News:

Welcome to V.L.H

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

29-03-24, 01:22PM

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: 4
Guests: 424
Total: 428

Double Time on Sunday... uh oh

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

Previous topic - Next topic

oliver

Loyalty and commitment means nothing to tesco anymore,we are all just a number sold down the river By usdaw yet again,while those at the top in usdaw get their big wages through staff  subscriptions and tesco directors get their big wages and very large bonuses.out with the old in with the new cheap labour,all that hard work over the years keeping this company going we are just treat disgustingly.

Equalizer87

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

oliver

Tesco have a debt pile of £17.5 billion pounds, they have to pay bond holders £1.1 billion by September 2016 and a further £330 million by following January.i bet this debt doesn't affect Dave or Matt's wages,pension or benefits like it has staff on the shop floor running round like fools,and treat like idiots.

Zamfir707

Quote from: burns2015 on 27-01-16, 12:20AM
When Express staff lost bonus and were given 18 months of the difference it was after the pay increase.

Does this mean that they will most likely look at your existing monthly premium total pre-payrise compared to your new monthly premium total post-payrise, and give you 18 months worth of the difference in premiums?

If they were to base any compensation on your monthly total wage pre-payrise versus post-payrise, that would dilute the payrise amount on your contracted 36.5 hours surely?

Sorry if I've confused the matter, I'm confusing myself lol

Duracell

Quote from: oliver on 27-01-16, 03:19AM
Tesco have a debt pile of £17.5 billion pounds, they have to pay bond holders £1.1 billion by September 2016 and a further £330 million by following January.i bet this debt doesn't affect Dave or Matt's wages,pension or benefits like it has staff on the shop floor running round like fools,and treat like idiots.

Premium payments are not a benefit they are an expressed term in individual employment contracts, USDAW cannot agree to any change without your expressed consent.

It can't be done without individual agreement to the change.

When you are informed of any change if you do not agree make it Known
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.

Rad

If you are right Duracell then Tesco could be about to make a huge error in judgement. 

I cannot imagine they have got this wrong legally.

 

Loki

Obviously I will not comment on DC's as I do not work within this format nor do I have any dealings with regards to representing its Usdaw members.

However, with reference to the way in which pay negotiations are conducted and agreed within stores via collective bargaining with no ballot, your statement is incorrect Duracell. That is not to say that I am in any way shape or form in agreement with the way in which such matters are agreed.

I have mentioned before the cessation of the Saturday premiums several years ago. This was negotiated, agreed and implemented in much the same way to that which is being discussed. Which, I may add, I will not make any comment on.

Working conditions are, in an ideal world, collectively bargained in good faith, of which I'm sure many will take a rather dim view of with regards to Usdaw.

Items covered by the collective bargaining agreement between Usdaw and Tesco via the Partnership Agreement for stores include, but are not limited to: wages, terms and conditions of employment, work rules, grievance and disciplinary procedures, business restructuring, holidays, overtime rates, shift premium payments, Sunday premium payments, location pay.

An individual agreement is not required by law with regards to the above items that are negotiated and agreed upon by the National Forum on behalf of the members.

Members are not balloted as this "right" was discarded, as recommended by Usdaw and voted in favour of by a majority vote.

Harsh? Yes.

Unfair? Yes?

Disgraceful? Yes.

Unlawful? No.
When all else fails, madness is the emergency exit.

Duracell

Yeah they don't do things like that! ( sorry to be sarcastic).

They are looking to make cuts to fund impending fines for making legal mistakes.



They want you to pay for that.

Do me a favour.


Loki I disagree. My aim is not to cause an argument you have your view albeit incorrect on this occasion.

Go with what you think is right, my advice is simple at no point agree to the change do nothing.

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

Unfortunately I've been in this game too long and I am 100% correct my friend.

If you or others doubt me then that is of course fine and I suggest you seek legal representation to challenge what has been agreed upon via a legally binding collective agreement.

You'll have an unpleasant surprise I'm afraid.



When all else fails, madness is the emergency exit.

Loki

Having said that, members do have the choice to submit a complaint against Usdaw via the appropriate channels in order to seek possible derecognition. This, of course is an extremely lengthy, complicated not to mention, stressful process.

If you think I have gone along with everything that Usdaw have said or done without argument, protest etc, then that would genuinely sadden me.
When all else fails, madness is the emergency exit.

baldeagle

Do we get to the stage of unhappy employees complain to there AO that the national officer has not worked in the best interest

formerscoboy

Quote from: Loki on 27-01-16, 01:45PM
Unfortunately I've been in this game too long and I am 100% correct my friend.

