30 May 2006: Employers' 'best and final' pay offer
Pay talks involving all higher education unions and the employers' body, UCEA, took place today during which the following 'best and final' offer was made.
UCEA's 'best and final' offer
Conditions:
* unions to agree to put offer to members;
* suspend industrial action.
Pay increases:
* Aug 06 - greater of 3% or £515
* Feb 07 - 1%
* Aug 07 - 3%
* May 08 - greater of 3% or £420
* Oct 08 - 2.5%
London weighting:
HEIs retain separate London weighting(s) to be recommended to increase 'on average' by the same % uplifts.
Other:
* Agreed statement on reviews of JNCHES and of HE financial and pay data.
* Agreed statement on implementation of Framework (equal pay etc.), including recommendation to HEIs on equal pay audits.
* Agreed statement about 35 hour week.
* Letter to support unions on national youth/training rates.
* Agreement that HEIs in serious financial difficulty can defer implementation by up to 11 months.
* Agreement to uprate old scales on the same basis for 2006-2007 only.
Effect on pay rates:
Latter part of:
* 2006-2007 +4.03%
* 2007-2008 +10.37%
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Higher Education E Bulletin May 2006
>
Higher Education E Bulletin May 2006
Issue 15 - May 2006
Higher Education Job Evaluation Survey 2006 report
Pensions Survey
Pay negotiations
TUC Greening Your Workplace Conference
Organising using new technology
CIHE conference calls for outsourcing of Higher Education workers
Pay Line
Unionlearn - Union Skills Boost
New Education Minister
Trade Union Freedom Bill
Amicus has just completed its second survey report on the higher education job evaluation process. We had a fantastic response from many reps and the report should make some interesting reading as to how Job Evaluation has been going throughout the sector. The full report will be launched during the sector conferences in June.
| Pensions Survey |
Also available at June's sector conference will be the updated results of Amicus' higher education pensions survey. This useful negotiating tool gives details of the numerous pension schemes offered to Amicus members throughout the higher education sector. For those not attending the conference the survey will soon be online for you to browse at your leisure.
| Pay negotiations |
The results of the recent JNCHES meeting (8 th May) have again been inconclusive with the UCEA making an underwhelming offer of a phased increase of 12.6% over three years. While NATFHE and the AUT continued their hard line approach, the PTASS unions took a more constructive attitude. Amicus has been pushing for a reduced working week and much better holiday provisions as well as an increased offer for the lowest paid staff.
Amicus National officer, Mike Robinson has advised that “decisions are yet to be made and we are working hard to improve the offer. Amicus members should see my full briefing recently circulated to reps for further details.”
| TUC Greening Your Workplace Conference |
The Trade Union Council are holding a Greening Your Workplace Conference on the 8th June This conference aims to encourage union reps to tackle energy and climate change issues at work. If you are interested in going along or simply finding out more then visit:
http://www.tuc.org.uk/economy/tuc-11813-f0.cfm
| Organising using new technology |
Places are available on the forthcoming TUC Organising Academy Course - ORGANISING USING NEW TECHNOLOGY - which will take place on May 24th and 25th 2006 at the TUC, Congress House,
The course is free and will be of interest to union organisers, officers and staff involved ion supporting union organising strategies.
http://www.tuc.org.uk/organisation/tuc-11806-f0.cfm
| CIHE conference calls for outsourcing |
A recent report by the Council for Industry and Higher Education has called for more research staff, student support and administration to be outsourced overseas to make
| Pay Line |
Amicus is continuing to create its Pay Line database of information regarding the pay and terms and conditions of all the organisations where Amicus has members. If you need to find out comparative information about salary scales in other organisations, regional allowances, maternity and paternity leave and a myriad of other agreements that would be useful when undertaking negotiations with management, then visit Pay Line at the Amicus web site under the My Amicus banner. Please continue to send copies of your current pay scales, terms and conditions etc to Labour Research Department who are compiling the database and always inform them of any salary settlements. To provide LRD with agreements either email to lemery@lrd.org.uk or send to
Lewis Emery, LRD, 78,
| Unionlearn - Union Skills Boost |
Chancellor Gordon Brown has joined with the TUC to promote their new workplace learning initiative. Called Unionlearn, this will provide support and advice on lifelong learning and workforce development across
The project is a partnership between the Department for Education and Skills and TUC, and the Government has provided £4.5 million funding for initial costs. From April 2007, Unionlearn will also takeover the management of the Union Learning Fund, which is currently more than £14 million, from the Learning & Skills Council.
