News:

Welcome to V.L.H

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

28-03-24, 01:12PM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 38,115
  • Total Topics: 630
  • Online today: 316
  • Online ever: 1,436
  • (24-01-24, 01:01AM)
Users Online
Users: 6
Guests: 276
Total: 282

Double Time on Sunday... uh oh

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

Previous topic - Next topic

arlo

Quote from: burns2015 on 29-01-16, 10:39AM
No Fairplay it would only be contracted employees who would get the payment who were going to be worse off after July.
what about someone who worked every second sunday for 5 years (not contracted) surely they will also be worse of come july ?

oliver

Arlo we do that in our store but we wont get anything because it is not in our contract to do it,

Loki

#302
smithwally

Yes. I have read your post and the Partnership Agreement has been discussed on numerous occasions that include points that you have made as well as many others.

I'm well aware of the agreement and all it entails and it is generally well known on here that I am not an advocate for the Agreement in any way shape or form for more reasons than you or others are aware of.

Having said that, your criticism of it is most welcomed.

Forgive me, but I don't want to steer away too much from the OP/topic by discussing the Partnership Agreement as a whole. More importantly, at this stage I'm not prepared to discuss the items that are the source of much anxiety on this forum for reasons that are obvious.

What Duracell and I are discussing are indeed separate, but are at the same time linked to what will be announced in its entirety on Tuesday.
When all else fails, madness is the emergency exit.

AlexM

In my sons store there are double timers who have worked every sunday, every week as overtime. They have not been contracted because the store does not contract sunday workers, other than check outs & produce & a baker. So these people will now lose out on the payout through no fault of their own? Basically a big pay cut with no compensation forth coming?

Loki

Quote from: Titch on 28-01-16, 11:11PM
So because usdaw agreed it we cannot challenge it ?

Quote from: optout on 28-01-16, 11:37PM
Titch
according to Loki's argument, YES.

Not quite. It is because approximately 18 years have passed since Usdaw members voted in favour of the current method of collective bargaining that excluded the balloting of members.

It is the exclusion of the ballot that I think Duracell and I are now beginning to close in on as the main point of debate.
When all else fails, madness is the emergency exit.

smithwally

Quote from: Loki on 29-01-16, 03:31PM
Quote from: Titch on 28-01-16, 11:11PM
So because usdaw agreed it we cannot challenge it ?

Quote from: optout on 28-01-16, 11:37PM
Titch
according to Loki's argument, YES.

Not quite. It is because approximately 18 years have passed since Usdaw members voted in favour of the current method of collective bargaining that excluded the balloting of members.

It is the exclusion of the ballot that I think Duracell and I are now beginning to close in on as the main point of debate.


Therein lies my points.

18 years ago, no one could have foreseen the impact it would have a few years ago on the saturday premium and again on the proposed sunday premium changes.

If  the members could have foreseen or been told what the full effects would be all these 18 years ago, do you think they would have agreed to the removal of a ballot?

And do you think the members would have agreed to the partnership agreement being made in perpetuity and lose the right to renegotiate or to renew or to revoke the partnership agreement for all eternity?

That is why I think  a Judicial review of this partnership agreement is worth investigating




Loki

As previously stated, the Partnership Agreement is for another discussion. My reply was for the benefit of Duracell with reference to our lengthy discussion.

Perhaps you ought to consider starting a new topic.
When all else fails, madness is the emergency exit.

BlueToon

"Perhaps you ought to consider starting a new topic."
Sadly, he has not bothered to become a member,
so that option is not yet available.
;)

Duracell

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?

No

In a nut shell without going over old ground. (Too much)

The Partnership and its deals and agreements are not enforceable in law ( so how one would get to prove it to be legal when it says in itself it is not.

How do you prove the photo of an apple is actually the photo of an orange?

In my opinion and
I MUST STATE IN ADVANCE,  I AM NOT INFERRING ANY DIRECTION TO INDIVIDUALS.

The legality comes when the change is put into practice. Indiviuals having contracts stating the change and they have signed them. Payslips over years showing the changes as they are introduced.

I don't think one observation a judge made " particularly if no action was take because there was a delayed effect to the change", wouldn't quite stretch to 18 years especially as there is rarely a delay and Doing nothing is not consenting" has its limitation.


So  things are agreed and change, they are rolled out and they are clear at that point,  individual consent by doing nothing with clear changes in place has to be a consideration.

If you didn't agree at any point with a change but did nothing whilst being clear about the change then I don't have much time for apathy.

They become lawful when incorporated without resistance when clear and in affect not simply because their inception was through a bilateral process which in itself states it is not legally binding.

Although I have used the term needs your agreement, I must aknowledge that not disagreeing when the change is clear is also a consideration, I have used the term I used because that is the usual reference.

So no Loki it's not, you were content to carry on.
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

Just out of curiosity, is it possible to know, or find out how many of your national forum, work Sunday's and nights?
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.

londoner83

That's a very interesting point.....If u find out can u share it on here.

Powderpuff

Quite a few on Sunday's including some on double time  but no one on nights!

OpShunned

If I accept a buyout of my Sunday premium it will be tantamount to acceptance of the changes  :( If I accept 18 months worth of pieces of silver in advance, what tribunal would find in my favour, realistically. The 'boots' mob didn't receive any lump sum initially and were only recompensed following the ruling which ordered the employer to compensate them for the loss of earnings.

The biggest demotivator in all this (if it transpires) is the notion of working extra hours of my time for a single-rate remuneration. It just won't happen, period. They can kiss my butt before I do a minute's overtime.


optout

there has been some talk of tribunals on this thread in order to achieve some form of legal remedy.

But, would this be necessary, would it not be easier to go through small claims court after the first non-agreed deduction is taken from pay. :thumbup: :question:
I AM NOT A REP, BUT......

Duracell

I will carry on the debate Loki and I have here if the mods agree ( forgive my assumption but you have thus far).

Forgive any simple mistakes in grammar, I have square eyes from all the reading, heavy hands from all the surfing, and generally slow coordination from my preferred legal release from the mental torment and frustration.

Opinions from all are welcome.


QuoteHere, a key issue is as to the nature of the terms. In National Coal Board v National Union of Mineworkers [1986] ICR 736 Ch (a case on the incorporation of provisions for arbitration in the event of a collective failure to agree) Scott J (as he then was) held that:
"[there is ] a distinction between terms of a collective agreement which are of their nature apt to become enforceable terms of an individual's contract of employment and terms which are of their nature inapt to become enforceable by individuals. Terms of collective agreements fixing rates of pay, or hours of work, would obviously fall into the first category. Terms which deal with the procedure to be followed by an employer before dismissing an employee also would fall into the first category. But conciliation agreements setting up machinery designed to resolve by discussions between employers' representatives and union representatives, or by arbitral proceedings, questions arising within the industry, fall...firmly in the second category. The terms of conciliation schemes are not intended to become contractually enforceable by individual workers and do not become contractually enforceable by individual workers whether or not referred to in the individuals' contracts of employment."

In other words, a potentially decisive consideration is whether the term is one which relates to the relationship between individual and employer, or one which relates to the relationship between the employer and the workforce as a whole or the employer and their representatives. In National Coal Board v National Union of Mineworkers, self evidently the relevant provisions were not apt for incorporation as they established machinery for the resolution of collective disputes and therefore related to the relationship between the employer and the representatives  of the workforce.

So here we go,

is the forum process that agrees " the way forward" an agreement  between the individual and the employer or the collective and the employer? Is it  a conciliation agreement or not?

So does the process of YOUR waiver (giving up your right to agree yourself) fall under a conciliation agreement or not?

I know what I think!!!




So miracles happen you have your ballot :thumbup: ( my optimistic world ).

From what has been said from the speculated unconfirmed proposals, far more stand to gain than lose, suggesting an imbalance in vested interests of voters.
Tricky dilemma when encompassed and linked to what appears to be a pay award of 3.1%. which must be presented to all within the collective group. (  :-X )
Apparently if memory serves distributions Rafiki well ( old school human mac book font of all knowledge who is not me) the call for a change and waiver of the right to vote with retail was based on an imbalance in a ballot which showed a very low turn out rejecting what was a substantial offer over what amounted to a trivial point. Hence the NEED for change was worthy.
My point being surely based on an inbalance which was defining in process change before, non- sun, non-nightworkers cannot and should not have any influence on those payments, and those not on "old contracts should not have powers of influence over others (able to vote) who are particularly if in the bundle they stand to gain from their decision.

