Dear colleagues,
You will have received a letter from our CEO asking you to exercise your vote against the union’s recommendation.
I am asking you to vote YES, YES.
Contrary to the company’s opinion the union are committed to ensuring the continued success of the port and our members. However I would like the workforce to be treated with respect and if there is a need for change that it is negotiated and agreed and never imposed.
Much has been made by the company of the recent meeting the union had with management, I would like to clarify what was actually proposed and why we responded the way we did.
The options were
1. To suspend the newly implemented changes and to have a short period for negotiations.
2. To suspend the new bonus and backdate any new agreement to 1st July following negotiations
However what wasn’t made clear by the company was that these negotiations had to be concluded within a month and the union would have to agree a reduction to the bonus otherwise they would impose the changes again.
3. To agree a change to the ROMPH now and negotiate how to change the other elements of the bonus.
What this actually means is that we accept to be paid less bonus now and negotiate on how we can reduce the bonus even further over the coming months.
These options were totally unacceptable to the union. We cannot enter negotiations with a gun to our heads, i.e. with the outcome pre-determined.
An agreement to review is not an agreement to change.
In our last meeting (also in the minutes) the company stressed that there are other issues “that we need to get on to”.
If we cannot reach agreement in the future, will these be imposed?
As a union we are already experiencing examples of the company making changes without consultation and/or agreement.
· The union are no longer asked to countersign policies.
· The union are no longer asked to countersign risk assessments
· There has been a change to the timings of the ill health process without consultation which will negatively impact the most vulnerable members of the workforce.
I hope, like me, you find this unworthy of a company that should be working with their employees.
I have informed, and will to continue to inform, the company that this dispute can be resolved by them removing the imposition and engaging in an open meaningful negotiation.
Please do not be deterred by the company’s actions and use your vote to protect our terms and conditions.
I have the union solicitors on hand to answer all legal queries.
Vote YES, YES
Regards
Phil Pemberton
Convenor
You will have received a letter from our CEO asking you to exercise your vote against the union’s recommendation.
I am asking you to vote YES, YES.
Contrary to the company’s opinion the union are committed to ensuring the continued success of the port and our members. However I would like the workforce to be treated with respect and if there is a need for change that it is negotiated and agreed and never imposed.
Much has been made by the company of the recent meeting the union had with management, I would like to clarify what was actually proposed and why we responded the way we did.
The options were
1. To suspend the newly implemented changes and to have a short period for negotiations.
2. To suspend the new bonus and backdate any new agreement to 1st July following negotiations
However what wasn’t made clear by the company was that these negotiations had to be concluded within a month and the union would have to agree a reduction to the bonus otherwise they would impose the changes again.
3. To agree a change to the ROMPH now and negotiate how to change the other elements of the bonus.
What this actually means is that we accept to be paid less bonus now and negotiate on how we can reduce the bonus even further over the coming months.
These options were totally unacceptable to the union. We cannot enter negotiations with a gun to our heads, i.e. with the outcome pre-determined.
An agreement to review is not an agreement to change.
In our last meeting (also in the minutes) the company stressed that there are other issues “that we need to get on to”.
If we cannot reach agreement in the future, will these be imposed?
As a union we are already experiencing examples of the company making changes without consultation and/or agreement.
· The union are no longer asked to countersign policies.
· The union are no longer asked to countersign risk assessments
· There has been a change to the timings of the ill health process without consultation which will negatively impact the most vulnerable members of the workforce.
I hope, like me, you find this unworthy of a company that should be working with their employees.
I have informed, and will to continue to inform, the company that this dispute can be resolved by them removing the imposition and engaging in an open meaningful negotiation.
Please do not be deterred by the company’s actions and use your vote to protect our terms and conditions.
I have the union solicitors on hand to answer all legal queries.
Vote YES, YES
Regards
Phil Pemberton
Convenor
What an idiot...get into the real world Pemberton
ReplyDeleteHa Ha Ha...DP is coming to Felixstowe..Get outside Felixstowe gates and shout and scream like girls..You ain`t going to strike because you earn to much money and you are all in debt up to your eyeballs..The other thing is 90% of you dockers can`t do anything else so suck it up shut up and do your job...
ReplyDelete