Unionlearn will also lead the way in providing support to workplace Union Learning Representatives (ULRs). These local representatives are the frontline in union learning whose main role is to raise awareness of learning opportunities and to help workers access suitable courses. There are currently 14,000 trained learning representatives in the
| New Education Minister |
Former Higher Education minister Alan Johnson takes over from Ruth Kelly as the Education Secretary in the recent government reshuffle. Alan has a strong union background and Amicus hopes he will work closely and constructively with us in the role.
| Trade Union Freedom Bill |
There is a new TUC briefing that describes the need for a Trade Union Freedom Bill. This provides case studies of instances where existing employment and trade union law has failed to deliver justice and fairness at work. The briefing also indicates what the main provisions of a Bill might be. The full briefing can be found below:
http://www.tuc.org.uk/law/tuc-11857-f0.cfm
This e-bulletin has been produced by James Lazou, Research Officer for the Higher Education sector. If you have any news items or stories you would like included in the bulletin please contact James at James.Lazou@amicustheunionorg
Pensions Negotiations Update
AMICUS LOCAL GOVERNMENT PENSION SCHEME
NEGOTIATIONS NEWSLETTER
Ongoing negotiations have been taking place with the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Local Government Employers (LGE) on protection and improvements to the LGPS for the future, following agreement on the Joint Statement with the LGA in April.
The Statement called for urgent negotiations to start on protection and the new look scheme, with 50% of the savings from removal of the 85 Rule and the 25% lump sum commutation provision to be made available for protection and improvements, including full protection. The Statement also called for urgent discussions to resolve the differences between the trade unions actuaries – AON - and the Government and employers’ actuaries.
A number of meetings have been held with the LGA and LGE. A meeting between the actuaries was also held on 17 May, where some progress was made towards resolving the actuarial differences. The Government and the employers continue to insist that the 85 Rule is discriminatory and in their view breaches the UK and European age discrimination legislation.
Judicial Review lodged
All the Unions involved do not agree and continue to tell them so! In order to challenge their view, UNISON has lodged a judicial review, with the support of the Trade Union Side. It should be heard in the High Court in the next two months. If the judicial review is successful, the Amendment (3) Regulations removing the 85 Rule will be quashed and the way will be open for new negotiations.
Improvements so far
During the recent talks - which will continue - we have been able to demonstrate that there are enough savings to provide full protection and improvements to the current scheme, even using the Government Actuary’s cautious figures!! Following on from our 28 March day of action, the Government has shown some willingness to improve on protection, within the constraints of its legal view.
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has said that it is ‘minded’ to consult relevant bodies on some improved protection arrangements in order to amend the protection in the Amendment (3) Regulations. The LGA has said that it is prepared to go along with the DCLG’s suggested amendments. They would:
• Delay the removal of the 85 Rule until 31 March 2008, instead of 2006, for all existing scheme members at 30 September 2006. This would mean that those members would continue to accrue benefits under the 85 Rule until the new look scheme is introduced in 2008
• Extend the transitional protection in the Amendment (3) Regulations from 31 March 2013 until 31 March 2016. This would apply to all existing scheme members at 30 September 2006 who will be 60 or over by 31 March 2016. There would be tapering reduction factors to 2020 to tie in with the increase in the state retirement age for women to 65 in 2020 and avoid the ‘cliff edge’ effect
The Trade Union Side view
The Trade Union Side had met on 11 May and had decided that, while the current position outlined above falls far short of our objective of achieving full protection, it does represent a marginal improvement on the protection in the Amendment (3) Regulations. It therefore decided to note the current position and not oppose the consultation proposed by the DCLG.
However, the unions will continue to argue for full protection and improvements to the scheme for present and future LGPS members. The TU Side felt that, while marginal, those improvements should not be opposed while the outcome of the Judicial Review is uncertain.
The ‘New Look’ Scheme
Our objective for the ‘new look’ LGPS is to secure improvements which will benefit existing and future members. We want to avoid a ‘two tier’ pension arrangement. We particularly want to see:
• An improvement to the accrual rate, from 1/80 to 1/60
• A significant improvement to the actuarial reduction factors which apply when a member retires before her/his normal retirement age. This would mean that anyone retiring before the future pension age of 65 would suffer a smaller reduction in their pension
• Partners’ pensions for unmarried and unregistered partners, whether same sex or heterosexual
• Better death in service benefits
• Means to encourage more low paid members into the scheme
• Improved arrangements for ‘admitted body status’
• Effective trustee arrangements
• Equivalent pension provision for Muslim employees, compatible with Sharia law
Any new proposals will need to be fully equality proofed and compatible with equality legislation.
NEGOTIATIONS NEWSLETTER
Ongoing negotiations have been taking place with the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Local Government Employers (LGE) on protection and improvements to the LGPS for the future, following agreement on the Joint Statement with the LGA in April.
The Statement called for urgent negotiations to start on protection and the new look scheme, with 50% of the savings from removal of the 85 Rule and the 25% lump sum commutation provision to be made available for protection and improvements, including full protection. The Statement also called for urgent discussions to resolve the differences between the trade unions actuaries – AON - and the Government and employers’ actuaries.
A number of meetings have been held with the LGA and LGE. A meeting between the actuaries was also held on 17 May, where some progress was made towards resolving the actuarial differences. The Government and the employers continue to insist that the 85 Rule is discriminatory and in their view breaches the UK and European age discrimination legislation.
Judicial Review lodged
All the Unions involved do not agree and continue to tell them so! In order to challenge their view, UNISON has lodged a judicial review, with the support of the Trade Union Side. It should be heard in the High Court in the next two months. If the judicial review is successful, the Amendment (3) Regulations removing the 85 Rule will be quashed and the way will be open for new negotiations.
Improvements so far
During the recent talks - which will continue - we have been able to demonstrate that there are enough savings to provide full protection and improvements to the current scheme, even using the Government Actuary’s cautious figures!! Following on from our 28 March day of action, the Government has shown some willingness to improve on protection, within the constraints of its legal view.
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has said that it is ‘minded’ to consult relevant bodies on some improved protection arrangements in order to amend the protection in the Amendment (3) Regulations. The LGA has said that it is prepared to go along with the DCLG’s suggested amendments. They would:
• Delay the removal of the 85 Rule until 31 March 2008, instead of 2006, for all existing scheme members at 30 September 2006. This would mean that those members would continue to accrue benefits under the 85 Rule until the new look scheme is introduced in 2008
• Extend the transitional protection in the Amendment (3) Regulations from 31 March 2013 until 31 March 2016. This would apply to all existing scheme members at 30 September 2006 who will be 60 or over by 31 March 2016. There would be tapering reduction factors to 2020 to tie in with the increase in the state retirement age for women to 65 in 2020 and avoid the ‘cliff edge’ effect
The Trade Union Side view
The Trade Union Side had met on 11 May and had decided that, while the current position outlined above falls far short of our objective of achieving full protection, it does represent a marginal improvement on the protection in the Amendment (3) Regulations. It therefore decided to note the current position and not oppose the consultation proposed by the DCLG.
However, the unions will continue to argue for full protection and improvements to the scheme for present and future LGPS members. The TU Side felt that, while marginal, those improvements should not be opposed while the outcome of the Judicial Review is uncertain.
The ‘New Look’ Scheme
Our objective for the ‘new look’ LGPS is to secure improvements which will benefit existing and future members. We want to avoid a ‘two tier’ pension arrangement. We particularly want to see:
• An improvement to the accrual rate, from 1/80 to 1/60
• A significant improvement to the actuarial reduction factors which apply when a member retires before her/his normal retirement age. This would mean that anyone retiring before the future pension age of 65 would suffer a smaller reduction in their pension
• Partners’ pensions for unmarried and unregistered partners, whether same sex or heterosexual
• Better death in service benefits
• Means to encourage more low paid members into the scheme
• Improved arrangements for ‘admitted body status’
• Effective trustee arrangements
• Equivalent pension provision for Muslim employees, compatible with Sharia law
Any new proposals will need to be fully equality proofed and compatible with equality legislation.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Notice of Branch Meeting
Time:
(Please note we now need to start on time, as we may need to be out by
Venue:
Student Union Bar (If available) if not check at Reception.
Romford Road
Stratford
Bar is just past the main building entrance in
Refreshments will be provided.
Agenda
1. Apologies
2. Minutes of April 2006 Meeting.
3. Matters Arising.
4. Correspondence.
5. Membership.
6. Group Reports.
7. Other Reports.
8. Any Other Business.
If you have not received a copy of the Minutes of the Last Meeting copies will available at this meeting.
I do hope to see you or a member of your group present for this branch meeting.
The Branch likes to encourage members new and old to participate in its activities and members can be assured of a warm welcome. Meetings are a good opportunity for members to update us on what is happening in their workplace, to participate in the debate on current issues and have a drink with friends. The venue is licensed.
Future 2006 Meeting Dates
June 21st, July 19th, Aug. No Meeting,
Sept. 20th (General Meeting), Oct. 18th, Nov.15th, Dec.20th
(All are Wednesdays)
Branch Secretary: D. Bingham, The Tilings, 6b,
E-MAIL: d.bingham@virgin.net
Letter from Greg Price
Some members have queried the calculations used by Greg to determine the stoppage as wellas the waste of resources - you might also wantto ask hime who the student is who will benefit from our conrtribution !
Dear Greg
Thank you for your recent letter to my home address informing me of the deduction of 1/260th of my annual salary for supporting the recent strike.
Presumably this 1/260 figure is based on 260 working days in one year ( 52 Weeks multiplied by the 5 working days in each week ). If you agree that there are also 52 weekends then the total of weekend days in a year would be 104 ( 52 multiplied by 2 ). Add the 260 working days to the 104 weekend days and the total is 364 days in a year which doesn't look right to me.
Call me old fashioned but I thought that the Earth took 365.25 days to orbit the Sun. This being the case then the long term average number of working days in a year is slightly higher the 260. Using my slightly defective calculator I make it 260.89. Therefore I reckon that payroll ought to be deducting 1/260.89th of my annual salary and not 1/260th. If you agree to these figures could you please instruct payroll to reimburse me the difference in my pay for June. I Make it the princely sum of 44p - payroll may calculate it differently.
How exactly do payroll calculate that there are 260 working days in any one year ?
Regards
Dear Greg
Thank you for your recent letter to my home address informing me of the deduction of 1/260th of my annual salary for supporting the recent strike.
Presumably this 1/260 figure is based on 260 working days in one year ( 52 Weeks multiplied by the 5 working days in each week ). If you agree that there are also 52 weekends then the total of weekend days in a year would be 104 ( 52 multiplied by 2 ). Add the 260 working days to the 104 weekend days and the total is 364 days in a year which doesn't look right to me.
Call me old fashioned but I thought that the Earth took 365.25 days to orbit the Sun. This being the case then the long term average number of working days in a year is slightly higher the 260. Using my slightly defective calculator I make it 260.89. Therefore I reckon that payroll ought to be deducting 1/260.89th of my annual salary and not 1/260th. If you agree to these figures could you please instruct payroll to reimburse me the difference in my pay for June. I Make it the princely sum of 44p - payroll may calculate it differently.
How exactly do payroll calculate that there are 260 working days in any one year ?
Regards
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Pay Scale Fiasco
This exchange resulted from Nick bringing our current pay scales to Fridays meeting and pointing out that they wern't the same !
If you read between the lines it looks like Mr Moore has had some explaining to do to senior management ! please not that the proposed grading structure certainly hasn't been agreed yet
Dear Peter
Thanks. The pay scale attached to the Framework paper is the new 51 point pay spine which we'll be using wef 1.8.06, transferring staff from our current 92-point pay spine. By copy, I'm asking Patricia to send you a information containing the current 92 pay spine with our current grading structure and how it maps against the 51-point spine and the proposed grading structure.
Regards.
Mike
Agreed!
Mike - can you clarify asap, thanks
Alan
Notwithstanding whether we agree or not with the proposed grading structures contained in your paper on the Implementation of the Framework Agreement, it would greatly help if we could work to a consistent pay scale and grade points. Checking on the Personnel Services website, there is no correspondence between the pay scale for support staff and that for academic staff either in terms of the salary figures or in terms of the grade points. And the salary scale and grade points in your model grading structure in turn differs from both. Can you clarify the situation, please?
Peter Mottershead
NATFHE
If you read between the lines it looks like Mr Moore has had some explaining to do to senior management ! please not that the proposed grading structure certainly hasn't been agreed yet
Dear Peter
Thanks. The pay scale attached to the Framework paper is the new 51 point pay spine which we'll be using wef 1.8.06, transferring staff from our current 92-point pay spine. By copy, I'm asking Patricia to send you a information containing the current 92 pay spine with our current grading structure and how it maps against the 51-point spine and the proposed grading structure.
Regards.
Mike
Agreed!
Mike - can you clarify asap, thanks
Alan
Notwithstanding whether we agree or not with the proposed grading structures contained in your paper on the Implementation of the Framework Agreement, it would greatly help if we could work to a consistent pay scale and grade points. Checking on the Personnel Services website, there is no correspondence between the pay scale for support staff and that for academic staff either in terms of the salary figures or in terms of the grade points. And the salary scale and grade points in your model grading structure in turn differs from both. Can you clarify the situation, please?
Peter Mottershead
NATFHE
Framework back on Track ?
This message was sent out yesterday and confirms that we were happy with managements response - we are sure however that we're not happy with their paper !
Mike/Alan,
Mike/Alan,
Just to let you know at this stage that the joint unions met this morning and agreed that your response to our demands of Friday last were sufficient for us to rescind our decision to refuse to meet with management. With regard to non-HERA/Framework items, this is immediate.
With regard to the Framework paper, we have now had a chance to look at it in a little more detail than we had on Friday and there are a number of points we shall be making in advance of next meeting with you. I shall put these in writing to you very shortly, hopefully by tomorrow at the latest.
Regards,
Haydn
Haydn R John
Chair: UEL Joint Unions
0208 223 4027
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Framework Agreement Developments
Following the meeting on Friday when we withdrew from co-operation we were gratified by the speed of the Vice-chancellor's response and even more so by this one -
Colleagues,
Please note below Mike Thorne's follow-up email concerning CMT's position on the Framework paper. We can discuss this at our meeting tomorrow morning. He has now complied with our two requests, providing we accept his responses as adequate.
Regards,
Haydn
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thorne
Sent: 05 May 2006 16:36
To: Haydn John
Subject: Extract from notes of CMT meeting of Thursday May 4th
Haydn
Herewith extract:
Subsequent action
We agreed that the paper be revised in the light of the preceding discussion and approved as a basis for negotiation with the joint trades unions.
Regards
Mike
The next stage is to discuss the document once we have determined what is and what isn't suitable for negotiating under teh framework agreement - eg change of pay date - it is insulting to think we rejected their measly £50 only 2 years ago but would then accept it as part of another package.
When the Framework document is in a proper format it will be circulated to all members.
Colleagues,
Please note below Mike Thorne's follow-up email concerning CMT's position on the Framework paper. We can discuss this at our meeting tomorrow morning. He has now complied with our two requests, providing we accept his responses as adequate.
Regards,
Haydn
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thorne
Sent: 05 May 2006 16:36
To: Haydn John
Subject: Extract from notes of CMT meeting of Thursday May 4th
Haydn
Herewith extract:
Subsequent action
We agreed that the paper be revised in the light of the preceding discussion and approved as a basis for negotiation with the joint trades unions.
Regards
Mike
The next stage is to discuss the document once we have determined what is and what isn't suitable for negotiating under teh framework agreement - eg change of pay date - it is insulting to think we rejected their measly £50 only 2 years ago but would then accept it as part of another package.
When the Framework document is in a proper format it will be circulated to all members.
Latest Pay Offer
This is the latest news on the pay front - simply a press release from the employers side - The union has yet to put it's own version out but that will probably be tomorrow Clearly an element of divide and conquer especially if you see the ucea press release that quotes
To: Heads of Universities and Colleges
HR Directors
Action:
To note the key features of the employers’ final offer in pay negotiations today
Attachments:
UCEA press release 8 May 2006
PAY NEGOTIATIONS – EMPLOYERS’ FINAL OFFER
Executive Summary
This Update reports the key features of the employers’ final offer in today’s pay negotiations. Further detail will be circulated tomorrow.
Negotiating Meetings
1 Meetings of the two JNCHES negotiating sub-committees, including representatives of all seven HE trade unions, were held today to discuss pay levels from August 2006.
Employers’ Final Offer
2 During the course of the negotiations the employers’ representatives set out their “best and final offer” and made clear that this was at the limits of the mandate given UCEA by its subscribing institutions. The employers asked the unions to put this offer to their members, and that the AUT and NATFHE should suspend their industrial action in the light of the offer.
3 This final offer comprised staged pay increases over the next three academic years as follows:
August 2006 greater of 3% or £515
February 2007 1%
August 2007 3%
February 2008 greater of 1% or £200
August 2008 3%
February 2009 1%
Compared with pay rates in 2005-06, this implies pay increases by the second half of each academic year totalling at least:
2006-07 4%
2007-08 8.2%
2008-09 12.6%
- with increases of up to 15% by the end of the period for the very lowest paid staff.
4 Because of the phasing, the overall cost of this offer to institutions would be a little lower, as follows:
2006-07 3.6%
2007-08 7.7%
2008-09 12.0%
The employers’ representatives emphasised, however, that this would be on top of the costs of
implementing new pay structures under the Framework Agreement (typically between 3% and
5%) and increased employer contributions to superannuation schemes.
Unions’ Reactions
5 The support staff unions welcomed the improved offer, especially the higher increases for the lowest paid, and undertook to report the offer in positive terms to their Executive committees. They did, however, press for further progress on outstanding matters other than pay rates.
6 The academic unions, on the other hand, made clear that in their view the offer was disappointing and unacceptable. They considered that the proposed pay increases fell well short of adequately reflecting the increase in the sector’s income from 2006-07. They indicated that they would not put the offer to their members and that they would strongly encourage continuation (and possible reinforcement) of the assessment boycott.
Further Information
7 A copy of UCEA’s initial press release on the offer is attached.
8 A more detailed report will follow in a further Update tomorrow morning. This will include: more comment on the detail of the final offer; a report of discussions on other aspects of the unions’ pay claims; and comment on where we go from here.
Jocelyn Prudence
Chief Executive
Enquiries: Jocelyn Prudence, j.prudence@ucea.ac.uk
Peter Thorpe, p.thorpe@ucea.ac.uk
"Irresponsible academic unions reject final 12.6% pay offer"
To: Heads of Universities and Colleges
HR Directors
Action:
To note the key features of the employers’ final offer in pay negotiations today
Attachments:
UCEA press release 8 May 2006
PAY NEGOTIATIONS – EMPLOYERS’ FINAL OFFER
Executive Summary
This Update reports the key features of the employers’ final offer in today’s pay negotiations. Further detail will be circulated tomorrow.
Negotiating Meetings
1 Meetings of the two JNCHES negotiating sub-committees, including representatives of all seven HE trade unions, were held today to discuss pay levels from August 2006.
Employers’ Final Offer
2 During the course of the negotiations the employers’ representatives set out their “best and final offer” and made clear that this was at the limits of the mandate given UCEA by its subscribing institutions. The employers asked the unions to put this offer to their members, and that the AUT and NATFHE should suspend their industrial action in the light of the offer.
3 This final offer comprised staged pay increases over the next three academic years as follows:
August 2006 greater of 3% or £515
February 2007 1%
August 2007 3%
February 2008 greater of 1% or £200
August 2008 3%
February 2009 1%
Compared with pay rates in 2005-06, this implies pay increases by the second half of each academic year totalling at least:
2006-07 4%
2007-08 8.2%
2008-09 12.6%
- with increases of up to 15% by the end of the period for the very lowest paid staff.
4 Because of the phasing, the overall cost of this offer to institutions would be a little lower, as follows:
2006-07 3.6%
2007-08 7.7%
2008-09 12.0%
The employers’ representatives emphasised, however, that this would be on top of the costs of
implementing new pay structures under the Framework Agreement (typically between 3% and
5%) and increased employer contributions to superannuation schemes.
Unions’ Reactions
5 The support staff unions welcomed the improved offer, especially the higher increases for the lowest paid, and undertook to report the offer in positive terms to their Executive committees. They did, however, press for further progress on outstanding matters other than pay rates.
6 The academic unions, on the other hand, made clear that in their view the offer was disappointing and unacceptable. They considered that the proposed pay increases fell well short of adequately reflecting the increase in the sector’s income from 2006-07. They indicated that they would not put the offer to their members and that they would strongly encourage continuation (and possible reinforcement) of the assessment boycott.
Further Information
7 A copy of UCEA’s initial press release on the offer is attached.
8 A more detailed report will follow in a further Update tomorrow morning. This will include: more comment on the detail of the final offer; a report of discussions on other aspects of the unions’ pay claims; and comment on where we go from here.
Jocelyn Prudence
Chief Executive
Enquiries: Jocelyn Prudence, j.prudence@ucea.ac.uk
Peter Thorpe, p.thorpe@ucea.ac.uk
Friday, May 05, 2006
Joint Union Letter to Alan Sibbald
Alan,
To confirm the position from this morning's meeting.
The joint union demands are:
The Vice-Chancellor to send an email to “All Staff” withdrawing the email sent by the Director of Personnel Services (to All Staff) on 4 May entitled “Framework Agreement”. We expect this to be done before the end of the working day on Monday 8 May.
We require a formal withdrawal of CMT’s “agreement” of the Framework Agreement paper. When CMT changes its position from “accepting” the paper to “approving it as a basis for negotiation”, the unions will be prepared to resume negotiations. We will require a copy of the minutes of CMT which confirm this position change.
Until the above conditions are met, the joint unions withdraw from all co-operation with management on all matters except individual casework.
Haydn R John
Chair: UEL Joint Unions
0208 223 4027
To confirm the position from this morning's meeting.
The joint union demands are:
The Vice-Chancellor to send an email to “All Staff” withdrawing the email sent by the Director of Personnel Services (to All Staff) on 4 May entitled “Framework Agreement”. We expect this to be done before the end of the working day on Monday 8 May.
We require a formal withdrawal of CMT’s “agreement” of the Framework Agreement paper. When CMT changes its position from “accepting” the paper to “approving it as a basis for negotiation”, the unions will be prepared to resume negotiations. We will require a copy of the minutes of CMT which confirm this position change.
Until the above conditions are met, the joint unions withdraw from all co-operation with management on all matters except individual casework.
Haydn R John
Chair: UEL Joint Unions
0208 223 4027
Framework Agreement
This is a letter to CMT to inform them of our actions
TO CMT Members
This is to inform you that the joint unions are now formally in dispute with the management of UEL over CMT’s recent agreement of a paper on the Framework Agreement. We have withdrawn from all negotiations until certain conditions have been met. (Please see attached email to Alan Sibbald for these details)
The essence of the Framework Agreement as agreed at national level is that it has been “developed in partnership with” recognised Trade Unions (my underlining).
Management at UEL have seen fit to present to CMT for agreement a paper prepared exclusively by management, despite constant reminders from the joint unions that this must be a joint paper. Further, we are most concerned that this paper contains inaccuracies and items which we believe to lie outside the remit of the Framework Agreement. We also believe that there may be legal misunderstandings within the document, all of which indicates that CMT is receiving dubious advice from its officers.
Haydn R John
Chair: UEL Joint Unions
0208 223 4027
TO CMT Members
This is to inform you that the joint unions are now formally in dispute with the management of UEL over CMT’s recent agreement of a paper on the Framework Agreement. We have withdrawn from all negotiations until certain conditions have been met. (Please see attached email to Alan Sibbald for these details)
The essence of the Framework Agreement as agreed at national level is that it has been “developed in partnership with” recognised Trade Unions (my underlining).
Management at UEL have seen fit to present to CMT for agreement a paper prepared exclusively by management, despite constant reminders from the joint unions that this must be a joint paper. Further, we are most concerned that this paper contains inaccuracies and items which we believe to lie outside the remit of the Framework Agreement. We also believe that there may be legal misunderstandings within the document, all of which indicates that CMT is receiving dubious advice from its officers.
Haydn R John
Chair: UEL Joint Unions
0208 223 4027
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)