All StnO’s on Protected Pay 27th May 2008

Blaze Bear · All StnO’s on Protected Pay 27th May 2008

Protected Pay Update

Firstly can I apologise for not getting this out to you sooner but this was due in part to my attendance at the FBU annual Conference 2008 which took place last week; however I am sure that when you read the following you will agree that there was nothing positive to report.

Following the signing of the NJC agreement it was agreed that the FBU in London would seek the application of an enhancement to the agreement with our employers using the paragraph in the agreement which permits such a local agreement to be negotiated.

National agreements including the Grey book lay down the minimum conditions of service and therefore local negotiations can attempt to secure an improvement on any such agreement and this is what the FBU in London are seeking to achieve.

To date there have been numerous phone conversations with principle management to seek a way forward in this matter, those calls have culminated in a meeting which took place on the 8th May 2008, at which both myself and Pan Poullais were in attendance from the FBU and James Dalgleish, Dominic Johnson and AC Dave Brown (Service Delivery) were in attendance from the employers side.

The meeting was opened by the FBU when we highlighted the concerns of protected
Stn O’s stating that those members of the workforce feel totally under valued when in fact they are the most instrumental managers in ensuring that the LFB policies and modernisation agenda are delivered and implemented.

We further outlined why there needs to be a local enhancement and how the LFB have had a long tradition of implementing local agreements that improve upon national agreements citing DACO’s and DOII’s life time protection as examples.

It was also stated to our employers that in accordance with the wishes of those affected members that permission was granted by the Executive Council to ballot it’s members in London should we fail to achieve such a local enhancement, this was in accordance with the mandate given to us through the unanimously agreed resolution that was passed by those members affected at the mass meeting which was held in Euston and which was further received by the London Regional Committee from an LFB branch, the LRC agreed the resolution.

Suffice to say that the employers were left in no doubt of the strength of feeling of the affected members and the injustice that they also feel.

The employers then chose to respond outlining their position, firstly they informed us that unlike the previous examples quoted above they have no intention of negotiating or agreeing any pay protection on an indefinite basis for any members of the workforce at any time in the future and that this includes the current Stn O’s, they utilised the argument of unequal pay claims and the NJC agreement which they say has offered pay protection from 2003 until 2011 and in their opinion this was a Generous level of pay protection compared to other members of the workforce whom have been red circled with no pay rises.

They then went on to say that because of the 2003 heads of agreement people are being paid over and beyond the pay for the role which was agreed at the rate of the job WM’B’.

They said that they recognised the concerns of affected members and that they did value the work that was undertaken by them, however as much as they note the concerns they stated that they cannot agree to life time protection.

The employers then quoted some figures which showed that it is projected that a total of 237 members will be affected by the end of 2011, from the current 379 affected.

From their knowledge only one small Brigade AVON have given any commitment to local enhancement, which we immediately challenged given that a number of Brigades had already agreed some form of local enhancement or solution to the matter prior to the agreement being reached at the NJC.

Although the employers remain absolute to no life time protection, they stated that they were keen to resolve the matter and went on to provide the FBU with the following five possible solutions for discussion;

1. To seek an extension to 2011 pay protection when members would then be red circled, but they felt that there was no real justification for such a position.

2. They might be prepared to make a substantive payment if we agree locally to remove ourselves from the NJC. In such an event they would see the risk of unequal pay claims as a justification and therefore find away round such a position.

3. That the option of guaranteed overtime to make up the pay if work was available could be an option and that rough figures equate to 110 hrs would be owed for the differential.

4. Enhanced pay for large (multi appliance) or specialist stations, however they said the split between such stations was even and that this could complicate the matter further as it is envisaged that there would be approx 130 posts in total and it would require the implementation of compulsory postings.

5. The introduction of a pay range for WM’s related to performance i.e. performance related pay. They also went on to say that they believed informal discussions had already taken place around performance related pay at national level.

Concerns were then raised by the employers that should the FBU ballot its members then firstly we would be foolish to highlight the generous pay protection that had already been achieved and that secondly the employers would seek the legality of any such ballot of the membership and the consequences of its effect on contracts of employment.

The FBU response was firstly on the legality of the ballot and highlighting of the so called generous pay protection, we informed the employers that we have already secured the relevant legal advice and further that we did not consider the highlighting of the so called generous pay protection would have any impact given that they have already stated that pay protection would not be afforded to any other members of the workforce in the future.

On the five solutions we noted all of them for discussion as an executive but commented on;

Solution 2 in which the employers are prepared to risk unequal pay claims should we remove ourselves from the NJC. It appears that our employers obviously have the ability to get around the unequal pay claim when it suits a point that was forcibly made.

Solution 3 is non existent as to accept such a way forward would commit our members to doing a 110hrs overtime just to secure the salary they currently receive with no further additional pay but noticeably more hours worked.

Solution 5 we have asked for further information on how they would intend to implement such a solution. However at the recent FBU annual Conference in Southport I asked the AGS if any such informal discussions had taken place at national level and I was informed that this was not the case and that no such debate/discussion had been requested by either side.

We are now awaiting the formal written receipt of their solutions and the date and time of a further meeting. We are awaiting an audience with the new elected Authority members so that we can relay the anger, frustration and injustice this has brought upon an integral and much relied upon section of the workforce.

It was previously agreed that I would continue to collate emails and messages that members would wish to go to the Authority members, so can I take this opportunity to remind you that if you have not already done so please send them to me at ian.leahair@fbu.org.uk so that I can include them with those already received.

***Not written by me, from Union officials***