If you or others doubt me then that is of course fine and I suggest you seek legal representation to challenge what has been agreed upon via a legally binding collective agreement.

You'll have an unpleasant surprise I'm afraid.


Duracell Loki is correct. Once the recognised union accept it becomes a "reasonable business request" failure to adhere to it would be a misconduct issue from the colleague which may end up in dismissal ultimately. Yes its terrible and its no way to treat staff but unfortunately once the union says yes, tosco hold the cards. Either accept or leave

Warpy

I stopped paying into the union last year when the team leaders were hammered.  Enough is enough.  Since then, we've had no pay rise, the pension has changed and now possibly all what I read here may happen. 

I'd rather throw a couple of quid the way of VLH because this site is a lot more useful.

smithwally

Quote from: formerscoboy on 27-01-16, 07:54PM
Quote from: Loki on 27-01-16, 01:45PM
Unfortunately I've been in this game too long and I am 100% correct my friend.

If you or others doubt me then that is of course fine and I suggest you seek legal representation to challenge what has been agreed upon via a legally binding collective agreement.

You'll have an unpleasant surprise I'm afraid.


Duracell Loki is correct. Once the recognised union accept it becomes a "reasonable business request" failure to adhere to it would be a misconduct issue from the colleague which may end up in dismissal ultimately. Yes its terrible and its no way to treat staff but unfortunately once the union says yes, tosco hold the cards. Either accept or leave

Does this still apply if an employee is not a Union member? The Union surely cannot negotiate on behalf of the non-unionised staff?

burns2015

Its not just usdaw colleagues are represented by a panel of employees from the forum who are our pay review panel who vote on our behalf.

Duracell

I understand the scope in which contract changes can take place within collective agreements.
I understand that custom and practise can inevitably play a part in how tribunals and court of appeals decide and make judgements.
I understand where such agreements hold variation clauses, such clauses have to be unambiguous and be clear about any detriment to the individual, and where there are how they are to be managed, ( must be written specifically into the agreement at the time and can't be created during the process at the time of change).

It has been shown outside of the partnership that unilateral variation clauses within individual contracts and collective terms fail to meet the requirements of employment law because they need to be clear about any detriment to the individual which is almost impossible because such clauses are very often generic with no clear affect on the individual at the time of concept. Which in essence keeps individuals in the dark and uninformed about any proposed changes when they are being discussed and most importantly the level of negative affect it will have.

If retail are happy that all requirements are being met then yes they can and will make changes, in this particular case the implications are massive, from the research I have done and with the information I have gathered, it is more complex than a unilateral agreement can facilitate.

If you believe that all negative aspects of change that affect individual contracts are clear and unambiguous and were so at the point of conception in the agreement and not created and new at the point of change and don't give either side a clear unfair advantage over the other ( which is also a no no) then  :thumbup:

In all probability any opinion I have or you have about the legality of it all is academic as to test it and know for sure will be reliant on individually sponsored tribunal claims, which is unlikely, at least in retail because you believe TESDAW can do it.

Smithwally all staff are bound by collective agreement, so if it ok for Union member then non members are bound also.
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

Loki , don't be saddened, the truth is out there.
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

#242
A point of interest, I can quote what I have word for word but I won't.

The point of interest is,  the partnership agreement being a collective agreement is NOT legally binding unless they are stated to be so under the Trade union and labour relations act 1992.
Which of course isn't the case as the TESDAW agreements in most forms and instances stipulate they are not legally binding.

So any argument  that the forum processes within the partnership agreement has any legal credibility OVER individual contractual rights is a nonsense.

Where any claim is made that the intent of a collective term was to give rise to indivual contractual rights so therefore a certain collective term or terms then becomes apt for incorporation as an express term of individual contract any such express terms need individual consent to be changed, as being realised as an express term within individual contract it is becomes individually enforceable under employment law.

In essence,  during conception of the partnership agreement was the intent of the agreement to be legally binding in, NO cause it clearly says it's Not . It's true nature is for labour relations and not meant to have and legal binding affect.

So forum process within said agreement has no LEGAL standing with regard to Individual contract change.
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

#243
Quote from: Loki on 27-01-16, 01:45PM
Unfortunately I've been in this game too long and I am 100% correct my friend.

