CWU Concerns regarding Monteray Restructuring
At the extremely useful meeting on 7 April 2008, I mentioned to Steve Davies that we would be setting out some issues that were of particular concern to us over the coming days. This letter is a summary of those issues.
In addition to the consultative structure, I do think it would be appropriate and useful for us to meet bi-laterally to progress these matters. There are some issues that are only relevant to a CWU/Monteray dialogue.
In no particular order of priority these issues are as follows:
- Formal CWU/Monteray Relationship
Now that the region/territory structure has been promulgated, it is appropriate for us to discuss how our existing agreements and protocols will map across to the new organisation, together with any development work in this area.
- Mapping Exercise
We have very significant concerns that to TUPE transfer staff and then carry out a selection exercise places individuals who are ultimately unsuccessful in this process in a very difficult position. We would wish to expand upon these concerns at our meeting.
- Job Security Agreement
Following on from point 2 above, but also standing also in its own right, is our view that a job security agreement is appropriate and required. This would give some clarity and reassurance to the transferring population, but especially those who are in functions that are duplicated across the RSPs. As an immediate priority, we would wish to seek the company's agreement in principle that it would wish to work with us to develop a common understanding on this matter.
- Skills Assessment
We believe that the company's proposals for a skills assessment of its workforce are appropriate and useful. We have had a long standing involvement in work in this area and were the proposals of the “Skills Passport” which is in use in some parts of the current Monteray organisation. We would certainly wish to work with you to have a common understanding on and an involvement in the skills assessment workstream.
- Pay Date
We discussed previously on the telephone the sensitivities around a change of pay date. Especially given that in many cases this is a contractual commitment of our members who are currently in formally recognised areas, we would of course wish to come to an agreement with you on a new protocol for receipt of pay.
- Cross territory working
One of the obvious advantages of the restructuring is to dissolve boundaries that were causing inefficiencies in the delivery of service, but with any organisation there will still be demarcation lines of some nature or other. We would wish to discuss and hopefully agree with you the protocol for cross territory working (although I believe this point has been largely covered by the response from Steve to the question I posed on 7 April, so it may just be a question of formalising that exchange).
- Staff induction
As part of our ongoing relationship, we would wish to have access to new entrants of staff as part of the normal induction process. We recognise that the induction process varies from one occupational group to another and therefore have a flexible view about what this might mean in practice.
- Secondment
We were a little surprised at the exclusion of the possibility of secondment for those employees in RSP4. While recognising that Mitie is disengaging from the Monteray project, given the small numbers it would seem, with all due respect, prudent to revisit this question as it may well be a “deal breaker” for staff performing valuable functions. Given the small numbers involved, this is not likely to be a significant issue, but I have a strong feeling that CWU members will be in this sub-group.
- Response times
Much discussion has been generated by our technical grade members about the notion of 2-hour response times and a great fear that these will in fact be unworkable. More clarity about the new Service Level Agreement is therefore clearly desirable.
- Harmonisation
We wish to clarify absolutely the status of current contractual terms and conditions – that these will transfer across to the new employer on an “as is” basis with negotiations on harmonisation to take place in the period following 1 August 2008.
Whilst we recognise the company's intention to share what could be quite detailed information with the consultative committees established under TUPE regulations, I would want to take this opportunity to clarify that the CWU's involvement in these meetings should not be regarded as acceptance of any changes being proposed/discussed.
I trust that this overview of the issues that are of particular concern to us is helpful. We do feel strongly that there needs to be a degree of parallel discussion for those issues that are appropriately within the CWU remit.
While recognising your busy schedule, perhaps your office and mine can liaise over arrangements for a joint meeting which we strongly believe should take place prior to the 13 May central consultative committee meeting.
Kind regards.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Sapper
Assistant Secretary
|
