Report from GPM&IT National Industrial Sector Conference, November 2013

The UNITE national sector conferences were spread across a week, with several sectors meeting each day.  Each morning started with a plenary session with Len McCluskey, who gave a speech and answered questions.

Our plenary, like those on other days, was dominated by the disgraceful attacks on members at the Grangemouth petrochemical plant and refinery, on Stevie Deans, and on UNITE, which have been coming from the Labour right, from Ineos and its billionaire owner Ratcliffe, from the Tories and their press.

The deal accepted by UNITE at Grangemouth included a three year no-strike agreement and pay freeze, worse pensions and cuts in union facilities.  This had been accepted under the threat of closure and the loss of many jobs.  While standing united in defence of our union and Stevie Deans, it is vital we learn lessons from this serious setback.  We cannot afford employers to imagine that such blackmail will work again.  Nor can we afford our own members to conclude that there is no alternative to making massive concessions without even a fight.  The debate about what these lessons were continued through the conferences and in the bars, and is still ongoing.

The conference for the Graphical, Paper, Media & IT sector was the first meeting since the old GPM and IT & Comms sectors came together.  There was a degree of suspicion, hostility and misconceptions from a small minority of delegates, but most seemed keen to make the sector work and to learn about the issues across all the industries.  This was helped by two hefty reports - one from the National Officers, the other on Collective Bargaining.  These reports, along with a copy of Len's speech, can be found here if you log on to the UNITE web site.

The 2012 Labour Force Survey reports that 12% of UK employees in the Information and Communication industries are union members, but I assume this includes companies such as BT and Royal Mail, giving slightly too rosy a picture.  Overall the GPM sector had 11% union density.

The conference elected delegates to TUC Congress:

• 2014: Ged D, with Tony M as substitute
• 2015: Pauline B, with Ged D as substitute

All the conferences meeting that day jiontly elected three members of the Standing Orders Committee:

• Bill D, Metals, East Midlands
• Ann M, Automotive, North West
• Paul R, GPM&IT, Scotland

The following motions were agreed:

1. WORKERS UNITING – PAPER AND PACKAGING SECTOR
This Conference welcomes the continuing development of our strategic relationship with the USW in the USA and Canada’s papermaking and packaging sector.

The exchange of FOCs, MOCs and Union Reps in our countries has developed a greater understanding of the globalisation of the papermaking and packaging industry and the development of good working relationships between lay reps within the sectors.

Conference believes that we must now deepen the relationship by extending the USW’s involvement, where appropriate, in EWCs in the paper and packaging sector and that we look to develop joint negotiations with companies where both of our Unions have membership.

2. NEWS INTERNATIONAL & LEVESON ENQUIRY
This Conference welcomes the Leveson Enquiry and subsequent police enquiries uncover alleged untold wrong doings and illegal behaviour by Executives of News International, including the alleged corruption of public officials and the police, leading to the closure of the News of the World and the arrest of senior Executives of News International.

This Conference congratulates Tom Watson MP and other Labour MPs who refused to be bullied and cowed by News International and were prepared to expose the disgraceful acts of NI executives and senior journalists.

This Conference believes that the lack of Union involvement in the News International empire by Unite and the NUJ contributed to the alleged wrong doing and illegal activities and the corrupt power wielded by Rupert Murdoch and his family over political and public life in this country.

3. AUSTERITY, DIVIDE & RULE
This conference notes that the government’s austerity, cuts and deregulation policies are affecting members in our sector by:

1. deflating the economy
2. cutting the public services we and our families and communities rely on
3. cutting in-work benefits and tax credits
4. putting downward pressure on pay and conditions by attacking them in the public sector
5. putting downward pressure on pay and conditions by increasing competition for jobs by cutting benefits, driving sick and disabled people into the job market, and encouraging the expansion of low-paid and unpaid work
6. cutting legal protection for members on everything from health & safety to redundancy consultation
7. feeding racism by scapegoating migrants and Muslims, boosting organisations such as UKIP, the BNP or EDL

This conference believes that strong and effective union organisation cannot be built without tackling political questions such as these within the workplace. This conference rejects attempts to divide members in our sector from colleagues in the public sector, from those reliant on state benefits, or from migrants or Muslims. This conference believes that unity is strength and an injury to one is an injury to all.

This conference resolves:

1. Our sector will work with other sectors, unions and community groups to deliver a strong and united response to the government’s attacks on working people
2. The NISC, working with appropriate officers and staff, will periodically produce template leaflets on such issues for reps to adapt and combine with workplace-specific material
3. Activists in our sector are encouraged to invite speakers from public service sectors, community branches and anti-fascist groups to address workplace and branch meetings.

4. ORGANISING IN THE IT & COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRIES
This Conference believes:

1. Organisations in the public and private sector are now heavily reliant on IT & Communications in order to function
2. Outsourcing and “cloud” services are concentrating a high proportion of IT & Communications services in a relatively small number of large companies
3. Commoditisation of IT & Communications products and services is leading to commoditisation of jobs and skills and accelerating downward pressure on pay and conditions
4. Hundreds of thousands of workers in IT & Communications would benefit from UNITE organisation
5. Strong UNITE organisation in IT & Communications would strengthen UNITE’s leverage and bargaining power across every sector.

5. CAMPAIGN TO RECRUIT ICT WORKERS AND RAISE UNITE PROFILE
This National Industrial Sector Conference notes that Technology continues to impact traditional industries both developing new opportunities for employment whilst reducing manning levels significantly in older processes.

The overwhelming majority of young people entering the UK labour market today take ICT skills for granted in the same way basic skills of reading and writing were viewed by previous generations.

The union movement has been slow to adapt to this growing workforce and even today in industries well organised in production and distribution areas is poorly organised in ICT sections. Yet the ICT Industry is future proofed has a diverse workforce and controls in many respects the UK economy.

Often these critical workers are not employed by the main company anymore and so are excluded from the major campaigns of the union.

Because of the fragmentation of ICT workers across the membership it is not possible to commence a major campaign at either RISC or Regional Committee level. To really organise these workers there needs to be a campaign supported by the National Union across the sector as a whole.

ICT workers occupy powerful positions in the processes operating within industry, services and the public sector. Their ability to influence employer’s decisions is significant whereas nowadays due to a combination of alternative supply and fragmented workforces many groups struggle to produce such an impact.

This Conference requests the Executive Council to establish an initiative to raise the profile of UNITE amongst ICT workers and the ICT Industry in general. Such a campaign to be launched at the start of 2014 will not only assist organise ICT workers in ICT companies but also ICT workers in existing employers with union agreements.

E1. OPPOSING CHANGES TO THE TUPE REGULATIONS
Conference notes that the Government has published its response to the latest public consultation on reviewing TUPE on 5 September 2103 under the heading of Making the labour market more flexible, efficient and fair

The Government has concluded that there is scope to amend the Regulations by removing provisions which go further than the Acquired Rights Directive requires and generally improve how the Regulations operate.

Due to the structure of ICT industry through the winning and losing of accounts ICT workers are vulnerable to being transferred disproportionately compared to other employees. This means that these proposed changes will impact adversely on IT workers who often work in the contracted out sector so need the protection of TUPE.

This Conference opposes the attack upon collective bargaining rights of UK trade unionists by placing limits upon the protection of collective agreements post a TUPE transfer. This is a significant development that introduces time limits on voluntary agreements governing workers’ terms and conditions of employment for the first time in the UK.

According to Government figures there are between 26500 and 48000 TUPE transfer every year with the number of workers affected ranging between 1.42 million and 2.11 million with the majority of these workers being transferred yearly to other employers being potential members.

Every ICT worker who has transferred in the past now works under a contract between the client and their employer that will come up for renewal or a new service provider will take over the contract. The workers’ terms and conditions of employment will also then be vulnerable to employer attempts to reduce them. The race to the bottom is accelerated by these changes.

Unite must take the lead opposing this attack upon terms and conditions of employment and agreements that is a campaigning issue that affects millions – those already transferred, those being transferred and those that fear outsourcing of their jobs.

The Coalition’s programme of relentless attacks upon the limited defences in favour of workers’ rights includes the withdrawal of many of these workers from TUPE protection by virtue of removing service provision changes.

Conference calls upon the Unite Executive Council to launch a campaign within three months to alert UK workers to the risk to their futures that these changes represent to both private and public sector workers, skilled and unskilled, manufacturing and services.

6. NARROWING THE SKILLS GAP
UK industry is suffering from the lack of investment in training especially the lack of opportunities available to young people entering traditional industries through training programmes especially apprenticeships.

This Conference believes this puts the UK at a disadvantage in comparison to other countries that invest in skills for the future of their industries. Evidence has shown that the age profile in our sector is increasing whilst the number of apprentices entering the industry is decreasing.

This conference calls upon the National Industrial Sector Committee to lobby and meet with all stake holders in our industry to analyse, discuss and plan a strategy which will ensure the industry invests in skills within the sector and to ensure training/apprenticeships are on the bargaining agenda. A written report on the progress of this should be given to the next National Industrial sector conference in 2015.

• In addition we call on the Executive Council to campaign in support of the ‘forgotten generation’ and to lobby for: Government to increase investment in industry based skills and training.
• To ensure that bona-fide Apprentice Programmes are available for young people.

7. SECTOR SURVEY
In light of the demise of the BPIF/Unite National Agreement and the ravages of the recession on terms and conditions of employment, this conference calls on the National Industrial Sector Committee to conduct and publish an annual survey of all workplaces in the sector. The aim of the survey is to gather a database of current trends in the sector which may impact on other sites in the absence of a National Agreement. Conference also calls upon the National Industrial Sector Committee to meet with the BPIF on a regular basis in the interests of our members working in the sector

8. BUILDING CLOSER WORKING LINKS WITH OTHER PUBLISHING AND MEDIA UNIONS
This Conference calls upon the GPM Sector NISC to explore a formal protocol with other publishing and media unions and in particular with the NUJ, to assist us in securing union recognition and extending our collective bargaining coverage across the sector.

Working with our sister unions on joint campaigns and sharing resources can only be in the best interest of the members within the joint workplaces that we strive to represent.

The conference further calls on the NISC to ask the union to revisit our dual membership arrangement with the NUJ as we see this as a further assist.

Publishing and Media workers have historically worked jointly in many of our companies and the union needs to promote and support such activity. We ask that in drafting such a protocol the NISC seeks guidance from the officers and senior reps working in this sector.

9. DEFENDING OUR UNION AGREEMENT IN THE WHOLESALE AND DISTRIBUTION SECTORS
This Conference calls upon the GPM NISC to develop a strategy to address the outsourcing of our member’s jobs from our core employers to agencies within the wholesale & distribution sectors.

We have seen a major increase in temporary labour as employers dismiss their permanent workforce and rely more and more often on agency workers.

In these companies where the permanent staff is constantly reducing in numbers and the agency staff are on the increase, we are now seeing a low level of union density and the undermining of our collective terms and conditions in favour of minimum standards.

The NISC is required to defend our members, potential members and our industry standards by strengthening the links between our workplace reps and Unite officials within this sector and ensuring that the adequate resources are in place for our organising and recruitment initiatives to be sustainable.

10. OUTSOURCING
This Conference calls upon Unite NEC and its Officers at all levels to uphold outsourcing of print, packaging, graphics & media related work for the Union, TUC and the Labour Party from recognised Unite GPMs workplaces.

At a time when print, like rest of manufacturing industry, has suffered due to the recession; and the savage ConDem's austerity and cuts agenda.

That has led to many closures, redundancies and the loss of our members livelihoods.

Outsourcing is penalising and under cutting those employers who abide by agreed union policies, procedures and pay rates.

1. This Unite GPM sector conference therefore re-affirms the policy that our union only sources print from GPM recognised companies.
2. We further call on Unite and our NEC to ensure that the TUC and its affiliates does likewise and upholds this principle.
3. That they put pressure on the Labour Party at all levels to comply to ensure all party units, candidates and agents uphold the policy of only sourcing print from approved Unite GPMs unionised companies.

11. LIVING WAGE
Conference endorses a national bargaining objective for a minimum adult hourly pay rate based on the Living Wage (both provincial and London as appropriate) where no collectively bargained national agreement exists, and calls on the GPM NISC to develop a bargaining, organising and political campaign to achieve it.

The following motion was referred to the NISC for further consideration:
12. PAY BARGAINING STRATEGY
Conference calls on the GPM NISC through our National Officer to call national level meetings annually of all Federated Chapels and Groups where these firms are not covered by a National Agreement for the purpose of setting co-ordinated bargaining objectives including the minimum rate of wage increases; in addition, for the independent company sector not operating under a National Agreement, the GPM NISC develops in consultation with the National Officer and appropriate Regional Officers a coherent and sustainable District by District national pay campaign strategy in preparation for the next wage round.

Tweet

The government onslaught on TUPE rights - a threat to us all

Workers in IT Services often face being transferred from one employer to another as customer contracts are lost and won.  This process is covered by the EU "Acquired Rights Directive", which became UK law through the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations, commonly known as TUPE.

TUPE was meant to protect workers against having their terms and conditions worsened as a result of the change.  It only ever provided partial protection, with major gaps (for example in relation to pension rights).  There's a UNITE guide to the 2006 regulations here.

Now the government proposes to worsen the limited legal protection we have.  The outcome of the government's "consultation" is here.  Below is an extract from a union commentary on the proposed changes, which are expected to come into effect in January 2014.

The proposals, if implemented, will be very bad news for workers in many industries, but IT Services will be particularly badly hit.  They would make it easier for employers to dismiss workers, short-circuit redundancy consultation, make it easier for employers to change terms and conditions, and open the door to more arguments about whether or not TUPE applies when services switch between suppliers.

It has always been the case that strong union organisation is a better protection for employee rights than just relying on the law.  The changes will make this even more true.  And of course even though the law will still ban some activities by rogue employers, other government changes mean workers not in a union who need to make a tribunal claim will face the prospect of either stumping up sizeable tribunal fees or seeing "no win no fee" solicitors taking a large chunk of their compensation.

This is a government of millionaires helping their mates get richer by slashing the rights of working people.  This week I've been at a UNITE training course on TUPE where reps from different IT & Communications companies came together to learn how best to protect employees during and after TUPE transfers.  It may be possible for union members to challenge the legality of some of the changes as cases come up, but the danger is that workers lose their jobs, terms and conditions while such challenges grind through the courts.  Workers need to get better organised now to defend ourselves when TUPE rears its head.

Unite commentary on proposed changes to TUPE Regulations (5 September 2013)

The government has announced proposed major changes to the TUPE Regulations, including:

·         Restricting the service provision change rules
·         Permitting employers to seek to change terms and conditions derived from a collective agreement after 1 year.
·         Weakening unfair dismissal rights
·         Permitting consultation on possible redundancies before a transfer to count towards the transferees obligations to consult under section 188.

The TUC is concerned that several of the proposed changes do not appear to be consistent with EU law including the Acquired Rights Directive and the Collective Redundancies Directive.

TUPE protects employees' terms and conditions of work when a business is transferred from one owner to another. Staff automatically become employees of the new employer on the same terms and conditions as they were on before, and their continuity of service is also protected.

However, under the government's plans TUPE will not always apply when services are outsourced.

These changes will lead to the erosion of the pay and conditions for low-paid staff in sectors such as cleaning, social care and catering where outsourcing is common, says the TUC. It argues this will have an adverse impact on women, who are more likely to be employed in contracted-out services than men.

In addition, employers will now be able to re-negotiate changes to collective agreements one year after transfer. This will give them extra flexibility to cut pay and conditions after a transfer takes place.

The summary of the government’s proposals with TU side comments are as follows:

·         The Service Provision Changes rules (SPC) will be amended so that they only apply if the service is fundamentally or essentially the same following the transfer. The government argues this is simply codifying case law.

However this change could significantly limit the SPC provisions, with the risk that tens of thousands of service sector workers will lose out on TUPE rights. It will also cause huge uncertainty for employers and lead to increased litigation.

·         The government is proposing two major changes relating to TUPE protected pay and conditions negotiated through collective agreements. The government plan to allow employers to renegotiate collective agreements one year after a transfer. Any changes must be agreed and any changes must not be overall less favourable to employees affected.

This proposal blatantly attacks trade unions’ ability to represent working people. It victimises individuals covered by collective agreement. This approach is not consistent with the Directive. It’s also unclear how they could make this change in EU law.

·         The government is also planning to legislate following the CJEU decision in the Alemo-Herron to provide for a static approach to transferred terms and conditions.

The decision of the CJEU is very problematic and effectively means that the Acquired Rights Directive can be interpreted as providing a ceiling of rights rather than a floor of rights. The TUC plans to raise concerns via the ETUC.

·         Other variations to terms and conditions post transfer. The government also plans to amend regulation 4 to allow for unilateral variation of terms pursuant to a contractual provision if such changes could otherwise have been made.

It’s not clear what this means. We suspect the government plans to say that if employers were able to vary terms and conditions if a transfer had not taken place they should be able to do so after a transfer. The TUC will investigate further to check whether this change will drive a coach and horses through the Regulations.

·         A change of location will become an ETO reason justifying dismissal.

This will mean it will be easier for employers to sack staff after a transfer where work is undertaken in a different location.

·         Wider unfair dismissal rights: The government plan to amend Regulation 7 to ‘more closely to reflect the wording of the Directive’.

These changes will weaken unfair dismissal rights

·         Consultation on redundancies undertaken before the transfer will count towards the new employer’s obligations to consult under section 188 of TULR(C)A 1992.

This will substantially weaken protection for transferring staff. The proposal is also not consistent with the requirements of the Collective Redundancies Directive.

·         Micro firms (with 10 of fewer employees) who do not recognise a union will no longer be obliged consult with employee representatives on TUPE Transfers. They can inform and consult employees directly.

The Directive does not allow for a small firm exemption on this or other TUPE rights. It is essential that consultation continues with recognised unions.

·         The transferor will not be able to rely on the transferee’s ETO to dismiss an individual before the transfer.

This is welcome, although if the government had proceeded to make the proposed change it would have been in breach of the Directive.

·         Disclosure of Employee liability information: The current provisions are to be retained. The notification period will be extended to 28 days before the transfer takes place.

This is welcome, but is mainly a response by government to the business lobby.

Tweet

Support the Mitie strikers at Manchester airport

Cleaners at Manchester airport have been outsourced to Mitie for the last couple of years, and they haven't been easy years.

The workers say that at the time of the transfer, they were told there would be no redundancies, yet within a month about 10% of the workforce was cut, leaving the survivors with a heavier workload.  Too often, competition for contracts between bidders isn't about a better service, or organising the work better, but simply about delivering the lowest price by driving people to work longer and harder for less.  In this case the cleaners get just £6.95 an hour and have had no pay rises for four years.  At this rate they will soon be on the National Minimum Wage.

But even this isn't enough for Mitie.  They want to cut attendance bonuses and paid breaks, which would leave workers about £96 a month worse off.  They're also chiselling away at other terms - even cutting compassionate leave from 3 days to 1 (could you organise a funeral in a day?) and stopping workers swapping shifts.

On Friday, the Mitie workers went on strike in defence of their paid breaks.

Mitie is a giant company, with lots of subsidiaries, but a quick look at the records for just one of them, Mitie Cleaning & Environmental Services Ltd, gives you a clue as to the scale of the operation, built on the hard work of low-paid workers like those at Manchester Airport.

You can send messages of support to the workers via their UNITE officer, Dave Kennedy.

Tweet

All-out strike at Tesco / Eddie Stobart

UNITE members at Eddie Stobart in Doncaster start an all-out strike tonight against plans to get rid of them straight after they were outsourced byTesco.

They will be protesting at Tesco stores and are holding a demonstration in Doncaster on Saturday.

For more information, see the UNITE press release.

Many workers across all sectors are affected by outsourcing and the weak protection offered by the TUPE regulations.  We should all get behind the members at Eddie Stobart and put as much pressure on Tesco to sort this out as possible.

Tweet

Useful updates on TUPE

The IT services industry is amongst those most affected by the "TUPE" regulations, which are meant to protect workers when the work they do transfers from one employer to another, whether through an original outsourcing deal or the transfer of an outsourcing contract from one supplier to another. The regulations have some serious weaknesses, particularly in relation to pensions.

There's a useful update on TUPE in the latest LELR newsletter from Thompsons Solicitors.

Tweet

UNITE Executive Council, January 2010

Apologies for not posting for so long - life has been extremely hectic.

I thought that my report from the January EC meeting might be superfluous now, with the official minutes published on the union web site. Sadly that seems to get updated even less often than this blog, so the report is below. I also have a copy of the "Joint General Secretaries' Briefing" about the meeting, which I will forward to members on request.

Ian Allinson’s report on UNITE Executive Council 20-22nd January 2010
N.B. This is not an official Unite Report; it is based on my notes of the EC meeting. I believe it to be a fair account of some of the key points and decisions taken (where I give my views about them I make this clear), and I will willingly correct any errors upon receipt of official notification from Unite.

This report is far from exhaustive – many more issues were debated and decisions taken over the three days.

Ian Allinson
UNITE EC member, Electrical Engineering, Electronics & IT
www.iansunitesite.org.uk

Due to responsibilities in relation to the dispute at Fujitsu, where we were on strike on 22nd January, I was only able to attend the first day of the meeting. These notes do not cover debates and decisions on the second and third days. However, I have tried to indicate what issues I thought were likely to come up.

Industrial
1. There was a lively debate about a Memorandum Of Understanding agreed by the Confederation of Shipbuilding & Engineering Unions (the CSEU, of which UNITE is the majority) about terms and conditions to apply in relation to inward investment. Some EC members argued that this would open the door for employers to seek a longer working week, and that the CSEU should not have reached such an agreement without reference to UNITE and that there was a breakdown in accountability. EC members who worked at Rolls Royce argued that concessions were necessary to secure jobs in their company and that the MOU had no wider implications. Hugh Scullion, the UNITE member who heads the CSEU, had been invited to the EC meeting, but had declined saying that he had to seek guidance from the CSEU executive first. The issue was not resolved, but remits (motions) were invited through the relevant committees.

2. The EC heard an update on the situation at Two Sisters, a food plant in the Midlands. Following one of our reps being subject to racist abuse and unofficial action to support him, over 50 members had been sacked. A campaign had now resulted in an agreement to reinstate all the members, who are now returning to work.

3. There was a recognition from the EC and senior officers that more debate is needed about our future organising strategy, to make sure we learn from our successes and failures, and that we build sustainable workplace organisation rather than just recruiting individuals who then leave.

4. UNITE had obtained an independent report showing that some subcontractors in construction were paying significantly below the agreed rates, despite their claims to the contrary.

5. There were reports from many industrial sectors about the impact of the economic crisis on our members in terms of attacks on jobs, terms and conditions. Discussion included the impact on the motor industry, the takeover of Cadburys, the ongoing pay disputes at First Group in the bus industry and the attacks on public services which are expected to accelerate after the election.

6. There was a discussion about the dispute at BA, where the management seem determined to have a dispute or complete surrender in order to break the union. The court ruling was outrageous, as the issues with the ballot would not have significantly affected the result. The anti-union laws are now worse than under the Tories and UNITE is pressing Labour for reform. Members are starting a fresh ballot on 25th January for a four-week period. The issue in dispute is the imposition of changes without agreement. A court case is also planned.

7. I queried why the Joint General Secretaries’ report did not include a section on the Electrical Engineering and Electronics sector, and was encouraged to raise this at the National Industrial Sector Committee. This was not the only sector without a report, and the Joint General Secretary undertook to ask the administration to find out why.

8. The EC supported a number of remits from the IT & Communications National Industrial Sector Committee:

FUJITSU DISPUTE
The IT & Communication National Industrial Sector Committee supports the members in Fujitsu who are in the midst of an industrial action campaign over jobs, pay and pensions.

This National Industrial Sector Committee calls on the EC to support the campaign including the following actions:
1. make a donation to the strike fund
2. circulate all Unite branches with an appeal for support including financial support
3. ensure that relevant Unite regional officials provide all necessary support and assistance to Unite reps and members
4. maximise Unite assistance through the Political and Campaigns & Communication Departments, given that Fujitsu has major contracts with central and local government including DWP, Home Office, Revenue and Customs and MOD.
5. give union-wide support to a parliamentary lobby over pensions using the Fujitsu dispute as a focus.

[NOTE: On point 1, the EC did not decide to make a separate donation, as the EC’s direct financial support is via Dispute Benefit which has recently been increased from £12 to £30 per day]

ERICSSON ANSTY CLOSURE
This conference deplores the announcement by the Swedish company Ericsson of its intention to close its high-Tech communications facility at Ansty Park, Coventry, with the potential loss of 700 highly skilled jobs.

This conference notes that Ericsson claims to be an ‘ethical’ employer of choice yet is proposing to effectively close down the Research & Development site at Ansty Park, Coventry. The new site was only opened in May of this year with Gordon Brown in attendance. £50 million pounds of public money has been spent on infrastructure, roads etc at the site.

This conference notes that Ericsson did not consult with the EWC or the Union to avoid the closure or to retain R&D staff. The announcement was made without regard to the procedures by denying the exploration of any alternatives to the closure.

This conference notes the Government’s reluctance to receive a delegation of the members affected by this proposed closure, despite the importance of the issue and the support given by Unite the Union to the party in Government. This Crisis demands urgent attention and the continuation of the Government’s failure to respond appropriately would be unacceptable.

The retention of highly skilled jobs is a priority for Unite the Union and this conference believes that it should also be a priority for the Government if the UK is to have a future in the strategically important telecommunications industry.
This conference notes with dismay the reports that Ericsson are proposing to remove all R&D and Global Competence Centres from the UK and Re-locate to low cost centres with poorer pay and conditions in Eastern Europe and China. Resistance to the Ansty Park closure therefore has national and international significance.

This conference believes that R&D and manufacturing strategy requires a greater involvement by the Government to ensure that companies cannot abuse their responsibilities, particularly when they have received substantial public financial assistance, regardless of where they are based.

1. This conference call upon Unite the Union to use its influence, established over many years of support to the Labour Party, to demand that the business secretary, Peter Mandelson, intervenes to ensure that the Ericsson decision is reversed and take all steps necessary to retain the expertise and skills of the workforce.
2. This conference calls for Unite the union to demand that the government intervenes with the same urgency, attitude and financial resources, if necessary, that it demonstrated during the Banking crisis. High tech jobs, skills and experience are as important to the UK’s future as a stable financial environment.
3. This Conference pledges its support to the legitimate efforts of the workforce to defend their jobs and to resist the transfer of R&D information to other sites.
4. This conference calls for Unite the Union to support a legal challenge over Ericsson’s breach of the European legislation on consultation, taking the claim to the European Court of Justice if necessary. This conference notes that Unite recently won a similar case against the Peugeot closure of Ryton on Coventry.

This conference calls for Unite the Union to initiate a high profile national campaign to save these highly skilled jobs. The campaign should include use of the web, exposing the reality behind the Ericsson brand, a public boycott of Ericsson mobile phones and protesting outside sale outlets.

RETAIN AND RETRAIN EMPLOYEES
This Conference urges all employers to retain and re-train experienced staff in new skills, as legacy IT systems continue to be decommissioned, this making those employees more relevant and productive to the business whilst at the same time leveraging their experience, reliability and quality of work.

PENSIONS
Conference notes the attempts by an increasing range of employers to attack pension provision, and in particular defined benefit pension schemes in the IT and Communications sector. We note that sections of the media and politicians are proclaiming the death of the defined benefit pension and promoting divisions between workers in the private and public sector.

Conference condemns the way in which many companies in the sector are ending their final salary and defined benefit schemes despite being a highly profitable sector.

We note that a threat to pension provision is one of the situations most likely to lead members to support industrial action. We note that UNITE’s campaigning in defence of pensions is already leading to significant membership growth in a number of companies.

Given the scale of the attacks now, and the likelihood of them spreading, we call on the IT and Communications National Industrial Sector Committee and the Executive Council to step up UNITE’s campaigning on pensions by:
1) Allocating more resources to providing specialist pensions advice and support to our officers and reps and to run pension workshops for reps
2) Allocating more resources to providing legal advice and support to our officers and reps dealing with attacks on pensions
3) Coordinating our campaigning on pensions at regional, sectoral and national level to maximise our impact
4) Organising protests and petitions wherever schemes are under threat
5) Working with other unions, pensioner groups etc to maximise our impact
6) Involving members who are affected by threats to pensions in lobbying government to act to protect pensions
7) Encouraging members to stand for election as trustees and organise and coordinate UNITE members who are pension trustees
8) Working with government lobbies to protect pensions under TUPE transfers and arrangements
9) Using all the political channels to pressurise companies closing their schemes

TUPE
A relatively small number companies dominate the sub-sector offering IT outsourcing services. Employees are often subject to TUPE transfers between these companies as contracts are won and lost. UNITE should strengthen its work around these transfers:
i) Reps should ensure they notify the National Officer when transfers are taking place, so that the National Officer can put them in touch with reps in the other companies involved in the transfer
ii) Reps should ensure membership records are updated when transfers take place
iii) As part of the TUPE consultation, reps often have access to a "matrix" comparing terms and conditions in the companies involved. Reps should provide a copy to the National Officer. The National Officer should use these to produce a master matrix comparing terms and conditions across the sub-sector, which reps can use to assist in collective bargaining and campaigning.
iv) Many of the companies are involved in outsourcing public services. UNITE should organise a workshop for reps in the industry to examine the "Code of Practice on Workforce Matters in Public Sector Service Contracts" (http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/opsr/workforce_reform/code_of_practice/index.asp) and the "Cabinet Office Statement of Practice on Staff Transfers in the Public Sector" (http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/people/employment/codes.aspx). These documents affect people working on a contract where someone else originally worked in the public sector, not just the original transferees. They could offer ways for employees to exert additional influence over terms and conditions and to extend consultation rights.
v) We should campaign, as part of our wider campaign to strengthen TUPE protection, for the government to strengthen the codes so that employees transferring between companies working on public sector contracts do not suffer detriment, whether or not any of the employees was originally in the public sector, and to strengthen their provisions in relation to pensions.

Internal
9. The subcommittee of the Executive Council charged with looking at the integration of the union had not met for some time.

10. The previous Executive Council meeting had agreed a single system of expenses for lay members, to come into effect from January 2010. Implementation had been delayed, on the basis that additional issues had arisen.

11. The previous EC meeting had discussed a proposal to adopt a consistent approach to the definition of membership and ensuring that members in arrears with their subs were excluded from membership, in order that membership data was more meaningful, which is essential for effective union organisation. This had been referred to the Finance & General Purposes committee, where it had been raised, but not resolved as there had been an ongoing debate between the Joint General Secretaries. The EC was promised that a proposal would be brought to this EC meeting to resolve the matter. [I don’t know whether or not this happened after I left]

12. The EC was presented on the day with a document (3F) with statistics for the seats on the various committees that had been set up. [This was not discussed while I was present. It appears that there is still work to be done in reconvening conferences and filling vacant seats]

13. I queried why there was still no proposal in the paperwork to resolve the issues with the London & Eastern IT & Comms Regional Industrial Sector Committee, as I had been led to believe that a resolution acceptable to all concerned had been identified, and I had also raised this at the previous EC meeting. In a break, I was informed that an original proposal had been received but rejected by the senior officers without being presented to the EC. I was promised that resolving this situation would now be progressed.

14. A proposal (4E) was on the table to provide the 1% of subs to Regional Committees, but this had not been discussed when I left.

15. There was a discussion about the Joint General Secretary referring to people backing one of the candidates in the forthcoming General Secretary election as “serial trippers” due to the international delegations they had taken part in. He apologised to two EC members who had backed the candidate but to whom the comment did not fairly apply. The Joint General Secretaries said they had been offended by being asked to provide an assurance that there would be no repercussions for candidates, as members were freely entitled to stand for election.

16. EC members raised concerns that members were being refused overnight stays for National Industrial Sector Committee meetings. It was confirmed that it was up to each committee to decide what time their meeting should start, and overnight accommodation should be provided where appropriate.

17. I expected the EC during the rest of its meeting to deal with a number of other important topics, including how delegates are elected to the policy and rules conference, and how members can send motions to the conferences.

Political
18. UNITE has played a key role, using the UNITE4Labour web site and phone bank, in Labour’s victory at the Glasgow North East by-election.

19. The current UNITE parliamentary panel (list of potential candidates) still includes people with little commitment to the union’s policies. A new panel will be established after the general election. A new procedure was agreed.

20. As the policy forum process is so bad, UNITE intends to try to influence the Labour manifesto through TULO meetings instead. It is essential that Labour offers progress on employment matters. There was a discussion on Labour’s “sell-out” to the employer lobby on the Temporary and Agency Workers regulations, which will now not be brought into force prior to the election.

21. Following on from the way that European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings, including Viking, Laval and Ruffert, are making employment law even worse, the Joint General Secretary highlighted the fact that EU trade deals with other countries around the world now include “mode 4” clauses which effectively extend the problems caused by the ECJ rulings around the world. It is Lord Mandelson who is championing this. More work needs to be done to research and campaign on this issue.

22. The BNP are hoping to make further progress in the general election, and all members are encouraged to get involved with Searchlight, Hope Not Hate, Unite Against Fascism and Love Music Hate Racism to counter the threat of the BNP, the English Defence League (EDL) and its Welsh and Scottish counterparts.

23. There was discussion about how the UNITE delegation at Warwick 2 came to vote for a statement which included support for social enterprise in the NHS (a form of privatisation), against union policy. Many delegates had been unaware of the wording at the time they voted. The Joint General Secretary explained that the delegation had to choose between voting down the whole document or voting for it despite it including points UNITE disagreed with.

International
24. The F&GP again recommended that we didn’t renew our affiliation to Hands Off Venezuela. EC members felt that as affiliation was Amicus policy from its conference, it should not be overturned without a very strong justification. The recommendation was referred back to the F&GP again, for a final decision at the next EC meeting.

25. The TUC has launched an appeal for Haiti which members are encouraged to support. The EC agreed to make a contribution of £50K and to circulate the appeal to branches.

26. The EC heard an update on international solidarity work, including Palestine, Columbia and the Miami 5 (Cuba). UNITE had raised £75K in support of the strikers (who are fellow members of our umbrella “Workers Uniting” international union) at Vale Inco in Canada, who have been on strike for six months now. A video about the shipbreaking industry in Bangladesh has been produced as a DVD for circulation.

Tweet

Strike dates set for HP Customer Engineers

Following their ballot, UNITE has announced the industrial action plans for Mobile Engineers working for HP CDS across the UK:

• Strike on Monday 7th December 2009
  
• Continuous overtime ban and work to rule from 4th January 2010
• 2 days strike - 11th and 12th January 2010
• 2 days strike - 1st and 2nd February 2010
• 5 days strike - 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th and 26th February 2010

The dispute is over HP using weak employment law to reduce pay and pension benefits on transfer to HP CDS.

Good luck to all our members!

Tweet

IT National Advisory Committee

Last week I took part in a very well attended and interesting UNITE "National Advisory Committee" for the IT industry. Stripped of the jargon, this means a meeting of union reps from various companies in the IT industry.

The process of groups with union organisation TUPEing into the IT industry continues. In terms of UNITE organisation, this is predominantly from the Finance sector at the moment.

We had a video link-up and presentation from India, where we are building links with UNITES (no relation), a union beginning to build in the IT and Business Process Outsourcing industries. These are small but very important beginnings. When workers in the UK see employers cutting jobs and transferring work to India it is too easy to see Indian workers as the enemy, rather than seeing them as potential allies in resisting the attempts by employers to drive down pay and conditions globally. There was a good discussion about practical ways of supporting each other.

We had a brief update on the HQ response to the motion passed at the sector conference about the planned UNITE "IT and Communications" sector. Not much had changed, though we were told that the Communication Managers Association (CMA) were happy with being in our sector, even if we didn't think it was appropriate.

We had a presentation from Incomes Data Services (IDS) about pay trends in the IT industry, which provoked a considerable amount of discussion. They get data from both employers and unions, and are keen to get more so that the quality of their research is improved. We also had a look at a report from e-Skills UK, which is the "sector skills council". This sort of pay data is invaluable for any rep negotiating pay.

We had a brief update on the union's work on learning in our sector from Sunil Patel, who has been heavily involved in the development of the ITQ qualification, which are aimed at IT users. It's all too easy to forget that large numbers of those working in the IT industry aren't in IT-based jobs or don't have qualifications in IT.

We discussed progress with organising and recruitment in the sector. Best progress is being made in EDS and Fujitsu, where there have been sustained and fairly systematic efforts to build the union. A bigger, stronger union means better results for employees. This doesn't just mean people filling in Direct Debit forms - it has to mean getting members involved, recruiting and training new reps etc.

We discussed about the situation at Steria in Manchester, where members are being balloted for action as part of a campaign against compulsory redundancies. As is normally the case when you get a bunch of reps together, the discussion produced some fresh ideas for taking the campaign forward. We all felt that in the current economic climate it is becoming even more important to take a stand against redundancies wherever possible.

Tweet

672 Fujitsu jobs at risk

On Friday, Fujitsu put the jobs of 672 people working on the NHS account at risk of redundancy, following the company's decision to pull out of contract negotiations and the NHS decision to terminate the contract.

As well as pressing Fujitsu to redeploy people, UNITE is also pressing the government to decide what will happen to the work in future. At present, staff simply don't know where they stand. The government should give a commitment that whatever supplier(s) take over the work, they will be obliged to take the staff under a TUPE transfer, protecting the jobs.

UNITE has begun briefing MPs and has issued press releases. It is good to see the FT picking this up, albeit not very accurately.

Tweet

Protecting jobs at Fujitsu - NHS fallout

Following the decision of Fujitsu to pull out of contract negotiations with the NHS and the subsequent termination of the contract, it's far from clear what this will mean for Fujitsu staff. We had nearly 1000 working on the contract, mainly in the Thames Valley, London and the south.

While UNITE is talking to Fujitsu about the future, the union is also urging the government to decide what it's going to do. Until the government decides what contracts there will be in future and who will get them, there's no possibility of preserving the jobs whether by keeping them in Fujitsu or TUPE transferring people to other suppliers.

Tweet

Private Equity v Democracy

When most of us have such a low opinion of the vast majority of politicians, it's easy to lose sight of why democracy has always been a central plank of the labour movement agenda.

Before working people got the vote, parliament was simply a club for the rich and powerful to sort out their affairs - almost invariably at our expense.

Previous generations of working people fought to gain more power by both winning the vote. The rich and powerful sought to safeguard their interests by moving lots of decisions out of parliament, to prevent us getting our grubby hands on them.

The push for nationalisation in the early and mid 20th century was an attempt to counter this by bringing more of the economy under democratic control. However, in many cases the extent of democracy actually achieved in state-owned industries was extremely limited.

Since the 1980s the rich and powerful have been on the offensive, trying to roll back what limited democratic say we've had. Think about a few examples:

• Privatisation
• Stopping council house building in favour of property speculation
  
• "Independence" of the Bank of England (from democratic control)
• The World Trade Organisation (WTO) imposing rules which over-ride national laws, so that taking account of labour standards, health & safety or the environment in trade is banned
  
• The rise of QUANGOs
• Chopping up public services into "trusts", "foundations" etc
• Government accepting "commercial confidentiality" to stop voters knowing how our money is being spent with private companies

If the people we elect go along with declining influence over our lives, is it any wonder that voters take a decreasing interest in who is elected?

Another factor is the international nature of business undermining the national nature of democracy. For example, companies play governments off against each other for tax-breaks and grants.

The TUPE legistation has given us some limited protection when our jobs are bought and sold between different companies. But the "share purchase" method of takeover completely bypasses this protection. You can be working for company X, all its shares are bought by company Y, which may have a radical impact on your future, and you currently have no say at all.

This is becoming a bigger issue at the moment because of the rise of Private Equity companies. Not only do they buy business through share purchase, avoiding TUPE, but they are not publicly listed companies, so are even more secretive than your normal PLC.

In it's campaign to give working people more say over private equity, UNITE is focussing on the example of Telent (formerly Marconi, GEC etc) in our sector, which was bought by the Pensions Corporation. There's more information about the general issue on both the Amicus and TGWU web sites. Why we don't have the same information on both is a mystery to me!

If you're interested in the wider issues about democracy, there's a brilliant book by the late Paul Foot "The Vote - How It Was Won and How It Was Undermined".

Tweet

Outsourcing, TUPE and Organising

To most working people, outsourcing is seen as a threat. The "TUPE" regulations provide some protection, but don't adequately protect pensions in particular. Union representation during consultation over TUPE transfers is vital to ensure the rights and terms & conditions of employees are protected. Even so, many people ask why an employer would outsource work unless they wanted to wash their hands of the workforce as costs are driven down at their expense.

One of the strange things about being a union activist in the IT industry is that we are usually on the other end of the outsourcing equation. All the big IT companies increasingly offer services rather than products - they offer to run an organisation's IT functions for them - outsourced.

When groups of unionised workers are outsourced from other industries into IT companies, it is really helpful when the reps and officers dealing with the transfer make contact with the reps and officers dealing with the proposed new employer. They can often suggest questions to ask during the TUPE consultation or ring the alarm bells when the whole truth isn't being told. Making contact in this way is also the best guarantee that the workers transferring maintain and develop effective union organisation post-transfer. Ironically, one effect of outsourcing is to spread union organisation into many companies and sectors that were previously un-unionised. This is a flip-side to outsourcing that unions should make the most of.

Whereas in most industries, TUPE transfers are relatively rare, for reps in the IT industry they are among our bread and butter issues. Every time contracts are won and lost, groups of IT workers are shuffled around between the companies. In some IT companies it is actually a minority of the workforce who chose to work there.

Just as we need reps and officers in other sectors to be on-the-ball when staff are TUPEing into our sector, we all need to be on our toes when these TUPEs between IT companies take place. Usually there is already UNITE organisation in the receiving company, with reps who've been through it before. Often the contract changing hands involves more than one company, either when services are delivered through a consortium or joint-venture, or when a prime contractor sub-contracts much of the work. There is no excuse for us treating these transfers separately. We should all be comparing notes about the various employers, not allowing them to play us off against each other.

Tweet

Outsourcing & Redundancy

It's not uncommon, despite the protection of the TUPE regulations, for employers to be motivated by cost-cutting to consider outsourcing parts of their workforce.

According to reports on silicon.com and on ZDnet, Shell has tried to "interpret" a relatively favourable redundancy deal as not covering IT workers before proposing to outsource up to 3,200 of them to AT&T, EDS and T-Systems. Doubtless the new employers would be very grateful to receive staff under TUPE with worse terms and conditions. How long would it be before the first of the outsourced employees got made redundant?

Tweet

Outsourcing, TUPE and union recognition

UNITE recently secured a very important ruling by the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) which will help many people affected by outsourcing, including those working for the IT outsourcing companies in our sector.

The case arose where Boots had outsourced IT functions to Xansa, resulting in employees transferring into Xansa under the TUPE regulations. Under TUPE, union recognition normally transfers with the employees, but many outsourcing companies try to avoid the bargaining unit being viable in the long term using tactics like:

• Restricting the bargaining unit only to those who originally transferred, excluding new employees or existing employees who start working on the contract
• Telling employees they can't move out of the original contract into the wider company unless they harmonise terms and conditions and leave the bargaining unit
• Mixing up the TUPEd employees with others from the wider company who are on different terms and conditions

The CAC is the body charged with ruling on applications for union recognition under the statutory procedure (as well as a few other functions). In this case, the argument was about what the appropriate bargaining unit would be. The ruling on Case Number: TUR1/568(2006) is available on the CAC web site. The decision says:

17. The bargaining unit consists of those workers employed by Xansa UK Ltd working at the Boots site in Nottingham who are either transferees from Boots to Xansa (whether they have subsequently moved onto Xansa terms and conditions or not) or who have at least one year’s continuous service on the Boots site.

This means that the bargaining unit won't dwindle and "die on the vine" over time, but can include new employees. It also unlinks bargaining unit membership from harmonisation.
CAC rulings don't form a precedent in the true legal sense (that other courts are obliged to follow the ruling), but the fact that the CAC has ruled this way in one case clearly opens it up as a possible avenue for unions in other cases.

It will be interesting to see how widely UNITE and other unions adopt this approach to defend and extend recognition after outsourcing.

Tweet