Thanks to all the members who attended the Extraordinary General Meeting on 14th July.
SUMMARY
Pay: The 2005 pay deal has brought real gains. The company made more money available for pay rises in the bargaining unit than elsewhere. However, the small pot size and poor implementation have caused real problems. The company has failed to keep all its promises to employees. Amicus is monitoring the situation closely. Members need to raise points with their own managers now to take full advantage of the deal.
Amicus is pursuing several legal routes to help employees gain access to their pay scales, and it seems likely that at least one will be successful.
Attack on Employee Rights: The campaign over the last couple of years had been successful in stopping attacks on employee rights and secured a number of important gains. However, the company has started the attacks again. This appears to be a response to growing union success. The company tells us they don’t want to cooperate with Amicus because of our efforts to ensure employees can see their pay scales.
The company now appears to be being deliberately provocative across a range of key issues. The company is trying to divide the workforce in various ways. It appears they are picking a fight again. Members reaffirmed that the issues were too important to ignore, and agreed a series of steps to resist the attacks, including preparing for a ballot for industrial action.
The meeting was clear that it hoped that such measures would not be necessary, but that we had to prepare for the worst while hoping for the best. We had successfully resisted such attacks in the past, and could do so again. The context was much more favourable than two years ago, with the company now profitable and seriously understaffed.
Any Other Business: London bombings. Solidarity with Rolls Royce members defending victimised rep.
PAY
2005 Pay deal update:
Reps took members through the MAN05 2005 pay deal point by point, explaining the impact of the different elements. Highlights included:
The biggest problem with the pay review inside or outside the bargaining unit had been the inadequate “pot”. Though the Amicus bargaining unit had benefited from a larger pot of money available, many managers still hadn’t felt able to reward good performers properly.
Amicus is in the process of reviewing the implementation of the deal. This is hampered by the company’s refusal to provide the pay scales without a confidentiality agreement, despite monitoring being part of the agreement itself.
Pay scales
Amicus is taking a number of steps to ensure that employees can have proper access to the pay scales:
1. A case to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) using rights to information for the purpose of collective bargaining. This is one of the benefits of union recognition.
2. A series of test cases to the Information Commissioner to help members secure their pay scales using the Data Protection Act.
3. A case under the TUPE regulations, relating to the transfer of staff from Lloyds TSB to Fujitsu Services, when Fujitsu refused access to the pay scale information.
These efforts, as well as the attempts to lift the veil of secrecy using our 2005 pay survey, are making headway, but won’t be quick. Given that we have so many routes to pursue, it seems likely that we will succeed. Amicus had suggested to the company that it would be better to release the information now, rather than when they are forced to.
One of the main reasons that employees want access to pay scales is to make informed career decisions. Amicus has now published a series of graphs:
As well as illustrating many of the problems with the company’s “pay system”, these will help you avoid any role changes which might be an effective demotion.
We regret that we have had to omit the scale from these graphs to avoid any accusation that we are breaching the company’s confidentiality restrictions.
Company response
The company tell us that they don’t want to cooperate with Amicus because we are making the CAC claim. The logic is stunning – we wouldn’t need to lodge the claim if they were cooperating with us!
We all remember the dishonest company announcement sent out in April after the company withdrew their pay offer, trying to blame Amicus reps for failing to put to members an offer they had never made!
However, their uncooperative attitude is marked, and it is important that employees understand that this is the company response to Amicus helping employees to assert their rights.
Reps encouraged members to discuss these topics with their colleagues.
ATTACK ON EMPLOYEE RIGHTS
Reps reported that the company appeared to be being deliberately provocative. Amicus had successfully fought off attacks on employee rights in 2003, but the company was now trying to break the agreements once again.
As the AGM in April had noted, the campaign in 2003 had defended our agreements on Union Recognition and Security of Employment. It had also secured important gains for employees. These included Sick Pay from day one for all staff, Minimum Redundancy Payments, and the first negotiated pay deals for many years.
Unfortunately the campaign did not result in new deals, as the company broke off the talks in February 2004 and now keeps changing its mind whenever an agreement seems near.
Meanwhile, Amicus had been building up its national organisation. There were now national newsletters, a national network of reps and contacts, and Amicus had mounted a national pay claim for the first time. A majority of employees had put a union-backed candidate first in the UKCF elections, showing the thirst for effective representation.
The company now appears to be mounting another attack on employee rights in Manchester in response to the union’s growing success.
The AGM in April had already instructed reps to focus on defending existing agreements until the company seemed serious about agreeing new ones. There could be no guarantee that the company wouldn’t just try to misinterpret, twist and break new agreements if employees didn’t enforce the existing agreements.
The company was trying to “divide and rule” the workforce. Some managers were making bizarre claims such as that the Xmas-Eve announcement only applied to some employees at Central Park, that no HOM99 employees were covered by recognition, or that people could individually opt in or out. They seemed to think that saying something made it true.
Meanwhile the company were deliberately reopening the issues that had led to the 2003 dispute. Individuals were now sometimes being denied representation again. The company was cutting particular jobs at MAN05 without proper consultation. They were trying to make changes to Terms and Conditions by stealth.
We have spent many months in negotiations with company representatives to try to work towards new agreements for everyone’s benefit, but the company has chosen to time-waste or pick fights. They are choosing to cross the line in the sand that members had set out at the AGM by attacking the existing agreements again.
Reps warned that senior management could be gambling with the future of the company. Fujitsu could ill afford to damage its reputation by losing a case under the Data Protection Act. Amicus had already highlighted the risks the company ran through its inadequate Health & Safety management. The hostile approach to employee representatives could also jeopardise the “Investors In People” accreditation.
Management appeared paranoid about effective employee representation. Their reaction to Amicus growth was aggressive – trying to shoot the messenger. It was unfortunate that the only way they seemed to pay attention to employees concerns was when they were under real pressure.
Members then voted unanimously for the following motion:
However, the campaigns have not prevented management stalling and moving the goalposts to avoid signing updated agreements.
Management are aware of the growing Amicus membership, organisation and campaigning across the UK. Instead of responding constructively to employee concerns, management are trying to prevent employees having an effective voice. Management have told us that their stance is a response to our efforts to gain access to pay scales for employees. Though Amicus (as the largest and most visible union in the company) is the main focus for the company’s attacks, the same general approach can be seen in relation to other trade unions and even the company’s own UK Consultative Forum.
The clamp-down on effective employee representation seems to be coupled with poor treatment for employees over a range of issues. This is particularly inappropriate when the hard work of employees has resulted in increasing commercial success for the company. This success is causing staff shortages and excessive workloads in many areas.
Amicus members had spelt out to the company that we would ask to be balloted for industrial action if the company tried to break our existing agreements again, despite having discussed the issues in depth since industrial action stopped the attacks last time.
We hope that the company will come to its senses without it being necessary for us to take action, but we will prepare for the worst while hoping for the best.
a. We instruct our reps to write to Roger Leek, setting out the ways some managers are once again trying to break our union recognition, security of employment, and pay agreements, to give him the opportunity to put a stop to it.
b. We instruct our reps to seek advice as to whether we can refuse to attend individual meetings if the company deny us representation.
c. If we are invited to an individual meeting and denied representation, we will either raise an individual grievance (to force representation) or adjourn the meeting at extremely frequent intervals to seek advice from our rep outside the meeting.
d. We will explain the issues to our workmates, and invite them to join the union and defend their rights.
e. We instruct our reps to write to David Courtley, pointing out that some managers are jeopardising the company’s “Investors In People” (IIP) status. This is required for many important bids, and requires senior management to ensure there are constructive relationships with employee representatives.
f. We instruct our reps to begin preparations for a ballot for industrial action, up to and including strike action, in case this should prove necessary.
g. We invite Amicus members based in the Manchester area or HOM99 to tell our reps who they believe should be included in the industrial action ballot.
h. We invite all employees to submit campaign suggestions via the reps.
Members hoped that the company would reconsider their approach before such measures became necessary. However, we had to prepare for the worst as well as hope for the best.
It was noted that the context for a campaign was far more favourable than two years ago. The company was more profitable, and there was a general shortage of skills and staff. Most employees were already over-stretched.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
There were two items raised:
1) Response to the London terrorist attacks
Members discussed reactions to the bombings and how people had been affected. The following motion was passed:
We urge everyone to resist any attempts which may be made to use these crimes to stir up anti-Muslim sentiment or attack the Muslim population of this country. We emphasise the importance of solidarity, unity, peace and justice as our guiding principles.
We resolve to publicise the gathering organised by the Stop the War Coalition, CND and the Muslim Association of Britain, in solidarity with the families of the dead and injured and in opposition to the racism and Islamophobia which have resulted since Thursday's attacks:
2pm, Sunday 17th July, Russell Square, Central London
We also resolve to publicise the planned gathering in Manchester:
Noon, Sunday 17th July, in the Peace Gardens behind Manchester Town Hall.
Unfortunately, as we didn’t have any further information to provide about the gatherings, we weren’t able to publicise these events in advance. However, some members did take part. The BBC reports can be found here and here.
2) Suspension of Amicus convenor at Rolls Royce
Reps reported that Jerry Hicks, a senior Amicus rep at Rolls Royce Bristol and member of the union’s National Executive Council, had been suspended on disciplinary charges. A collection among members raised £130.
For updates, and what you can do to help, see the campaign web site.
Don’t forget our Extraordinary General Meeting tomorrow (Thursday).
This meeting is extremely important. Members will decide the union’s response to the company’s efforts to undermine our agreements, threatening employees’ rights, job security and pay and benefits. The meeting will discuss proposals including industrial action. Whatever your views, be there to have your say.
Thursday 14th July 2005
10-11:30am, restaurant, MAN35
or
3-4:30pm, RF00, MAN05
This meeting is for all Amicus members employed by Fujitsu at MAN05/33/34/35 (including HOM99 with a MAN05/33/34/35 admin base). Please note the unusual venues because we are mid-move.
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. You may have left it too late for reps to help much this time, but we can try to prevent any repetition.
Our latest “One Per Desk” newsletter advertises the EGM and gives an update on a range of issues.
Proposed agenda
Because we are having to hold the meeting in two parts (between the two sites) it is particularly important that agenda items are available in advance, so that the two meetings can discuss the same points.
The proposed agenda is:
1) Welcome
2) Pay (including report on implementation and breaches of 2005 pay agreement, pay pot, pay survey, progress on securing access to pay scales for employees)
3) Employee rights (including offshoring and company efforts to undermine agreements on representation, redeployment, redundancy etc.)
4) Motion on Employee Rights
5) Any Other Business (notified in advance):
a) Motion on London Bombings
b) Suspension of Amicus convenor at Rolls Royce Bristol
6) Summing Up
In the current round of appraisals, pay reviews and objective-setting, the thorny issue of utilisation has reared its head again.
Utilisation is important because the company use it to influence appraisals, pay, bonus and job security for many employees.
The underlying problem is that time sheets and utilisation figures are used for a variety of purposes, such as:
The needs of all these purposes vary, and the system struggles to meet all these purposes.
Problems include:
The systems have improved a bit in recent years, but employees are often unaware of the changes and so are unable to take advantage of them.
The email notice to Amicus members also included advice on completing timesheets to avoid being penalised, and on ensuring objectives give you a fair chance of getting a good Performance Appraisal Category (PAC) score.
Company plans to offshore key systems, including those holding sensitive employee information. Employees told on a phone conference. Company agrees to halt the process to allow consultation. Amicus material on offshoring available.
Redeployment advice.
Read on...
The subject of “offshoring” – providing services to high-cost locations from low-cost locations – is never out of the news these days.
Amicus has learnt that the company plans to move the support of a range of key internal systems to
The proposal would mean that a number of jobs would be redundant, though the company tell the employees concerned that they will be redeployed rather than dismissed as redundant.
The plans raise a range of concerns:
We understand this is part of an “offshore initiative” sponsored by the Chief Executive. The company in question is partly owned by Fujitsu Services, and the head of Core Services is a board member.
Amicus stepped in
Amicus reps at MAN05 raised the matter at a “fortnightly meeting” on 24th June. HR agreed to provide information about which jobs were affected, to provide the risk assessments for the proposed transfer, and to stop the move until consultation has taken place. However, reps are not confident that the company can be relied on to deliver on these promises – it is vital that employees give reps as much information as possible and raise the issues directly with their management too.
The wider picture
Employee reps on the Fujitsu Services Consultative Forum (FSCF) and UK Consultative Forum (UKCF) have repeatedly put offshoring in Fujitsu Services on the agenda for debate. You can see the disappointing response from the company to a draft agreement on how offshoring should be handled put forward by the FSCF reps.
Amicus is campaigning on offshoring nationally, and having some success with the more responsible employers. Resources available include:
Redeployment
In recent years Amicus reps have helped large numbers of members when their jobs disappeared.
These days the company is very reluctant to dismiss people as redundant. Typically people are either redeployed or offered Compromise Agreements (to leave). In both situations it is important to seek advice from your Amicus rep at an early stage.
Many managers see a “redundancy situation” as being when they formally warn someone that they may be dismissed as redundant. It is important to remember that it is jobs that are redundant, not people. By denying that there is a redundancy situation, many managers avoid having an open discussion about redeployment. When the company redeploys someone whose job is redundant, they have legal rights. These cover key issues such as whether you have to accept an alternative job and your right to a trial period in that job.
For those covered by the union-negotiated Security of Employment Agreement (SEA) these rights are further extended.
It’s important to understand that the company often won’t spell out that your job is redundant or tell you what your rights are. You have rights which give you choices. To have a degree of control over the situation, you have to assert your rights, and Amicus can help you with this – provided you don’t leave it too late.
Graphs published by Amicus show how Fujitsu pay for particular roles went down, up or stayed the same.
Amicus hasn’t been officially given the pay scales this year, as members at MAN05 instructed reps to refuse the company’s confidentiality restrictions and press for all employees to have access to the scales. Our legal efforts to secure this important step continue.
In the meantime, Amicus is keeping up pressure for an open and fair pay system. Pay scales should be published, should be consistent, and should be applied equally to all employees.
Amicus has been working hard to analyse whatever information comes our way unofficially. The company have chosen not to comment on “possible pay scale” figures we’ve put to them, so we can’t guarantee they are completely reliable. However, we have a good degree of confidence in them.
Amicus has been looking at how the median pay figures for particular roles changed between 2004 and 2005. With a 3% pay pot you might be forgiven for thinking they would have gone up by 3%, but you’d be wrong.
Jargon buster: If you list the pay of everyone in a role in ascending order, the median is the value at the mid-point of the list. For example, if there were five employees in a role and they were paid £12K, £12K, £13K, £15K and £20K, the median would be £13K.
Our analysis of fifteen roles showed that some medians went up, some hardly changed, and others actually went down! Whose job got easier during this time? This means there are quite a few jobs where Fujitsu typically pays less for the same job than a year ago. Meanwhile the cost of living and wages outside Fujitsu haven’t stood still.
If you want to see how your role fared, take a look at the latest set of graphs Amicus have published on CafeVIK.
Could the company’s secrecy over pay scales be motivated by a desire to hide these facts? Don’t they want you to be able to work out if you are an “A N O’Maly”?
Many of you may be wondering how it is possible for a company to give pay rises and cut pay at the same time. This story about Individual Performance Related Pay illustrates one explanation.