If you or others doubt me then that is of course fine and I suggest you seek legal representation to challenge what has been agreed upon via a legally binding collective agreement.

You'll have an unpleasant surprise I'm afraid.


No such thing in entirety the concept is a nonsense in employment law they are not legally binding unless they are declared so as I have mentioned, check your adaptation for your members it will clearly say it's not. TESDAW are not that committed to it to enshrine it in law in its totality.

Selective parts of it may be judge to be deemed apt to be included within individual contracts as an express term, such terms when established as such are realised mainly on their individual merit because of their specific unambiguous nature and are rarely cross referenced to other parts of the agreement.
General unilateral terms in collective agreements which could have an unrealised consequence but general purpose of mechanics to realise an outcome such as the forum process which aims to aid employment relations will not be apt as an express term therefore remains excluded from employment law and remains within the realms of collective agreement which has no legally binding intent.


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: formerscoboy on 27-01-16, 07:54PM
Quote from: Loki on 27-01-16, 01:45PM
Unfortunately I've been in this game too long and I am 100% correct my friend.

If you or others doubt me then that is of course fine and I suggest you seek legal representation to challenge what has been agreed upon via a legally binding collective agreement.

You'll have an unpleasant surprise I'm afraid.


Duracell Loki is correct. Once the recognised union accept it becomes a "reasonable business request" failure to adhere to it would be a misconduct issue from the colleague which may end up in dismissal ultimately. Yes its terrible and its no way to treat staff but unfortunately once the union says yes, tosco hold the cards. Either accept or leave


There are staff who work just one day a week which just happens to be a Sunday. Is it a reasonable business request to ask these staff to take a 25% pay cut?

Interestingly, if you google, you will find that a group of staff took Boots to an employment tribunal for unlawful deduction of wages when Boots reduced Sunday pay for older staff from double to time and a half.

The staff won their case and guess who supported the staff to bring the claim to the tribunal? None other than USDAW and in the case of the pharmacists their professional body too.

Seems to be double standards within USDAW itself......


smithwally

Quote from: burns2015 on 27-01-16, 11:08PM
Its not just usdaw colleagues are represented by a panel of employees from the forum who are our pay review panel who vote on our behalf.


But the panel of staff who "voted" on our behalf did not consult with us.... What gives this panel the right to vote on our behalf?

If we don't challenge this NOW, what's to to stop tesco repeating the exercise in a few years time and make *everyone* move from time & a half to single time?

Remember this also affects your pension as the less you pay in due to lower gross pay, tesco pay in less too...

smithwally

I am not normally one for poetry but I think this poem is appropriate:

First they came for the Saturday premium and I did not speak out because I was not a Saturday worker

Then they came for the Double Sunday pay and I did not speak out because I was not an older member of staff

Then they came for the night premiums and I did not speak out because I was not a night shift worker

Then they came for Sunday time and a half and there was no one left to speak out for me.

smithwally

In any case anyone is wondering what that poem is based on, it was Holocaust Memorial Day yesterday and there's a famous poem:

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Loki

In simple terms Duracell, the pay, including items mentioned in my previous post, are bargained collectively via the National Forum as per the agreement between Usdaw and Tesco.

Perhaps my choice of words may have been misleading to some extent, as the Partnership Agreement is indeed a voluntary agreement. However, whatever the outcome will be regarding what is being discussed will comply with legislation much like the cessation of the Saturday premiums were. The items that have been collectively agreed on behalf of the members, will be incorporated within our terms and conditions and will be compliant with legislation. The new pay will then form part of the Terms and Conditions.

On that basis, the collectively agreed terms become legally binding as part of the individual contract of employment. That is what I tried to portray when stating that what has been agreed upon via a legally binding collective agreement.

I realise that even though I have explained it in another way you will undoubtedly disagree, however, my stance remains unchanged. On that basis I respectfully disagree.

Of course, any other Union would ballot the members as to whether or not to accept the deal on offer. However, the "right to ballot" on pay was taken away via agreement by the members.

Should an employee wish to take legal action against that which has been agreed between Usdaw and Tesco as part of collective bargaining, much disappointment will ensue.
When all else fails, madness is the emergency exit.

Hammer10

If there is so much disgruntlement about the pay reviews and the way they are handled surely would it not be good idea to go back the workforce and ask if they would like to vote again and scrap the forums as all they do is except every thing that tesco offers without so much as a fight.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk