News:

Welcome to V.L.H

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

29-03-24, 06:33AM

Login with username, password and session length
Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 38,128
  • Total Topics: 630
  • Online today: 445
  • Online ever: 1,436
  • (24-01-24, 01:01AM)
Users Online
Users: 1
Guests: 410
Total: 411

Double Time on Sunday... uh oh

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Duracell

#825
As of 11th August 2014, Dignity at work and Terms and conditions grievances went from 3 stages to 2 (apparently).

When you consider  that the group personnel manager hears level 2 grievances, if then some believe a grievance over the proposed changes can't be heard at local level, it could be argued that, because of the nature of the change and the inability to hear it at local level, it would probably be heard by the group PM , usually level 2, so the nature of the change deprives the individual of the right to a full and exhaustive process.
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.

melanie

I have never heard a member of staff gloat over the fact they receive double time. Nor the hogging of overtime that is your manager who is at fault if that happens so take them to task over it.

Duracell

Quote from: Morris999 on 09-03-16, 10:57PM
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!


Really?

Mandate recently seccesfully made a claim against the sick pay application in Ireland.
The labour court made a recommendation that the company review their sickness policy.

The review is taking place. 😉
So it's not like DD can't possibly be persuaded.
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.

Morris999

I was referring to the company's internal grievance procedure regarding overturning double time removal not someone taking Tesco to court!
There's a difference and that's why I followed it up with the rest of the post!

And ilikeabeer it does happen and in more stores than is right!

instorebakery

Mandate are doing a great at the moment in Ireland. It seems Tesco are trying to deliver these cuts all over but the Irish are(at present) standing their ground.

the-vortex

Quote from: Duracell on 09-03-16, 07:42PM
Any chance of you answering a question asked of you? its only fair  :thumbup:

In answer yes. I get 20 (plus 6BH plus 1) days (4 day week been here 8 years). I would drop back to 16 days (plus 6 plus 1). I wont be happy but the requirement to work another 4 days per year in exchange for a better payrise (say 3.1% instead of 1.9%) is swallowable

Am I right that the main thrust of your argument is that no one should ever lose any benefits? When the pay agreements in 1999 to 2004 were agreed the new entrants were disadvantaged by the loss of benefits that you kept.

T*sco is trying to claim that Privilegecard discount counts towards National Minimum Wage so they will not have to pay the £9.20/h plus.  Watch this space because I predict that they will not be allowed to claim that and will then try to fund the required payrise by abolishing Privilegecard benefits. Remember that Privilegecard is a perk not a contractual matter.
Loyalty is a one-way street!

Duracell

Quote from: Morris999 on 09-03-16, 11:24PM
I was referring to the company's internal grievance procedure regarding overturning double time removal not someone taking Tesco to court!
There's a difference and that's why I followed it up with the rest of the post!

And ilikeabeer it does happen and in more stores than is right!

So a few steps back, distribution Pay review, offer full and final no scope for improvement, Not even at grievance level, staff vote in favour to ballot for action.

Directors stressing their is no possible improvement, reps suggest proposed improvements are relayed upwards, improvements accepted ( when it was suggested initially that it couldn't possibly happen). :thumbup:

Better deal

No judge
No grievance.

;)
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

#832
Quote from: the-vortex on 09-03-16, 11:35PM
Quote from: Duracell on 09-03-16, 07:42PM
Any chance of you answering a question asked of you? its only fair  :thumbup:

In answer yes. I get 20 (plus 6BH plus 1) days (4 day week been here 8 years). I would drop back to 16 days (plus 6 plus 1). I wont be happy but the requirement to work another 4 days per year in exchange for a better payrise (say 3.1% instead of 1.9%) is swallowable

Am I right that the main thrust of your argument is that no one should ever lose any benefits? When the pay agreements in 1999 to 2004 were agreed the new entrants were disadvantaged by the loss of benefits that you kept.

