No No No,
niteflite had got it all wrong. This could not possibly be. CC has published an 'open letter' to staff, so he won't mind me quoting from it, and this could not possibly be the same CC that was at the meeting. For example in the letter:
He is somewhat 'disappointed' - that he was quoted in the union's open letter, where 'he said many things to find a way forward'. He wants 'to encourage constructive dialogue, openness and ultimately trust','That is easily destroyed by actions such as yours'. So really CC is trying very hard and it's the union's fault nobody likes him. This is not the CC at the meeting obviously.
Anyway he says that although he wasn't at the payround discussuions he knows there was 'no absolute guarantee' that the bonus would pay in full. However, he does admit that management could have 'signalled' the differences in the way the bonuses were calculated. He's 'disappointed (poor man - that's twice we've done it to him) that the union aren't prepared to acknowledge their share of failure,' when they didn't notice that the bonuses couldn't pay out in full. So whilst indicating strongly that the bonuses would pay, they didn't say they couldn't, so management didn't tell and the union didn't notice, so its the unions fault really and 1 point to management.
He says we have to move on since 'looking for scapegoats in management side does nothing to foster the openness, honesty and trust that you (rightly) say is so good for industrial relations.' You see this CC actually cares about good relations, it MUST be a different man.
This CC is 'prepared to accept some of the blame for staff feeling misled'. He wants to find 'constructive ways' of 'going forward', of setting aside 'this confrontational approach'.
Now obviously the man at Manchester could not possibly be interested in constructive ways of going forward, and he didn't sound very disappointed about anything and he certainly wasn't encouraging 'constructive dialogue, openness and ultimately trust' was he?
Now I know that all of you will answer me saying 'But no, you are mistaken, I was at that meeting and saw a man full of openness and such trust. He had much dialogue. Verily he was much disappointed but sayeth he and management had but misled us only but a little bit, but still he was full of woe and sorry that they had pulleth the wool of the sacred sheep over the eyes of the unions. He had a dream of a new world where we would live in harmony, both the managemites and the controllerites, forgetting about how we had smitteth each other and blasphemeth against each other and managed to pull a fast one. Where the people will be content and happy and not led astray into the wilderness to be confused with numbers and targets and percentage bonuses and confounded with the baser things such as money'
So I wait to be corrected, obviously it's all been a terrible mistake.