Pay cut and pay award all in one negotiation and vote when the majority gain, could it survive the challenge of  orchestrated bias?

Optout

depends on the claim

Unlawful deduction of wages = Industrial tribunal ( new limit of 2 years max)
Breach of contract = county court. or high court.
Specifically so.

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.

the rule book

#316
The silence from usdaw says it all .

Last time contracted buyouts were made usdaw had zero suggestions or advice other than this" we recommend you take it"

That was all they said on the Sat*rday premuims buyouts a few years ago.

Now if true Big T is going after loyal and experienced staff wages , people who have paid union contributions for years then surely the union partnership agreement is nothing but a stamp of approval for everything Big T wants to do to its staff.

Here's my suggestions we all come out of the union stop paying fees into a body that is not fit for purpose.

An organisation that has no say on staff wage cuts is obviously a sham. An illusion of a union.



Sidewinder

Quote from: optout on 30-01-16, 01:25AM
there has been some talk of tribunals on this thread in order to achieve some form of legal remedy.

But, would this be necessary, would it not be easier to go through small claims court after the first non-agreed deduction is taken from pay. :thumbup: :question:

SMC does not have jurisdiction to hear deductions from wages claims. There is scope for a breach of contract claim, but then an employer does also have the right to terminate contracts and re-engage on new terms to force the change. Re-engagement would mitigate loss, and would therefore drastically reduce any damages awarded.

Unfortunately the law can work in either party's favour with this one

Duracell

hhhmmmm

Unlawful deduction of pay...... less scope for maneuver? possible sooner resolution?
Breach of contract broader scope ? longer process ?


Note to OPTOUT breach of contract can be taken to a ET providing you are no longer employed.
Not really something any of us want to consider.
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.

OpShunned

How do we avoid taking the 18 month's worth of pieces of silver whilst rejecting any perceived 'unlawful deduction' of pay?'

To do so would be making our own 'unilateral' decision blissfully unaware that everyone else has potentially taken the buy-out?

No ballot, no chance!

picktocube

Quote from: the rule book on 30-01-16, 02:02AM
The silence from usdaw says it all .
As nothing official has yet  been announced ,then I can't see why Usdaw would comment!!

Duracell

Opshunned
When you consider that any unlawful deduction award would have a limit of Two years.

So monetry wise, such a claim is unlikely to realise more than the compensation being offered, Coincidently cases seem to take 18 months to 2 years to get settled if the process is exhausted. Of course the moral victory of "unlawful deduction" being judged settles whether they have the right to do it how they are doing it.

Breach of contract is more personal between those named in the contract, awards can be greater. Outcomes aren't as defining as ET judgements as they seem to set preference.

Such tricky questions like you have asked need to be answered by specialists


It's at this point any action or direction (which is what your question seeks) needs to be done correctly via professionals in this field.


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.

OpShunned

The legal issues arising from this topic might be better served under a new thread and perhaps lead by Loki and yourself with any other posts deleted in the cause of clarity (perhaps you could keep as much as possible in layman's terms where practical to do so).

I appreciate that there are crossovers, one of which is surely the infamous 'partnership' agreement which muddies the waters when it comes to things such as 'who would take any case forward' . USDAW appear to have agreed collectively to these contractual changes and therefore it seems highly unlikely they would turn native and support any case which challenges the legality of the upcoming (unofficial) changes.


tescopleb

#323
Can't we take legal action against the national forum for negligence/breach of trust etc. - useless would need to get involved then
 

Duracell

#324
Opshunned
I am of the opinion that any thread created with a view of "leading"  with posts stating what is legally right or wrong, that could end up heavily moderated, could be dangerous and should be left to site owner.

Debate and reasoning is one thing what you are suggesting could be construed as so much more.
My intent here is as it's always been  to reason with opinion and the wealth of information available about what amounts to informal debate.

We are all afforded this luxury because of informality given by anonymity.

I wouldn't dream of accepting the responsibility of leading in such a manner,  particularly as I am unaffected by the concern.

Reason and debate in a constructive manner is my aim, not to lead or guide, particularly with such a massive situation.


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.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk