News:

Welcome to V.L.H

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

29-03-24, 12:21PM

Login with username, password and session length
Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 38,129
  • Total Topics: 630
  • Online today: 471
  • Online ever: 1,436
  • (24-01-24, 01:01AM)
Users Online
Users: 2
Guests: 439
Total: 441

Double Time on Sunday... uh oh

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Duracell

#800
I understand Miss Piggy's point.

Slightly off topic but it sort of quantifies her point.

I once saw a divisional officer give advice to take an issue straight to Grievance, this advice was challenged by a rep.
The reps stance was that there were informal avenues and structures in place with that employer which would likely facilitate the issue, so to suggest take an issue straight to grievance was ill advised if there were other options available. The divisional officer had to concede that a formal greivance would expect history of the issue before it.

So, wouldn't any kind of arbritry body expect to see what Mrs Piggy is suggesting take place prior to any LEGAL representation.

If an individual is seeking that legal option for input because they themselves don't feel apt to do so, don't we have a situation where either someone is exercising advice they don't understand or the Legal representation intervenes and supersedes the recognised grievance route, something that as Miss Piggy Suggests an arbritry body such as ACAS or ET would like to see exhausted not skipped.

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.

smithwally

It is without doubt a grievance must be raised in the first instance whether individually or collectively.

I am sure that Tesco will have anticipated a flurry of grievances under terms and conditions and have probably thought how they plan to respond to these grievances.

By having a proposed grievance proof read by a solicitor will help remove points that do your complaint no favour or point out to you arguments that you have not thought of.

This will improve the chances of the grievance being taken more seriously if you can support it with actual facts, legal rights, a good understanding of employment contracts etc etc.

Believe me, there are quite a number of arguments that one can put in a Grievance, that I am sure that Tesco will not have thought of or anticipated.




smithwally

Also, taking a terms and conditions grievance to your line/team manager is not going to work very well as they don't have the ability to deal with it themselves. The same would apply if you take it to the line/manager's superior.

You will probably find that if you hand it to the store PM, they will have to forward it to the group PM at least as the store PM is not in a good position to answer all the points you raise in the grievance.

So going straight to a grievance is the right approach for a terms and conditions issue.

Morris999

If you put a grievance in against the company for loss of double time premiums what is it you actually expect the outcome to be?
The union is going to back Tesco, the store is going to back Tesco, the group team is going to back Tesco and so is everyone else higher up!
The national pay forum which is made up of double timers accepted this on your behalf, the union accepted this on your behalf!
The double timers most of which are the ones trying to overturn this, are the ones who voted this process in as regards the partnership etc in the first place!
So I ask again what is it you actually expect to achieve other than letting Tesco know your not happy about it considering the only ones who can fight this for you/overthrow it are the ones who agreed it in the first place and are backing Tesco!

I'm sorry I'm with Loki on this one!
The only way/chance you have with this is go get a solicitor to take Tesco to court!
If you can find one that knows what they are on about and actually believe you have more than a slim chance of winning!
A court hearing that you will have to pay for yourselfs!
A court hearing where you will be up against not only Tesco but also Usdaw!
And not only them but also having acas having no part of it due to the partnership agreement!
By all means good luck with it, but you need to see that putting in a grievance is not going to get the result you want from Tesco/Usdaw and is only there to try and prove your case in court that you tried to resolve the issue internally if you are prepared to go all the way to the courts with this!
If you are not prepared to go all the way to court then your grievance is pointless and will ultimately fail!

Duracell

I understand the view that to try to Redress with "TESDAW" is basicly a futile exercise.
Having said that, that process regardless of how futile will be expected to be shown, and will be an aid if you can you show you followed it.




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.

smithwally

Quote from: Duracell on 09-03-16, 04:36PM
I understand the view that to try to Redress with "TESDAW" is basicly a futile exercise.
Having said that, that process regardless of how futile will be expected to be shown, and will be an aid if you can you show you followed it.

Duracell is absolutely spot on. You have to exhaust all internal company procedures FIRST before taking any form of legal action or it will go against you.

If you proceed to legal action first, you will either (a) have the case thrown out due to not using company procedures first or (b) have any compensation/redress reduced as a punishment for not using the grievance procedure in the first place.

And Tesco do say in their grievance policy that you should use the internal procedures first

the-vortex

Hear hear, Loki!

To everyone else; let me ask, are you asking the people who are not on double time benefits to give up their pay rise (the first one for two years) so that you can keep your (better) benefits?
Loyalty is a one-way street!

smithwally

Quote from: the-vortex on 09-03-16, 05:29PM
Hear hear, Loki!

To everyone else; let me ask, are you asking the people who are not on double time benefits to give up their pay rise (the first one for two years) so that you can keep your (better) benefits?