T*sco is trying to claim that Privilegecard discount counts towards National Minimum Wage so they will not have to pay the £9.20/h plus.  Watch this space because I predict that they will not be allowed to claim that and will then try to fund the required payrise by abolishing Privilegecard benefits. Remember that Privilegecard is a perk not a contractual matter.


Thanks for answering the question, eventually.
Pro rata does make such potential more palatable.

Your not entirely correct in my main thrust.
If we talk about cuts as a business need, Sunday premiums being the focus, isn't it fairer to say all levels are cut by 50%.
Valleyboy gave a case reference, where ET found in favour of dismissal as some individuals didn't agree to the change (% pay cut ) the decision was considered apt because the company presented an apt business case and they applied the % cut accross ALL staff.
A consistant fair approach to all.

As for reduced contracts being applied, and new entrants seeing a loss of benefits, you have to have to lose, there was no Loss. As I mentioned in another post/thread, how can the union workforce challenge the new terms?
For the terms to come into effect they have to be agreed to by the entrant.
Until some time after that, the entrant is not a Union member.
How and where is the challenge?

It's quite laughable to suggest existing staff have any influence over the potential terms of another that they are not affected by and should of acted on, whilst at the same suggesting, there is nothing that can be done about a change to your own.

I don't dispute your view about the future living wage, I don't think it will stop at the Privelege Card.

All perks will be exhausted.

It's the principle.
They have tried to get out of Contracted Bonuses in Ireland based on the decline in profits, again mandate took them to task, the court ask even though profits have declined (company defense for reduction) were they still profitable they confirmed they were, the court recommended they should pay the contracted bonuses, Mandate have said if they don't they will ballot their members for action.

They are really not in a good place as far as doing what is fair and just and apt.








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

Quote from: the-vortex on 09-03-16, 11:35PM
[

In answer yes. I get 20 (plus 6BH plus 1) days (4 day week been here 8 years). I would drop back to 16 days (plus 6 plus 1). I wont be happy but the requirement to work another 4 days per year in exchange for a better payrise (say 3.1% instead of 1.9%) is swallowable
[/quote]

Wouldn't that mean you have only gained 50% of your loss?
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

Quote from: Duracell on 09-03-16, 12:57PM
Quote from: Loki on 09-03-16, 11:49AM
I cannot understand why this is still being discussed without anyone taking their "convictions" to a solicitor as previously suggested.

I realise that after already looking into this I have made my stance on this matter known, however, for those affected who do not agree, why have you not approached a solicitor? Until you do so its nothing other than "p**s and wind" not to mention wasting energy by barking up the wrong bloody tree.

To be fair it is not essential that you do understand, like you have said you have made your opinion clear, some may well have started proceedings to deal with their concerns, what do you expect to happen by you giving your opinion that there is Nothing to discuss so the topic ends?

It's a forum not the Loki Show.

I agree. My opinion is certainly not the be all, end all of this forum - far from it my friend.

What I will reiterate is that this has been going round and round in circles which will not get anyone anywhere and which, if you read my post, is why I advised that those affected who believe there is a breach of contract should seek legal advice.

Furthermore, as valleyboy and I have stated, read your contracts and, more importantly, take these contracts along with accompanying documentation IE staff handbook and Partnership Agreement, to a solicitor. Something which has yet to be claimed to have been initiated thusfar.

Whether you agree or not, I'm afraid this is a matter that does not require a grievance due to the manner in which this has been agreed via collective bargaining. On that basis, because the Company AND the Union have both issued statements regarding it being legislative, then the affected employees are not bound by the internal procedures. It has already gone past the point where Usdaw will involve themselves in a dispute over this deal.

Do not forget that I am affected by this deal and am very angry about it - and that is an understatement. However, my anger does not cloud my judgement and if you knew me, then you would know that I am certainly not a push over. I have already hinted that I have had experience with dealing with both the Company and Usdaw at a high level. Now this may not be relevant to you or others, but what I will say is that this pay deal may be a symptom of the problem, but it is certainly not the cause.

One of the biggest problem, particularly at store level, is that there is no ballot for members. Now, on this matter, when I stated there would not be a ballot on the current pay deal, you replied that this was my opinion, when in fact it was not - it was a fact that I relayed due to my knowledge and experience of the mechanisms of this damn Partnership Agreement implemented within stores!

Why is it that since joining VLH many years ago via various guises that I have constantly AND consistently berated everything and anything that this agreement stands for?

In a previous post you stated that had there been a ballot of those affected and the majority voted in favour of the deal, then the new terms would be, for lack of a better word: legal. Whilst understanding the reasoning behind your argument, it contradicts that which you previously stated regarding the requirement for employees to be consulted on an individual basis. On that basis you imply that the main crux of the issue is with there being no ballot.

Herein lies the problem for employees within stores.

The Collective Agreement/Partnership Agreement between Tesco and Usdaw are not legally binding to the parties. However, the terms of the agreement are incorporated within our individual contracts therefore legally binding between us, the employee, and Tesco.

The fact that the agreement between Tesco and Usdaw is not enforceable does not affect the issue of incorporation. One of these terms is that of the process regarding how our pay is negotiated and settled without a ballot. So long as this system is in place, then pay deals such as this are legal. They are not, legally speaking, implemented unilaterally simply because the terms of the agreement does not require a ballot therefore individual consent is not required and it matters not if an employee does not want the new terms to apply to them.

Unless a solicitor states otherwise AND has successfully dealt with this pay deal on a national scale, then nothing will be done about this pay deal. In the meantime, alll the so called grievances, complaints etc etc will mean absolutely nothing. I hate saying this, but that is the reality. All this talk and exchanging of views is meaningless as it won't change a damn thing.

Again, it's not the Loki show as you so eloquently put it, but you have to understand the context in which I wrote my original post about not understanding why people are still discussing this and not seeking legal advice and assistance. It wasn't meant to patronise or to belittle anyone. It's simply frustrating that many seem to miss the main problem being the Union and not the Company. This is precisely why I have been quiet of late. Certain individuals on here can attest to this.

Certain individuals here have already mentioned what needs to be done to tackle Usdaw and the cause of much anxiety and anger amongst their members within stores.
When all else fails, madness is the emergency exit.

smithwally

Quote from: smithwally on 09-03-16, 12:22PM
Quote from: Loki on 09-03-16, 12:18PM
Like I said, there are certain matters that some need to take to a solicitor otherwise it's "p**s and wind". Believe me, I've been through equally complexed situations such as this before and brick wall is a mild term to say the least.

Loki, Can I ask a question then?

What is the best way forward to retain the double pay for Sundays and Bank Holidays from 3rd July onwards or to overturn/change the current pay deal?

Loki, thank you for your detail post responding to others..... Is it possible to respond to my question too please?

Mozzer

Not being nasty but it aint gonna happen  in a million years ,our double time had blown in the wind.

Loki

smithwally, apologies, but I believe I have.
When all else fails, madness is the emergency exit.

Duracell

#838
Loki.

I understand your points, thanks for taking the time to type them.

I understand your view is based on, custom and practice and the history you have.

My view is based on a similar approach.

If I was to share aspects of my contractual issues with you, your head would blow up with Rage. Because of the implication it would have on your situation.

Indeed TESDAW is a great concern.

I won't go over your points as it would just be "p**s and wind".

It's a shame we can't sit down with the N.O and ask why TESDAW is practicing both your understanding and mine of similar scenarios. Does the contract give a right or the agreement?

I will however refrain from further posting, I will do what you suggest. No I am not in retail, but our issues are relevant to each others.

So let's find out what is lawful

Agreement and terms that says one thing.
Or signed individual contract that says something else.

The law can't support a contradiction so TESDAW can't apply both.

I guess time will tell eventually.



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

Right.....

while I have a copy of my Tesco employment contract, I cannot find a copy of the USDAW-Tesco partnership agreement.

Would some kind soul post a link or upload the partnership agreement to VLH?

I would like to read the Partnership agreement........


smithwally

A few things strike me about this Partnership agreement:

1. There appears to be no annual ballot for members to decide (a) to keep the PA unchanged and renew, (b) modify the PA or (c) dismantle the PA.

2. There are staff who joined the big T after the PA was launched in 1998. They clearly had no say at all in the PA, and probably did not realise the significance or impact that the PA would have when signing their employment contract. Smoke and mirrors come to mind  as the impact of the PA was not explained clearly then

3. When staff voted for the PA in 1998, I am sure no one realised then that the PA could be used at some point in the future to erode one's contractual T&C's. Had they realised at the time, wouldn't they have voted against it instead? Presumably the PA was sold as a method of improving ones' working environment, negotiate the annual pay deals etc rather than be eventually used to erode T&C's?

Nomad

I must admit to being slightly more than perturbed by the fact that it is not relatively easy for all employees to obtain, if they so desire, their own copies of agreements (Partnership among them) which relate to and have a large affect on their employment by the company and membership of union.

In my opinion that is not as it should be, if something affects me I would want a copy or at the absolute minimum access to it and time to consult it at work during work time.

Claiming reps have access is not sufficient as employees may not be in the union but still affected/bound by it.
Nomad ( Forum Admin )
It's better to be up in arms than down on your knees.

Morris999

Point Number 2 is kind of irrelevant, and would not have had any impact on anyone signing their contract with Tesco!
It's just life that you accept what is when you arrive!
As an example for over 30 years of my life I've been ruled by Europe, I had no say in the matter as I wasn't around at the time of the referendum!
No where was there a clause that said if I didn't agree with part of it I could vote to leave or every few years the public gets a vote!
And yes just like the Tesco/Usdaw agreement what was vote on has changed over the years to something else
It's taken many years and a lot of vocal people to force this years referendum!
Yes it's an extreme example but the principles are the same.

Point number 3 the colleagues that voted it in have most likely benefited from this agreement over the years a lot more times than not!
How much have those that voted it in lost over the years before this years pay review?
Saturday premiums and maybe RHRP if affected by it there's probably more but that's all I can think of
Yet pay rises every year bar last year, they kept the double time payments till now when new starters lost there's, again higher overtime rates in the week till now when new starters lost there's, payment from day 1 of sickness again new starters lost that, cannot be made to work bank holidays again something that the new starters lost, again probably more but that's all I can think of!
So the 15% that are left have actually benefited quite a lot over the years at the detriment of others!
You say would they have voted it in had they known that nearly 20 years later it would be used to remove the double time premiums, I'm guessing that the 15% probably would not but what about the 85% that have since left the company from when the vote happened?
That's the real question and one that can never be answered regarding the partnership!

As for point number 1 I believe one of the reasons it was introduced was because the turnout for votes was low!
Should something have been put in to review it say every 5-10 years then yes I believe so, but the 15% voted it in without that and that's there failure that everyone has had to live with till enough people challenge Usdaw about it and demand change!
Just like the loss of everything that's happened over the years the rest has had to except that as part of there contracts due to what the 15% voted in nearly 20 years ago!

instorebakery

Quote from: smithwally on 10-03-16, 10:54AM
Right.....

while I have a copy of my Tesco employment contract, I cannot find a copy of the USDAW-Tesco partnership agreement.

Would some kind soul post a link or upload the partnership agreement to VLH?

I would like to read the Partnership agreement........



Here lies just number 1 of many things that will go in your favour.

Upon joining the company, did Tesco give you a copy of the partnership agreement before you signed your contract?

&

Why is it up to the employee to "search" for such agreement?

A grievance for me, is the correct company procedure as per the information given to the employee upon joining.

Duracell

#844
So we see anger and dissatisfaction at not only the change but also the method.

It is suggested that challenging the change via the procedural channels is futile.
But are you still aggrieved, the PA supposedly being based on mutual trust, isn't there a dignity at work issue with that as it seems to have moved away from that with quite damning effect.
Is there not some scope in using the Procedural route that we have discussed not to challenge the change but to invoke a review or "referendum" with regards to the application and procedural agreement.

Surely if it has such a detrimental effect and you are so aggrieved by it, then that alone suggest you should follow the process to get it changed.
Please don't say this would be futile and not possible because you are living the consequence of such a scenario and it is the reason you are aggrieved it is proof positive that change is possible.

If change is going to be so damning now (unlike previous years) is it not reasonable to reclaim you right to seal your own fate,  how could such a change be denied when it was done before on the back of a less damning conciqeunce.
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.

chris9997

this harmonising of pay rates to be " fare to all" is all very well but the people this affects the mostr are the persons who have given considerable loyalty to this company over many years, and for those that think it is fair then wait for the other axes to fall because i believe that the double time for time and a half is a starting block for more cuts to pay and benefits, to facilitate the payment of the living wage fully in 2020.
What was interesting in the paper yesterday some retail head was saying that "implementation of the living wage in 2020 will cost jobs" really so what you are saying is that by keeping wages low we can employ more people most jobs paying the minimum wage i believe do so with the minimum staff needed.
Maybe the solution should be to bring everyones wage to the living wage then these ones who bleat on about not paying staff will think again.
Maybe DL and Mshould try the GA's terms and conditions.

sorry about the rant

The hooch

After giving the best part of my life ......19 years....to the said retail establishment I am feeling let down as are a lot of long suffering ...sorry 'serving' staff.
Working nights takes its toll on your life and that of your family. I've been down the Team Leader route and gave that up as a farce a good few years ago.
I remember when this was a good company to work for.....dare I say ' we used to have a laugh!'
I wonder when we are going to have our 3 first days sick benefit taken from us ....I personally am rarely off sick but I know a few people who use them regularly and how will they compensate us for that......it would surely be unfair to pay the same amount to those not been off as those who have.
I mentioned in a previous post that I think it grossly unfair that us old timers are only getting 18 months protected pay and the team leaders got 2 years. Also worth a mention that our job is not changing for less money whereas theirs did. ( some ex team leaders may argue this point.....their own faults if they still running around like loons)
I wonder what I should stop doing to compensate myself for the £120 I am to be losing.
Maybe I will stop training others.....go home on time.....stop doing labels .....oh ....I know what I can do......BE OFF SICK.......NOW THERES A PLAN

bible-basher

If you go to OurTesco or the colleagueroom website then select 'Working at Tesco' at the right hand side. Then scroll down past The Big Six/WMTY etc you will find 'Our Partnership Agreement with Usdaw'

Nomad

I have been led to believe that it is not on there in its entirety.
Nomad ( Forum Admin )
It's better to be up in arms than down on your knees.

horatiocain

I'm coming from a position of soon leaving, but from what I've seen the other retailers doing compared with how tesco are moving forward I can't envisage tesco staying competitive.
They've lost at my current and my previous store all the good hard working staff, mostly long timers, and the only managers left are idiots.
As a colleague put it this week, a place of bad ideas and no ideas.

However as bad as tesco have been collective bargaining is not only perfectly legal but it's the advised course to do what has been done.
Options are to refuse the hanger at which point tesco will serve you notice, work the new conditions under protest and file a grievance, which would do little as the correct process has been followed. Or finally quit and claim constructive dismissal, which he union would likely not support as they're partially to blame, so you'd be funding it yourself, which is going to cost a fortune.

Until this situation starts to hit those in positions of power in their wallet nothing will change, it's the inevitable problem of trickle down economics.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk