* *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
15-10-19, 10:14PM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 61620
  • Total Topics: 1082
  • Online Today: 177
  • Online Ever: 826
  • (23-02-15, 06:44PM)
Users Online

Author Topic: partnership in distribution  (Read 5619 times)

optout

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2527
partnership in distribution
« on: 31-10-16, 07:53PM »
given the choice would you prefer to have a partnership agreement in distribution (the same as in stores) and why/why not?
I AM NOT A REP, BUT......

snowyowl

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #1 on: 31-10-16, 08:17PM »
Is there such a thing or is it just another box ticking exercise? ???

Duracell

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2797
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #2 on: 31-10-16, 11:43PM »
I have understood in the past, where the "partnership agreement" (term) has been mention in distribution.

The response was/is ...there isn't one.

Mainly because within all distribution sites there are separate collective agreements and several groups for collective bargaining. Those groups are independent of each other. Which makes it very difficult to adopt a "one size fits all" approach like retail.

The answer to the question is No.

It is also unlikely to happen whilst full consultation and agreement with members is still necessary with regard to terms and condition changes, there is the risk that as one group approach they could take action across all of distribution which is why it is unlikely that with out a one group approach a partnership agreement would be unworkable.

Many of the policies on the "our" website.. In each policy content where it says
Who is this for.. Many don't mention Distribution but even where they do they direct you to your local procedural or collective agreements. This usually implies there is something different written in those agreements which stops the policy being applied without agreement of the membership at those location, our consent to contractual change still being a lawful requirement by the collectively recognised process. A ballot.


My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

redcar renegade

  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #3 on: 02-11-16, 11:05AM »
Duracell, your comment on change of contract requires a ballot is that factual. From rumblings about what the supposed addendum to contract states then the majority of sensible people at Middlesbrough d.c would vote NO to change of contract.

So would Tesco have to buy our old contracts or as a rumour going round is saying sign or you are in theory dismissing yourself. Staff would not get the support of Usdaw as apparently they have signed everything off without consulting staff

Duracell

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2797
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #4 on: 02-11-16, 06:23PM »
It depends on the amendment.
Where it changes your procedural or collective agreement it should be put to the members to be accepted.

The problem is that that USDAW at national level Seem to have a view that a change that concedes no apparent negative effect at the time is ok to agree to... Where is the harm there is no negative effect. All well and good if things go well.. But it is very often far from being that straight forward.

I am more than happy to be corrected but USDAW in distribution in 20 years that I know of have never had the mandate to agree to a contractual change on your behalf that needs to be done via the recognised process of balloting members.

Think about it logically you are still required by ballot to agree by majority to be paid more.
Same rule should apply to any change to your collective agreement.

Your Collective agreement to facilitate change without a ballot would have to have a provision to do so IE Rota changes ... But it will stipulate how it needs to be done.

If USDAW can agree it why have you got to sign anything.
I'd be interested to see the change word for word.
Feel free to PM it to me.
« Last Edit: 02-11-16, 06:28PM by Duracell »
My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

redcar renegade

  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #5 on: 04-11-16, 09:51AM »
Duracell that would imply that Usdaw would actually support members if they insisted on holding a ballot on the change to their  terms & conditions. I personally cannot see that as this would threaten the cosy arrangement Usdaw has with Tesco.
The grass root members employment is been put at risk by high & mighty in the union who have no concept of how the changes affect the membership. The shop floor reps are getting a lot of angel off members who blame them for what higher union officials are implementing without ballots.

snowyowl

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #6 on: 04-11-16, 07:00PM »
 :( Has anybody at Middlesbrough actually been asked to sign in agreement to this addendum yet? No. As this is clearly causing unrest what needs to happen is that Senior Union officials need to get their sorry a*ses down to the Depot and explain to the members there what is hell is going on!  >:D

Duracell

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2797
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #7 on: 04-11-16, 07:24PM »
Duracell that would imply that Usdaw would actually support members if they insisted on holding a ballot on the change to their  terms & conditions. I personally cannot see that as this would threaten the cosy arrangement Usdaw has with Tesco.
The grass root members employment is been put at risk by high & mighty in the union who have no concept of how the changes affect the membership. The shop floor reps are getting a lot of angel off members who blame them for what higher union officials are implementing without ballots.

If a ballot is required then they will have to facilitate one, it's that simple.

They did so twice for the pay deal.
They did so for the pension.

I am confused as to why you think it won't happen if called for.

The amendmant content permitting of course, but only you know whether it is, lowering the required Performance % isn't.

« Last Edit: 04-11-16, 07:28PM by Duracell »
My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

snowyowl

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #8 on: 04-11-16, 08:24PM »
Duracell that would imply that Usdaw would actually support members if they insisted on holding a ballot on the change to their  terms & conditions. I personally cannot see that as this would threaten the cosy arrangement Usdaw has with Tesco.
The grass root members employment is been put at risk by high & mighty in the union who have no concept of how the changes affect the membership. The shop floor reps are getting a lot of angel off members who blame them for what higher union officials are implementing without ballots.