That is an excellent question.

It is not just about a pay rise for some people and a pay cut for others. It is fundamentally a change in the terms and conditions in contracts of long serving staff.

What upsets the long serving staff is the lack of consultation to the proposed changes to terms and conditions.

Also, if we let Tesco do this to long serving staff, you mark my words, you will be next in the queue to have your time and half for Sundays and Bank Holidays reduced to single pay along with Night shift premiums being cut even more.

I will then ask you:

"are you asking the people who are not on time & a half time benefits to give up their pay rise in 2017/2018 so that you can keep your (better) benefits?

smithwally

and ask yourself this question....

Do you not feel guilty that half of your pay rise has been taken directly from the wage packets of your longer serving colleagues?


Morris999

The only problem with your question is that everyone will be on time and half benefits in 2017!
But no I won't as I like most people do not take advantage of that benefit!
And let's be honest the money saved by getting rid of double time has hardly funded this pay Rise!
The management restructure last year is where the money has come from!
So do you feel guilty for getting a higher flat rate paid for by the ex-team leaders, line managers and Deputy managers!

jatbaws


So do you feel guilty for getting a higher flat rate paid for by the ex-team leaders, line managers and Deputy managers!

No I don't feel guilty getting a higher flat rate as in my experience the tl were just a jumped up ca line managers too meany of them and did the tl not get the choice of redundancy or the same hours  must have shocked Tesco how meany tl took redundancy that's why not offering it this time



I am a long time staff member  16 years and why should one of my long time benefits go.the way it looks is Tesco want to get rid of all long time staff (but we all know that)

valleyboy

#811
For those who object should obtain a copy of their employment contract and read the terms.

For those who object should ask in writing what gives the company a right to change the contact without consent.

For those that object after the clarifying the first two points need to ask themselves. Am I prepared to be dismissed and continue the fight and or be dismissed and agree any changes on reinstatement.

Act quickly. If you delay in communicating that you do not accept the variation to your pay you may be taken to have accepted a variation of your contract by simply acquiescing to it and not protesting.

The talk of legal advice is sound but first you should seek out the first two points. 1. What is the contract/the terms you signed and agreed 2.what allows the employer to change said terms?

Most insurances offer legal protection which covers disputes with employers or you can you usdaw and obtain use of the free service they provide.

Any grievances taken will bypass the stages and go to a senior employment relations manager if done collectively.

The grievance would be

Breach of contract namely reduction in premium rates

Unlawful deduction of wages after xxxxx date if proceed with objected change to premium payments

smithwally

Quote from: jatbaws on 09-03-16, 06:59PM

So do you feel guilty for getting a higher flat rate paid for by the ex-team leaders, line managers and Deputy managers!

No I don't feel guilty getting a higher flat rate as in my experience the tl were just a jumped up ca line managers too meany of them and did the tl not get the choice of redundancy or the same hours  must have shocked Tesco how meany tl took redundancy that's why not offering it this time



I am a long time staff member  16 years and why should one of my long time benefits go.the way it looks is Tesco want to get rid of all long time staff (but we all know that)


OK. I shall come back onto VLH in a few years time when everyone is complaining about time and a half being reduced to single pay for Sundays and Bank Holidays........



jatbaws

Wonder who will be the first staff member to go to one of one win no pay  lawyers to  see what they think they could make a name for them self the bosman of retail

Hammer10

Now e government have lost there vote on Sunday trading maybe they will change there mind not.

Duracell

#815
Quote from: valleyboy on 09-03-16, 07:00PM

Unlawful deduction of wages after xxxxx date if proceed with objected change to premium payments

Benefits
Straight to tribunal.
Ruling on whether change is apt.

Concerns
Maximum (circa 2015) 2 year cap, which isn't much more than what they are offering in protection.


Its not just about the money


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

#816
Quote from: the-vortex on 09-03-16, 05:29PM
Hear hear, Loki!

To everyone else; let me ask, are you asking the people who are not on double time benefits to give up their pay rise (the first one for two years) so that you can keep your (better) benefits?

I'd be happy to answer your question because I don't find it a difficult one. Yeah

You seem to view and think on principle, I like that :thumbup:, principled opinion and moral compasses (to be credible) need to be applied consistently.

So as you brought up a question that seems to look past the "individuals" concern with the "greater good" in mind.
We hear " to harmonise" "the majority gain". The company need to fund the impending Living wage they are miles away from. We see there is nothing that can be done as legalities are met. (my interpretation of hoarse poo).

So

Any chance of you answering a question asked of you? its only fair  :thumbup:
http://www.verylittlehelps.com/index.php?topic=15134.msg168951#msg168951

Bare in mind it will easily fund the living wage across all sectors.
It will put more productive hours back into the business (every hour that goes back into the business is a productive one as you are in work working not on HOL).
It will help with low staffing levels.

