News:

Welcome to V.L.H

Main Menu
Welcome to verylittlehelps. Please login or sign up.

28-03-24, 11:01PM

Login with username, password and session length
Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 38,126
  • Total Topics: 630
  • Online today: 325
  • Online ever: 1,436
  • (24-01-24, 01:01AM)
Users Online
Users: 2
Guests: 278
Total: 280

Double Time on Sunday... uh oh

Started by sufRu, 14-01-16, 08:51PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Duracell

Please someone tell me , how can a non legal, non enforceable term or arrangement  legally deprive you of your legal right.

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.

bobbywm

Thinking about it all,  Only Tesco could prepare for the national minimum wage Increase...   AND end up paying us Less...  they're bigger crinimals that the theives that sit in jail
Keep on Rockin' in the free world

mexicopete

Quote from: Sweet Misery on 28-01-16, 11:25PM
The idea of the union in my world  :P is Tesco proposes changes to USDAW, USDAW reports back to us paying members and then we collectively vote on what options are available to us. It just seems whatever Tesco wants they get. Who is paying USDAW the most money, us or Tesco. There should be no partnership agreement, a union is different entity. That's the basic logic for me from level of knowing absolutely nothing.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
The worlds me lobster

oliver

USDAW IS NOT A UNION its a partnership agreement with Tesco that's all.  People on wage negotiations speaking on our behalf are the top people in Tesco too, Unite union ballot their members, everybody is throwing their hard earned money at USDAW for nothing.

Ask any UNITE Reps they find it SHOCKING what's happening to our staff.

Viva La Revolution

This might not be the right thread,  be gentle with me if it's not. I am a former team leader and was one of many who was demoted last year. My question is, is there a time limit on how often Tesco can change your T and C of employment,  can they do it every 3/6/9/12 months? 

bigcheese

Double time payments are a terms and conditions issue. These can be brought out by the company just as they did with the Sat*rday rate.
You have to agree to this yourself, the union has no control over this, but always tries to keep this payment.

This at present affects 45,000 workers and will be eroded due to people retiring as a great many of these staff are due to do over the next few years.  So it's plain that unless Tesco offer a one off payment to buy out your double time payment offering YOU personal terms this will not be taken away in any wage deal.

Each year the union try to bring back double time payments for all staff on a Sunday and the company always reject it.

I do hope this is clear to everyone as people do not have the correct information. The union always try to do it best but lots of powers have been lost under the Tory's and Tony Blair never reinstated them while he was in office, so much for New Labour.

Loki

#281
Quote from: optout on 28-01-16, 11:02PM
..ahhhhhh.....now i just sit back and await the s**t storm. :thumbup: ;D

No s*** storm warranted. You have explained it very clearly. 👍

Quote from: OpShunned on 28-01-16, 10:12PM
Boil it down guys to one or two key statements for everyone to digest.

Is it legal?

Can it be challenged?

Items that have been agreed via the pay negotiations will be legal.

There is nothing to stop any employee attempting to challenge the decision, or any other decision for that matter. However, obtaining legal representation via Usdaw may prove difficult methinks. On that basis an alternative may be necessary.

Now, challenging the Partnership Agreement as a whole is where I actually think consideration needs to be taken. Challenging the Union by seeking derecognition is another option where an application can be made to the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC). This is a rather difficult process but not in the sense of it being complicated. Support by the required percentage of membership is obviously imperative at the initial stage which I surmise would be the first large hurdle.

The problem for me is that the membership are not balloted. This is the biggest source of contention as far as I'm concerned and has certainly been brought to light more so with regards to what is being discussed.

Again, I'm discussing the point regarding the process and negotiations themselves, not the items themselves of which I will not comment on.

Quote from: OpShunned on 28-01-16, 10:12PM
What is the probability in real terms that the decision is worth taking to a tribunal?

If seeking legal representation from a solicitor, that would be for them to weigh up the probability of a successful claim prior to taking on your case. Furthermore, I'll throw the question out for debate...

Would Usdaw consider looking, let alone take on such a case, when it was Usdaw that negotiated and accepted the deal in the first place?
When all else fails, madness is the emergency exit.

Titch

Quote from: bigcheese on 29-01-16, 07:53AM
Double time payments are a terms and conditions issue. These can be brought out by the company just as they did with the Sat*rday rate.
You have to agree to this yourself, the union has no control over this, but always tries to keep this payment.

This at present affects 45,000 workers and will be eroded dew to people retiring as a great many of these staff are due to do over the next few years. So it's plan that unless Tesco offer a one off payment to buy out your double time payment offering YOU personal terms this will not be taken away in any wage deal.

Each year the union try to bring back double time payments for all staff on a Sunday and the company always reject it.

I do hope this is clear to everyone as people do not have the correct information. The union always try to do it best but lots of powers have been lost under the Tory's and Tony Blair never reinstated they while he was in office so much for New Labour.
so can we say no and disagree ?  And keep our premiums ? 

Loki

Quote from: Loki on 29-01-16, 08:21AM
Again, I'm discussing the point regarding the process and negotiations themselves, not the items themselves of which I will not comment on.

That is to say details of the items that have yet to be released of which are being discussed on this thread.
When all else fails, madness is the emergency exit.

Loki

Quote from: Duracell on 29-01-16, 01:03AM
Please someone tell me , how can a non legal, non enforceable term or arrangement  legally deprive you of your legal right.

Already have. 😂😂😂

In all seriousness, if I am to be grossly wrong about something, I truly wish it were this. But alas, my stance remains. However, that does not mean to say that I do not appreciate your opinion as for me, it has, once again, highlighted a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed - the Partnership Agreement and members not having a ballot.
When all else fails, madness is the emergency exit.

jojaca

If there is deemed to be no fight from the Union on the up and coming issues next week, Myself and the colleagues who have spoken too will be cancelling our union fees. The idea of Tesco being in partnership with USDAW, is just all wrong.

mosquito

Without having all the facts until 02/02/2016,will this affect all colleagues including distribution? or just retail? Just wondered because they had already had their pay awards released late in 2015?

Loki

Quote from: Sweet Misery on 29-01-16, 09:05AM
If there is deemed to be no fight from the Union on the up and coming issues next week, Myself and the colleagues who have spoken too will be cancelling our union fees. The idea of Tesco being in partnership with USDAW, is just all wrong.

Deemed?

A mild word indeed.

I for one could not argue with you should you take the decision to leave and I'm a damn(ed) rep.
When all else fails, madness is the emergency exit.


Duracell

Quote from: Loki on 29-01-16, 08:41AM
Quote from: Duracell on 29-01-16, 01:03AM
Please someone tell me , how can a non legal, non enforceable term or arrangement  legally deprive you of your legal right.

Already have. 😂😂😂

In all seriousness, if I am to be grossly wrong about something, I truly wish it were this. But alas, my stance remains. However, that does not mean to say that I do not appreciate your opinion as for me, it has, once again, highlighted a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed - the Partnership Agreement and members not having a ballot.

With the greatest respect you haven't, you have just said its legal because you believe it to be so.

The principle has not been explained, the idea that a non legally binding, unenforceable process, can remove your legal entitlement has not been explained.
If the inference is it can because  individuals consented to remove it, via an approved ( for want of a better word) process, it still is a nonsense, the agreement being facilitated in an arena with no legally binding power. A nonsense.

As mentioned before for such a point to be credible and even come close to apt for a contractual term which then gives it legal foundation, it would have had to be Clear the at the time that a legal right was being forfeighted, spelled out  crystal clear. That requirement and the inference from all the information available under case law for the belief you  support to be applied legally considered and judged as binding it would need to be shown that at the time the right was conceded it was clear to everyone what was being given away , giving up your right to vote would not be sufficient and clear enough The legal implication would have to be clear, then after that the clarity would need to be at LEAST referenced in indivual terms of contract after the decision was made.


I have nothing but respect for you Loki, so much so that I once sought a brief council with you concerning something very similar. Terms not being applied.

How the term was and still is denied even though it is in a document signed off by TESDAW , the stance was and still is, it's a mistake. The legal stance is that the document and point of reference is not legally binding and that the legal stance is what does your contract say in what did you agree to by signing that is legally binding (which happens to be what they say is correct and not what is written, supported by that is what they have always paid you.


We were both wrong in that one my freind.







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.

Fair play

So do we get a choice or do we just have to accept this . Will we get a buyout even if we aren't contacted for Sunday's but still do the odd one or two

burns2015

No Fairplay it would only be contracted employees who would get the payment who were going to be worse off after July.

Duracell

#292
I'm really risking annonimity here, but I am so passionate about the misplaced power of what is being suggested it really does stretch the boundries of and limits of TESDAW moral compass.

So yes Loki I with other's have tested your theory some time ago, it didn't so much as fail but didn't really have a receptive audience anywhere, including those that support and are part of TESDAW in all its glory.

You see my personal contract terms that I signed and consented to was the defining point, enshrined in law, the validity required for justice ( it would seem) , even though I have a partnership sign off of something different.

Unenforceable, as my contract which IS enshrined in law says something different and I signed it to agree (having no knowledge of the signed off term at the time).
Even though through the process and belief like yours, Agreement says something different shows something different.


I hope this explains my passion to not let both views be correct, even though both views
are clearly practiced and documented as so.


It's a disgrace.

And believe me a very dear one to me in monetry terms.





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.

toscozombie

I have no fancy words but  my understanding is that even if there was a vote the 14% of us who are long term employees will be outnumbered so it will still go ahead , the fairest option in my eyes is to offer us redundancies .but they won't do that as it will cost too much ..I have always worked weekends , why oh why can they not just leave us few percent alone as most of us do not have many more years to retirement . I have worked those hours (which I still say are unsociable wether we are a 24/7 trading company or not ) it allowed me to bring up my children without having to resort to childcare and now I am able to help care for my elderly parents , as my siblings work during the week .
So much for caring for its employees , shame on you t***o.
Vintage worker

Loki

Duracell

Although I will not comment or enter into a discussion regarding the items being discussed in this thread, it is evident from our debate surrounding the means and the "fallout" have truly been brought further into disrepute irrespective of our opposing views.

I think you know me well enough by now that depending on what is being discussed on this forum I can at times, be provocative in tone. There are of course legitimate reasons for my doing so but this is evidently not such an occasion due to the serious nature of what is being discussed.

Incidentally, my comment of "Already have" was genuinely made in jest in order to convey to you in a light hearted manner that we obviously disagree no matter how either of us explains it.

Another point, I do indeed recollect communication between us regarding a delicate situation involving yourself not long, if memory serves me correct, before I departed from VLH as Loki for reasons that I obviously cannot disclose. I'm a little embarrassed to say that I do not recollect the details of our communication as obviously messages and such no longer exist which is why many posts under my previous guise display as being a guest.

I cannot explain it any other way Duracell. In fact, optout probably summarised my stance more clearly than I did. On that basis, it is obvious that we respectfully disagree.

I would be interested in yours or other's opinions regarding my last question in a previous post.

Finally, if,  hypothetically, the items that are being discussed were put to the affected members via a ballot and the majority who voted would accept the proposals, would you still hold the view that legally, individual consultations must still take place?
When all else fails, madness is the emergency exit.

smithwally


oliver

Burns2015,my wife who also works at tesco said this photo copy is the ireland one is this true.

Duracell

Sorry Loki I didn't read your previous post as a question but more of an observation.

No I wouldn't, I would deem it to be acceptable based on the fact that case law examples have judged this to be acceptable. It is a proven point of law not an opinion or a TESDAWISM, it's proven in law by being judged and carried in law outside of the TESDAW wonderland which I still have some faith in and respect for.

Although in that case it didn't actually rule that a ballot was enough, merely as one didn't take place as previous instances, consultation and collective bargaining with representatives  (bilateral) disscusions alone as claimed by the employer was not enough to be deemed consent as claimed in the companies defence and agreement as those affect maybe unaware of the detail or clarity .

In a nutshell I think in that ruling the judge was dismissing the companies claim that agreement was given by virtue of the fact bilateral discussions took place on the basis that how can agreement be given by those that are unaware.

I would like to think that the ruling and case was just dismissing a defense rather that proving a lawful level of necessity . Yet ballot was mentioned by the judge and the claim was succesful.

Ballot was mentioned and it was carried in law.






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.

Loki

Then by that, are you not stating that all "accepted" pay deals for the last 18 + years have not complied with legislation and therefore implemented unilaterally?
When all else fails, madness is the emergency exit.

smithwally

Quote from: Loki on 29-01-16, 01:33PM
Then by that, are you not stating that all "accepted" pay deals for the last 18 + years have not complied with legislation and therefore implemented unilaterally?

Loki,  see my observations in post in:

http://www.verylittlehelps.com/index.php?topic=15065.msg165761;topicseen#new

The thing is with this partnership agreement, we do not seem to have had a democratic process where we can approve its renewal or reject its renewal or vote on changes to the partnership agreement.... Where is the democracy????

That's why organisations such as charities and businesses have AGMS and EGMs.


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk