year before the changes.
· The basic state pension for a single person is worth only £79.60 per week. If it had continued to keep pace with earnings since 1980, it would now be worth £113.12. Its value compared to earnings is expected to decline further.
· Since September 2000, the company has not allowed people to join the Defined Benefit pension scheme.
Spot the pattern? The younger you are, the more you lose. Yet many young people have no pension provision at all.
Pensions are a vital part of planning for the future, and the future has a habit of creeping up and biting when you’re not looking. Remember - pensions are “deferred pay”. You earn it now but benefit from it later.
The claim aims to ensure a decent standard of living in retirement for everyone, to ease the transition between work and retirement and to give increased security to older staff. Different aspects of the claim will benefit different employees in different ways. We’ve asked the company to open negotiations on the overall pay claim which includes four points relating to pensions and retirement.
Claim section 4 a) “The re-opening of the Defined Benefit (final salary) pension scheme to all employees.”
The “Defined Benefit” (final salary) scheme is much better than the “Defined Contribution” scheme. The company won’t allow newer employees to join the Defined Benefit scheme. Newer employees are losing out. There’s also a worry for those already in the Defined Benefit scheme that if the numbers continue to dwindle, their pensions may come under threat too.
Since September 2000 the company has not allowed employees to join the “Defined Benefit” (final salary) pension scheme, where your pension is guaranteed. Now people are only allowed to join the Defined Contribution scheme. For many people, this scheme will not guarantee a decent pension in retirement, though any scheme to which the employer contributes is generally worth having.
A “Defined Contribution” pension scheme means your contributions and the company’s contributions are gambled on the stock market. What you get depends heavily on the state of the markets at the time of your retirement. The company can shoulder a temporary deficit because it has time on its side, and over time the markets produce growth. Our time runs out when we retire. The change from Defined Benefit to Defined Contribution moved the risk from the company onto the individual employee.
Fujitsu Services closed its Defined Benefit scheme to new entrants as a money saving exercise. The scheme was in serious deficit, partly as a result of falling markets, but also because when markets were strong the company took an extended contribution holiday - paying nothing into the fund and getting its pension provision at zero cost. Greed and short sightedness made a bigger contribution to the deficit than increased life expectancy.
Since the Defined Benefit scheme closed to new entrants, employees accepted changes last year that cut its costs to the company.
Keeping the fund closed now may even be an expensive option for Fujitsu. Allowing in new members extends the time over which the company has to pay off the deficit – allowing them to pay back less now and more opportunity for the market to recover. Reopening the scheme also improves the profile of the scheme - increasing the ratio of contributions to liabilities.
This is a potential win-win situation, with higher pensions for staff to enjoy in retirement while affordable for the company. The changes made last year make the Defined Benefit scheme more affordable for the company – both in terms of servicing the deficit and for the benefits members earn in the future. Remember – at that time the company did promise to keep the re-opening of the scheme under review.
Claim section 4 b) “The right for all employees to remain in employment up to age 65 if they wish.”
This part of the claim is about changing your “Normal Retirement Date” – to put it crudely, the date at which the company can dismiss you without compensation (redundancy etc). This date is part of your contract of employment, and is distinct from any dates specified in your pension scheme.
· Why should the company be able to dismiss some employees aged 60-65 without compensation, when most are protected?
· Many employees won’t get a state pension until they reach 65 – leaving a five-year gap with less income if you are dismissed without compensation at 60.
· Those with inadequate pension provision may not be able to afford to retire at 60. Amicus wants to make sure everyone can afford to retire early, but we also believe that should be an individual choice, not something forced upon you.
This part of the claim is about age discrimination and retirement, not pensions. This is not about changing the date at which you can get your full pension.
The majority of employees already have the right to work until they are 65, but a minority do not – generally those who joined the company since 1988 and are not in the Defined Benefit pension scheme. Most of these have a Normal Retirement Date of 60. Amicus hopes they can have five more years of employment security.
The right to work to 65 does not mean that anyone has to work this long. The important thing is having the choice.
Why should some staff lose job security 5 years earlier than most? This is manifestly unfair. Forthcoming age discrimination legislation is likely to resolve this issue next year, so the company isn’t losing much by agreeing to be fair now.
Claim section 4 c) “Clarification of the ‘pre-retirement wind-down’ scheme in the light of more flexible retirement ages. The scheme should be open to any employee from their 59th birthday who gives a year’s notice of their intention to retire.”
After 40 years at work, retirement can come as a shock. The company has a scheme to make the transition more gradual. It allows an employee within 1 year of his or her Normal Retirement Date (see 4b above) to work part time – four days a week for six months, then three days a week for the last six months before retirement. During this year, full salary is paid.
To help achieve flexible retirement ages, we want anyone to be able to take advantage of the scheme from their 59th birthday. The individual would give one year’s notice of retirement any time between their 59th birthday and a year before their contractual retirement date.
Claim section 3 f) “Publicising to all employees that the ‘Flexible Working Guidelines’ don’t just apply to those with young children. Positively considering requests from older workers to change working patterns.”
A few years ago the government, in response to union campaigning, introduced a “right to ask to work flexibly” aimed at parents and carers. To their credit, Fujitsu Services implemented this through a policy that offered this benefit to any employee.
The flexible working policy, along with most other HR Policies, can be seen on Café VIK, here.
We are asking to the company to publicise the benefits of their policy more widely.
The scheme could be particularly attractive to older workers. For example they could work part time if they are unfortunate enough to have an inadequate pension, or to ease into retirement gradually without a sudden drop in income. Fujitsu would retain access to skills that it would otherwise have lost. Again, this is a win-win situation for the employee and for the company.
These proposals on pensions and retirement are affordable. Some are more about treating everyone fairly than increased cost. They’re the result of joined up thinking about the issues around a comfortable transition between work and retirement, and about a dignified and financially comfortable old age. This must be the natural right of anyone who has conscientiously served their employer for many years.
We recognise that making changes to pension schemes and contracts is not always easy. For that reason, on points 4 a, b and c above, all we’re asking the company to do by 1 April is to agree to open negotiations, not to have it all agreed. How could the company justify refusing that?
The company is intending to close the MAN05 datacentre by mid-2006 in preparation for vacating the site completely. The plan is to move the systems from the MAN05 datacentre to other locations including SDC01. Amicus estimates that 16 MAN05 employees will be directly affected by the datacentre closure, and others by the site closure. Of course there will also be a wider impact on the many people who use the CS Hall and Development Hall from time to time. After initial discussions with management, we can report that:
· Support will be available to employees in finding redeployment opportunities.
· Where possible employees will be released earlier to take up new roles and the roles in the MAN05 datacentre will be backfilled with contractors.
All employees who were MAN05-based at the time of our 2004 MAN05 pay agreement should now have received letters detailing whether they were mapped in a “standard” or “non-standard” way. This letter should include their role code in March 2003 and their role code in March 2004.
Amicus urges members to study these letters carefully – your role code has a significant impact on your pay and benefits. The 2004 pay agreement said:
“Where the appeal process identifies incorrect mappings, the employee will be moved to the correct role and detail code. Where this has resulted in a lower pay rise for the individual in the 2004 pay review, this will be addressed. Any such increases will be backdated to 1 April 2004.”
Your reps wanted to avoid being inundated with hundreds of individual queries, so we promised to provide some guidelines to help members work out how they had been affected by the role-code changes. This guidance is now available on CafeVIK here. We must stress that the impact depends on individual circumstances – this is a guideline only. If you have questions, the rep currently in the best position to deal with them is Sulayman Munir.
Negotiations for the pay review for the MAN05 collective bargaining group began on Monday (14th Feb). This will directly affect all MAN05-based employees who are currently paid £36,911 or less. The talks are at an early stage, but both parties aim to conclude an agreement in time for increased salaries in the April payroll.
It was agreed that a notice will go out to MAN05 staff and their managers clarifying the process – the lack of information has been leading to all sorts of rumours and speculation – even some people apparently believing that the union is stopping them getting a pay rise!
To help with negotiations, we need some information from members in relation to point 3 c) of the pay claim, which reads:
Review of fixed standby, on-call and call-out allowances, fully taking into account the time since the last increase.
This relates to some people whose allowances are defined as a £/hour rate, rather than a %age of their normal pay rate. In some cases these rates have not been increased for over ten years.
If you are on a fixed “£/hour” rate for standby, on-call or call-out – we need to hear from you. Amicus and the company need to identify as many of the people affected as possible if we are going to tackle the problem.
Thanks to all those members who attended the Extraordinary General Meeting on Thursday. We summarise the key points below:
Dispute Update.
The dispute has been going on for nearly two years and members voiced their impatience – and their concerns that the company was time-wasting. Reps shared the frustration, but pointed out that since late December, the company had at last begun to do some of the things members had asked for in an attempt to resolve the dispute, such as:
· Telling us what the issues were
· Telling us what issues had been raised by the company’s solicitors
· Announcing that agreements would transfer to the new site if no new ones were in place
Reps reported back from the 2-day talks the previous week, and described an agreed summary of positions. The production of this summary would help ensure that the outcomes of the talks were clear and to avoid any moving of the goalposts.
The main areas of controversy were over individual representation and 90 days consultation where jobs were at risk.
Members passed the following motion unanimously:
We are pleased that the company has resumed talks to resolve the long-running dispute over union recognition, redundancy and related issues. The announcement on Christmas Eve that our existing agreements would carry over to the new site if no new agreements had yet been reached was also welcome.
We are disappointed that the company wants to reopen discussions on the questions of the right to individual representation and the right to 90-days consultation in the event of redundancy. We hold both these rights dear to our hearts, and they were central to causing the dispute. These issues had been explored at length prior to February 2004, and compromises made to accommodate the needs of the company.
We remain keen to see a negotiated resolution to the dispute. Accordingly we instruct our reps to continue negotiations with the aim of bringing an offer to settle all the issues in dispute to our Annual General Meeting in March, providing that there are no repeats of the breaches of our existing agreements in the intervening period. We believe that continued building of trust and confidence should provide the most favourable context for talks.
Just as we don’t intend to take further industrial action while talks proceed positively, we expect the company to continue to follow the approach which applied before the breaches of our agreements which led to the dispute. Changes should be brought about by negotiation, not imposition.
If our reps were forced to break off talks due to further breaches of the type that led to the dispute (for example failing to consult prior to selecting individuals to be forced out of their jobs into redeployments [including Linkwise]; failing to give 90-days consultation prior to redundancy; refusing members representation; or implementing decisions before fully hearing grievances) then we would want Amicus to ballot us for further industrial action, and to apply pressure by other means. We instruct our reps to consult other members in Fujitsu Services who might be affected by the outcome of the dispute on whether they would want to be included in such a ballot.
We hope that the positive progress in the 2-day talks can be continued, and a speedy resolution to the dispute achieved for the benefit of the company, its employees and its customers.
Pay and Benefits, Letters about role code Mappings.
All employees who were MAN05-based at the time of our 2004 MAN05 pay agreement should now have received letters detailing whether they were mapped in a “standard” or “non-standard” way. This letter should include their role code in March 2003 and their role code in March 2004.
Reps repeated the advice in the newsletter of 9th February – that members should keep this letter safely. Reps promised to circulate guidance to help individual members assess whether their role code changes might merit an appeal. See below for an update on this.
Pay Survey 2004.
Members heard a brief report about the Pay Survey that was conducted late last year, focusing on the second batch of results. Discussion centred on the apparent wide disparity between pay for male and female employees. Reps reported that not all roles were covered - where there wasn’t sufficient information for a reasonable analysis.
Pay Campaign 2005.
The 2005 pay claim had been publicised to MAN05 staff by a leaflet – members had already voted to endorse it before it was submitted. Members were encouraged talk to their colleagues about the different aspects of the claim and how they would benefit them.
There was concern that the company might once again seek to link the pay negotiations to the dispute negotiations – as in previous years. Members passed the following motion to make clear that reps would not be allowed to accept this:
In 2002 we reluctantly accepted the pay freeze in the aftermath of the redundancies, recognising the difficulties the company was experiencing.
In 2003 we accepted an imposed pay deal and decided to defer of the implementation of our pay claim into 2004, in exchange for good deals on union recognition and redundancy. These deals never materialised.
In 2004 we secured the first negotiated pay deal for some years. We accepted this because it offered significant benefits, though we were disappointed that the company withdrew its offer to allow the most underpaid employees to convert some of their bonus entitlement into pay. We accepted this in a context where we believed we were about to sign key agreements on union recognition and redundancy. In fact the company broke off talks on these issues.
Since March 2004 when we approved the last pay deal, many MAN05 employees have benefited from it in a variety of ways. Some have had plans put in place to bring their pay up to the bottom of their 2003 pay scale. Many others benefited from the minimum-increase which prevented widespread 0% rises. The company is now issuing letters to give people the opportunity to appeal against incorrect Professional Community role mappings. However, the company has appeared reluctant to implement the agreement in full, and Amicus continues to have to press for the agreement to be honoured.
Fujitsu employees have had too many years of “jam tomorrow” and we need to see real improvements in pay and benefits to begin to make up lost ground. We instruct our reps to pursue our pay claim with vigour, and not to allow the company to influence negotiations with unfulfilled promises.
Reps reported that the company had asked Amicus to agree to confidentiality before releasing information about median pay levels in Fujitsu. Reps were advised that they were legally entitled to this information for the purposes of collective bargaining.
The reps committee had tabled two alternative motions – one to accept confidentiality, one to reject it – to encourage debate. After a discussion, members unanimously approved the following motion:
Moves towards an open and transparent pay system form a key component of our pay claim for 2005. We note with deep disappointment that the company are demanding that our reps agree to retain confidentiality on pay scales before disclosing the information.
We ask Amicus to refuse to the terms of confidentiality at the present time, and to pursue all avenues to force disclosure of the information without such restrictions.
Accordingly, reps are now seeking advice from our Amicus officers on how to force disclosure of the information.
Pensions
There was a short report highlighting the increased profile of pensions as a result of the government’s proposals for worsening pension provision in the public sector. There was no doubt that the outcome for public sector workers would have a knock-on effect into the private sector.
The TUC has called a “day of action” for Friday 18 February, and Manchester Trades Council is organising a local protest on the day.
Amicus/UNIFI has union recognition for the staff expected to TUPE transfer in from LloydsTSB to Fujitsu Services.
Here you can read the union's newsletter from 11 Feb.
We’ve had a lot of questions from members about the plans for the April 2005 pay review. Managers have now received guidelines for doing the pay review for those outside the Amicus MAN05 Collective Bargaining Unit. Managers are being told they should not carry out the review for those inside the bargaining unit at this time – members will need to agree a 2005 pay deal with the company first.
For this purpose, the current definition of the collective bargaining unit is MAN05-based staff earning no more than £36,911.
If you are in the MAN05 collective bargaining unit and are told that your pay review is being decided now, please contact your rep immediately.
Members inside and outside the bargaining unit are encouraged to talk to colleagues about the 2005 national pay claim – see http://www.ourunion.org.uk/pay2005 for more information. We need to build a real campaign to get results.
All employees who were within the MAN05 collective bargaining unit at the time of the 2004 MAN05 pay deal should be receiving a letter from an HR Manager to clarify what happened individually in the big role code changes between March 2003 and March 2004 and to tell you how to appeal if you need to. This is one of the benefits of last year’s MAN05 pay deal.
The letter is important – it could result in you getting a pay rise backdated to April 2004. The March 2004 MAN05 pay agreement said “Where the appeal process identifies incorrect mappings, the employee will be moved to the correct role and detail code. Where this has resulted in a lower pay rise for the individual in the 2004 pay review, this will be addressed. Any such increases will be backdated to 1 April 2004.”
The two key elements you need to read are towards the end of the letter, where it tells you:
a) whether your role code changed in a “standard” way or a “non-standard” way
b) how your role code changed between March 2003 and March 2004
Please keep this letter safe.
Your role code having changed in a standard way doesn’t necessarily mean all is well. A non-standard change doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a problem. Amicus plans to issue guidelines to members next week that will help you understand what your letter means for your pay and benefits. Once you’ve read the guidelines you should be able to determine whether you need to seek individual advice from your rep.
All Amicus members based at West Gorton (including homeworkers with a MAN05 admin base) are invited to an
Extraordinary General Meeting
3pm-4:30pm, Thursday 10 February
MAN05 restaurant
Members are entitled to attend in work time. If your manager might need to arrange cover for you to attend, please contact them NOW and get confirmation of your release. 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.
Key issues are under discussion – make sure you have your say. Please come along and encourage your colleagues to come too.
The proposed AGENDA is:
1) Report on dispute/negotiations (including Questions & Discussion)
2) Motion(s) on the dispute
3) Pay reports (including Pay Deal 2004, Pay Survey, Pay Campaign 2005, Questions & Discussion)
4) Motions on pay
5) AOB
FUJITSU SERVICES DISPUTEAmicus members at Fujitsu Services in Manchester are fighting to defend their rights. Amicus believes the company has been aiming at de-recognition of the union. Amicus at Fujitsu West Gorton is at the forefront of unionisation in the IT industry. Help us defend our rights.
BackgroundWho are we?Amicus members working for Fujitsu Services in Manchester. Fujitsu Services is an IT services company, and was called ICL until April 2002. There are around 850 staff at the main Manchester site (in West Gorton), out of about 10,000 in the UK, and 15,000 across Europe, Middle East and Africa. Our parent company, Fujitsu, is based in Japan, and had a turnover of around 37 billion Euros in 2003-4.
What's the history of industrial relations in Fujitsu?By the late 1980s, ICL was an anti-union company. In 1989 it tried to de-recognise the union, but members at West Gorton fought off the attack by winning a strike vote and mobilising pressure from customers (many of which were Labour local authorities). West Gorton was the only site with union recognition for many years, though there are members throughout the UK.By the late 1980s, ICL was an anti-union company. In 1989 it tried to de-recognise the union, but members at West Gorton fought off the attack by winning a strike vote and mobilising pressure from customers (many of which were Labour local authorities). West Gorton was the only site with union recognition for many years, though there are members throughout the UK. ICL had not been profitable for a number of years, and employees have faced huge job cuts across the company. Over 200 West Gorton staff lost their jobs in 2002. Later in the year the company announced a pay freeze, and union members chose not to challenge this decision, but to campaign for a decent pay rise in 2003. The company has now returned to profitability.ICL had not been profitable for a number of years, and employees have faced huge job cuts across the company. Over 200 West Gorton staff lost their jobs in 2002. Later in the year the company announced a pay freeze, and union members chose not to challenge this decision, but to campaign for a decent pay rise in 2003. The company has now returned to profitability. More recently many groups of employees have TUPE transferred into Fujitsu Services, some bringing union recognition with them. As a result there are now other pockets of union recognition across the country, involving a number of unions including Amicus and PCS.More recently many groups of employees have TUPE transferred into Fujitsu Services, some bringing union recognition with them. As a result there are now other pockets of union recognition across the country, involving a number of unions including Amicus and PCS.
The disputeIt all started over pay, though this is no longer the central issue - the company responded to our campaigning on pay by launching attacks on employees' rights and on union recognition.
|
Pay contextAt the start of 2003, around one in three of the West Gorton workforce were paid less than the bottom of the company's own pay scales, which they now keep secret from their own staff. These pay scales were the company's assessment of the "market rate" for each job. This means that we were paid far below the "going rate".
Contrary to the popular image, IT-workers aren't all on fat-cat salaries. Nearly half the West Gorton workforce work in call centres, and many get paid less than £15,000 per year for a 40-hour week.
|
Why the attack?The company had been cutting jobs and terms and conditions for employees. Amicus had been putting up resistance to the worst excesses.
The union had supported legal action by members in connection with a range of issues arising from the 2002 redundancies.
Amicus membership and organisation had been increasing throughout the company.
We had lodged a (sadly unsuccessful) claim for union recognition for several hundred Mobile Engineers across the UK.
We are due to relocate to a new site in 2005, and would need a new union recognition agreement to cover that site. It appeared that the company had decided to try to get rid of the union first.
|
You can download the national leaflet launching the pay claim.