Alternatively, if the Union hierarchy won't attend and explain themselves network the Depot and organise a mass refusal to sign anything, what are they going to do sack everybody?

redcar renegade

  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #9 on: 04-11-16, 11:22PM »
Snowyowl but management will say sign or you are sacking yourself, the powers that be just think we will threaten them and they will collapse. What right does a union official have to change my  T &  C without permission , consultation or vote.
A masse refusal is the only way to go  but how many do you think will change mind sign contract and prey that they survive my performance



snowyowl

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #10 on: 05-11-16, 06:34PM »
As I previously explained if this is causing unrest request that the Union arrange to visit your Depot (perhaps starting with your A.O.) and in an official capacity explain to the membership what is actually going on. If the membership are not satisfied escalate the matter. It is only my opinion but like Duracell I don't believe they can alter your terms and conditions and contract without following the correct procedure. Good luck.

Duracell

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2797
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #11 on: 26-11-16, 10:32AM »
Snowyowl but management will say sign or you are sacking yourself, the powers that be just think we will threaten them and they will collapse. What right does a union official have to change my  T &  C without permission , consultation or vote.
A masse refusal is the only way to go  but how many do you think will change mind sign contract and prey that they survive my performance

There has been Recent examples of National officers being consulted over some changes without relaying the information to Reps. The problem a rep has is this, although in principle the consultation should be FULL which should include the Reps of the groups to be affected by the change being consulted, a challenge based on principle is difficult to escalate if there are no negative effects for the individuals who are subjected to the change.

So for example how does a group challenge a change to the a minimum % standard (which is contractual) if the change lowers the minimum % required.. Should any consultation disagree to the change on principle regardless that it benefits Everyone.
« Last Edit: 26-11-16, 10:36AM by Duracell »
My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

snowyowl

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #12 on: 27-11-16, 04:24PM »
To be clear, I think the problem at Middlesbrough is that although they are contracted to a required minimum of 100% for years they have worked with 85% as a minimum required. Even that's not strictly true as they have only acted punitively against the bottom twenty registered percentages across three shifts. So in fact they are not in fact lowering the % required they are raising it.
I don't know but I believe there is some government legislation suggesting that when working with % based targets with anything over 85%, 90% there should be financially rewards involved. Perhaps somebody knows more about this?  :question:

Duracell

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2797
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #13 on: 27-11-16, 11:02PM »
My performance has lowered 100% minimum to 92% I believe.
Technically if your are contracted 100% then my performance has lowered your required minimum.

I have always believed 100% as a minimum flaws the whole time study process.
As time study use Average to achieve a standard time. You can't dismiss below 100% as not acceptable if it has been used to realise the standard time.

I have seen quite recently contractual elements revisited because they were relaxed over time to become problematic which then leads to emphasis on the contractual elements and what is agreed.
There is a custom and practice argument, however as the 100% minimum has been under consultation for some time (since introduction) whilst under consultation/dispute, agreed relaxation happened, 85% was the only other  contractual minimum in practice.

Now the fairer NEW minimum has now been realised those contracted above it fall to it. I can't see why contracts need to be adjusted (resigned). Contractually the standard has been relaxed. I bet they didn't get anyone to sign anything all the time they have been working with 85%.

I realise the dilemma though, it may be worth exploring the expectation of Starters over the past few years.

I personally believe a contractual term that is never practiced is a weak contractual term especially where it hasn't been practiced in favour of something completely different, it makes the contractual term erroneous.
Where something is erroneous and is the only point of reference, then what is widely practised should be what is accepted as credible.

It could be argued that no sites have been 100% minimum, custom and practice has realised 85%, as time studies have taken place with this minimum expectation it could be deemed unreasonable to raise it to 92 even if your contract has the erroneous reference of 100% minimum.


My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

Duracell

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2797
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #14 on: 27-11-16, 11:36PM »
This may be a point of interest.

http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/client-resources/legal-updates/when-does-custom-practice-create-legal-entitlement-employment-benefits-5896.aspx

It could be argued that.

100% was never actively practiced .. Therefore an erroneous point of reference.
85% was actively practiced in an aid to protect employees from management at 100%, more reasoning that 100% is erroneous.

As there is reasoning to firmly suggest that 100% was and is an erroneous minimum standard and that because of that in the main and on the whole 85% was widely practiced then

Should 100% be referenced at all in my performance.
If not then it could be argued that the custom and practice of 85% could give rise to a claim that such sites should be regarded as 85% sites and therefore are left unchanged by my performance.

Having said that I think only a tribunal would look at this reasoning because of the consultation process set out to put right the erroneous 100% and those sites contracted to it and has realised 92%. With no effect to 85% sites.

It hinges on the custom and practice of 85%.
Under the consultation process and my performance the 100% sites are the target sites for the New 92%.

The question is, is this reasonable and fair considering 85% has always been the common practiced minimum ?



My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

Digimon

  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #15 on: 28-11-16, 01:05AM »
You know what Duracel::

I have no doubt your intentions and/or advice is aimed at the heart of the termites, but, most of what you type (and its meaning) is ultimately 'lost'.

YOU NEED TO SPEAK TO THE LAY-PERSON?TERMITE
Serving Tesco's ex- shoppers a LIDL better every day

Duracell

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2797
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #16 on: 28-11-16, 09:45AM »
Simple terms.

My performance process has 2 minimum requirements

92% ( for sites that were contracted 100%).
85% sites see no change to the minimum required.

As 100% was never applied but 85% was it could be argued that via the custom and practice principle in the link above then ALL sites who PRACTICED 85% minimum should remain at 85%.

The contractual point that some sites should be now be 92% because they were contracted 100% is flawed because custom and practice saw them only every applying 85%.
100% was never applied because it was deemed inappropriate.
My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

Duracell

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2797
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #17 on: 28-11-16, 10:10AM »
I touched on the point of 85% being practiced for a considerable time.
During that time "time studies" have taken place with the 85% expectation being practiced and Not 100%.

Now it is being raised to 92% even though when the most recent time studies were done the expectation was 85%, is this fair?
Surely time studies results are only credible if the expectations at the time they were carried out continue to be applied thereafter.


My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

Duracell

  • Sad Muppet
  • ******
  • Posts: 2797
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #18 on: 28-11-16, 11:01AM »
I don't know but I believe there is some government legislation suggesting that when working with % based targets with anything over 85%, 90% there should be financially rewards involved. Perhaps somebody knows more about this?  :question:


I have browsed for a while haven't found anything like you suggest. Although a lot of what I have read does recommend rewarding exceeding performance.

This may be interesting to you http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/o/3/pay_systems-accessible-version-Jun-2012.pdf ...... or you may find it boring ( at least I didn't write it).

May be its time for the union to earn its money..

Do bonus sites perform better on the whole?


My Opinion is exactly that, Mine.  Based on my view of what I know , see and what I would do.
"Being a rep doesn't make a person right anymore than not being a rep makes a person wrong " 

Duracell.

snowyowl

  • Smart Arse
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #19 on: 28-11-16, 07:34PM »
 :thumbup: Sound and solid advice Duracell, I hope that the Union reps at Middlesbrough take heed and use it.  :thumbup:

00

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #20 on: 19-10-17, 05:17PM »
Seriously in need of a different union in Distribution.

Latest at Lichfield is they are asking trainers to NOW TRAIN 5 new starters instead of the MHE book stating 3 along with wearing trainers wearing First Aiders Green Hi Viz's  :-[

The sell out senior union rep is on such a cushy number (protected premiums & hours to suit) he won't speak up  >:(

It's time the Partnership was ripped up and UNITE take over before it's too late....


memberx

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #21 on: 19-10-17, 06:08PM »
Do you think Unite will be any different. . unite were the union in Chepstow DC. It closed. I rest my case

memberx

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #22 on: 19-10-17, 06:45PM »
Also I cannot see why the trainers can't help a bit. It is Christmas after all. Yes it's Tesco fault they have no staff. Years off poor wages and poor new contracts have caught up with them and that's why they are so desperate for staff now. But to be honest our DC won't cover Christmas . Not a chance. So short staff and the ones who are there have lost the morale and will to work . Before staff used to think they could make a difference. Not any more. Tesco don't care about staff if they do they would pay their staff better like every competition company around our DC's.
Going back to topic. If Tesco want trainers to train 5 and not 3 then so be it. It will take twice as long. Trainers on MHE have a cushy life most weeks of the  year. Ask to do something for a few weeks before Christmas they moan. No sympathy

grim up north

  • Know All
  • ****
  • Posts: 241
Re: partnership in distribution
« Reply #23 on: 20-10-17, 07:38PM »
Seriously in need of a different union in Distribution.

Latest at Lichfield is they are asking trainers to NOW TRAIN 5 new starters instead of the MHE book stating 3 along with wearing trainers wearing First Aiders Green Hi Viz's  :-[

The sell out senior union rep is on such a cushy number (protected premiums & hours to suit) he won't speak up  >:(

It's time the Partnership was ripped up and UNITE take over before it's too late....

I think the way directors or whoever see it is similar to this; the warehouse was a dump with 15 team managers, so we may as well get rid of half and the warehouse will still be a dump but we've saved a s*** load of money. Now training is a joke doing 3 to 1 so it might as well be 5 to 1 as the new staff will all leave within a month anyway. I genuinely believe the senior team have given up.
Also I cannot see why the trainers can't help a bit. It is Christmas after all. Yes it's Tesco fault they have no staff. Years off poor wages and poor new contracts have caught up with them and that's why they are so desperate for staff now.
Going back to topic. If Tesco want trainers to train 5 and not 3 then so be it. It will take twice as long. Trainers on MHE have a cushy life most weeks of the  year. Ask to do something for a few weeks before Christmas they moan. No sympathy

Our trainers train the new staff on MHE and whichever other job all for about £5 per week extra. And if they aren't training they're picking/flt like the rest of the us.