But you on that occasion would NO doubt lose out (in work more at home less), but the benefits outway your concerns!
You have funded your own living wage not the company which is FAIR isn't it?

One of the arguments for the current deal being "Legit" is the process has been that way for 18 years the select "12" decide, so based on custom and practice the process is difficult to challenge, my view is it depends on the scale of loss to the individuals concerned, particularly as others suffer no loss at all and in fact only stand to gain, but going back to custom and practice, the principle of losing to ultimately gain, to fund your future! is very dangerous to support on principle, it holds the door open, we are back to a damning view of custom and practice and the precedence this pay deal sets.

Look at the terms in which the deal was struck.
If you believe that custom and practice (the way things are done, have been done are just cause) has any credibility, look at the precedence this sets, ANY type of service entitlement is up for grabs in the name of the greater good.


(Apologies to nomad,  but the principle was raised elsewhere and went unanswered where it was raised, and it pops up again here).
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.

valleyboy

@duracell post 815

Then perhaps the commercial court is more appropriate

Duracell

Its not just about the money... many have implied custom and practice plays a part in the legitamacy  and ET would reflect on that.

The principle

TESDAW supports the abolition of long service contractual rights in favour of harmonising pay, and meeting legal objectives.

Every one down to 12 months service.

Extreme?

How desperate will THEY get.
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

When a principle could be applied regardless of contact or salary, that would affect on an overwhelming majority of the 350,000 staff, it becomes a very very bitter pill to swallow that most don't even want to consider.
But to raise the principle as having merit, but to abstain from the potential direction and implication that principle could have. Really!!

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.

optout

The Vortex

I am not on Double Time, and I am not on nights, but I would fight for both if I felt it would make a difference, even if it did mean losing my 30 pieces of silver.

This is an issue of principle, and as Duracell says; precedent setting.
I AM NOT A REP, BUT......

Duracell

Furthermore.
To any sector that is unaffected by the principle change happening in retail.
When your 100% premiums are on the table looking to get eroded, HOW will USDAW fight your corner and your concerns, if they have agreed to it elsewhere within the collective.

Custom and practice!
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

#822
Quote from: optout on 09-03-16, 08:21PM
The Vortex

I am not on Double Time, and I am not on nights, but I would fight for both if I felt it would make a difference, even if it did mean losing my 30 pieces of silver.

This is an issue of principle, and as Duracell says; precedent setting.

And I would happily give up my 3.2% award, to protect the principle of "service elements".

After all where would such a principle be exhausted ?

The abolition of, for those that joined before ** -------- ****.
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.

instorebakery

Quote from: smithwally on 09-03-16, 02:45PM
Also, taking a terms and conditions grievance to your line/team manager is not going to work very well as they don't have the ability to deal with it themselves. The same would apply if you take it to the line/manager's superior.

You will probably find that if you hand it to the store PM, they will have to forward it to the group PM at least as the store PM is not in a good position to answer all the points you raise in the grievance.

So going straight to a grievance is the right approach for a terms and conditions issue.


What the managers do with a grievance, is that really the employee's concern? Surely as employees of a large company, is it not in their best interest to just follow the correct company procedures of the said grievance policy? And during each stage of the said grievance policy, does the company have a set number of days to get back to the employee(s) with a resolution? And if the grievance isn't resolved then does it not move to the next stage until it finally gets exhausted and referred to an independent third party?

Wouldn't each separate stage of the grievance procedure give a tool to negotiate a resolution(and an outcome in writing at each stage) that all parties are happy with? And if the company looked to be difficult during each stage(ie not prepared to open negotiations with an aggrieved staff member/or group of staff members), how would this look at a third party hearing?

Don't quote me here but is the company Grievance policy not 3 stages before it is referred to a third party? And at a third party hearing would you not need evidence of an outcome offered by the company in the form of a resolution from each grievance stage?


Morris999

The outcome offered by the company is the 18 months difference pay off!
It's already been offered/forced on people!
They do not need to offer anything else!
And let's be honest here there is only 1 person who can overrule the offer on the table, and he offered it in the first place!
There is no-one, absolutely no-one who is going to overrule him or even can!
Your grievances are going to fail!
Your only option is to then follow them up in court which YOU are going to have to fund out of your own wages!

And jatbaws it's attitudes like that, is why a lot of colleagues have no sympathy for the double timers!
Along with certain double timers hogging all the Sunday overtime putting other colleagues at a disadvantage!
And gloating that they get more and saying they would never work for anything less than double time!

I'm going to be honest here alot of the double timers in my store have my sympathies, the rest do not for the reasons above!
And we all know people or have worked with people who fit into those categories!

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk