Redundancy Terms & Conditions

[MrJones]

It's my understanding that NATS are currently trying to slash redundancy T&C using the new Employment Equality (Age) Regulations as justification.

At the moment it's very expensive to get rid of staff so when locations close or when working practices change staff get redeployed whenever possible.

If however it becomes relatively cheap to dispense with staff then it stands to reason they will do so.

There's a lot of fog around the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations. Typically it's been drafted so no one is really sure what it covers but surely couldn't have been meant to allow employers to worsen the lot of employees.

For many in NATS (ATC) redundancy might seem irrelevant but we all need to put our thinking caps on. Technology has already made many skills worthless and will continue to do so and probably at an ever increasing rate.

Personally I've heard very little from my union about this issue, does anyone know the current state of negotiations?

[DC10RealMan]

Mr Jones,

I would agree wholeheartedly with your posting. I think that NATS is using various aspects of employment law for its own ends, you only have to look at the pension situation. I am sure that Radio Officers, Navigators, and Flight Engineers thought the same way as well.

[Flybywyre]

I read an article sometime ago written by the TUC who were concerned that the new Employment Equality (Age) Regulations would have an impact on statutory redundancy terms. This is because under the previous legislation people over the age of 40 were entitled to enhanced redundancy payments, one and a half weeks pay for every year worked as opposed to one weeks pay for those under forty. Under the new regulations this would not be acceptable as it would be discriminating against those who were under forty years old, age discrimination works in both directions. The government would therefore need to bring in one payment for everyone regardless of age, it was expected that the enhanced payment for those over forty years of age would eventually be chopped. At the moment the only change that has been made is that of the upper age limit of 65 years which has now been removed.
I don't know what NATS redundancy T & C's are but if they included an enhanced payment for those of later years then this could also come under scrutiny.

[MrJones]

I fully understand that the enhanced payments for staff over 40 will almost certainly have to end but NATS redundancy t&c are more currently more generous than the government's minimum one a half weeks pay for every year.

I think it's a months pay for each year served under 40 and a month and a half's pay if you are over 40. (Don't quote me on those figures!)

Then there's the 6 and 2/3 years that can be added to your pension.

I'm concerned that in renegotiating the t&c NATS management will try to reduce all this.

Really do need some information from the unions.

[Me Me Me Me]

All NATS policies that are affected by the Age Discrimination legislation are currently in negotiation with TU at central level. This includes redundancy terms, leave entitlements etc.

NATS current arrangements are way out of line with the new legislation.

My personal opinion on how it will change (not an expert): NATS arrangements have a number of age breaks where compensation for loss of employment increases. i.e. 30, 35, 45, 50... The new legislation will only allow one age break at (I believe) 40. the result will be a much flatter structure on which redundancy is calculated. This will clearly mean a reduction in the absolute maximum possible... but the up side is that whatever the new maximum is will be accessible to a larger portion of the workforce.

[MrJones]

clearly mean a reduction in the absolute maximum possible... but the up side is that whatever the new maximum is will be accessible to a larger portion of the workforce.

Clearly?

It should be the unions aim to raise t&c not reduce them.

Why would NATS want to reduce redundancy payments unless they planning some redundancies?

[Dances with Boffins]

NATS has already done it!

All ATSA vacancies are filled with staff on a contract that only entitles them to statutory redundancy payments - one week per year's service. As it is the ATSAs that are going to be replaced by technology or sites closing, losses will be culled from their ranks, leaving the more expensive old hands to be redeployed.
NATS is still short of ATCOs and they haven't invented a machine that can read papers and understand pilots so they are all pretty safe at the moment. A machine is under development that can drink coffee and bitch about management, so it is only a matter of time. :E

[Me Me Me Me]

Clearly?

It should be the unions aim to raise t&c not reduce them.

Why would NATS want to reduce redundancy payments unless they planning some redundancies?

Clearly.... because they don't have that option. There are rules now in place that limit the max to less than NATS currently pays out.

Unions cant fight for something that's illegal.

The clue is in the question on the last point you make.

[Me Me Me Me]

NATS has already done it!
All ATSA vacancies are filled with staff on a contract that only entitles them to statutory redundancy payments - one week per year's service. As it is the ATSAs that are going to be replaced by technology or sites closing, losses will be culled from their ranks, leaving the more expensive old hands to be redeployed.
NATS is still short of ATCOs and they haven't invented a machine that can read papers and understand pilots so they are all pretty safe at the moment. A machine is under development that can drink coffee and bitch about management, so it is only a matter of time. :E
It's called a PTAS contract... it also gives no right to sick pay.. etc etc. Not just ATSAs, MSGs are also recruited on these... when they actually recruit and don't just bring in a bunch of contractors :rolleyes:

[MrJones]

Clearly.... because they don't have that option. There are rules now in place that limit the max to less than NATS currently pays out.



I didn't realise there was now an upper limit on redundancy compensation, what exactly is it?

[TATC]

Clearly.... because they don't have that option. There are rules now in place that limit the max to less than NATS currently pays out.
Unions cant fight for something that's illegal.
The clue is in the question on the last point you make.

Age disctrimination rules does not limit the maximum redundancy on offer. If the unions could negotiate the current payments for peoles over 50 to start for people over 40 the maximum will not be reduced.

There is nothing in the law to say that the maximum has to be reduced. the maximum will only be reduced if the TU agrees to the company keeping the same step up in payments as present for people over 40 and just removing the extra payments furtehr up the scale.

eg.If it is currently the case that if people over 40 get an extra 2 weeks per year served after reaching the age of 40, people over 45 get an 3weeks per year served after reaching 45 and people over 50 get an extra 5 weeks per year served after reaching 50. (these are just random numbers to illustrate my point). Then one solution is to say that "EVERYONE over 40 will get an extra 2 weeks per year served after reaching 40" this would reduce the minimum. Another would be to say " Everyone over 40 will get an extra 5weeks per year served after reaching aged 40", this would not reduce the maximum redundancy available but increase it and still be legal.

[Me Me Me Me]

Age disctrimination rules does not limit the maximum redundancy on offer. If the unions could negotiate the current payments for peoles over 50 to start for people over 40 the maximum will not be reduced.
There is nothing in the law to say that the maximum has to be reduced. the maximum will only be reduced if the TU agrees to the company keeping the same step up in payments as present for people over 40 and just removing the extra payments furtehr up the scale.
eg.If it is currently the case that if people over 40 get an extra 2 weeks per year served after reaching the age of 40, people over 45 get an 3weeks per year served after reaching 45 and people over 50 get an extra 5 weeks per year served after reaching 50. (these are just random numbers to illustrate my point). Then one solution is to say that "EVERYONE over 40 will get an extra 2 weeks per year served after reaching 40" this would reduce the minimum. Another would be to say " Everyone over 40 will get an extra 5weeks per year served after reaching aged 40", this would not reduce the maximum redundancy available but increase it and still be legal.

No....

Redundancy terms on age breaks are to be brought in line with statutory arrangements. i.e. only one age break at 41. Not the 30, 35, 40, 50 that NATS has currently. On top of that you are only permitted to pay 1.5 times the value to those after the age break as those below it.

So as much as there is not an upper limit, you can clearly see how the large enhancements previously paid by NATS to those in the higher brackets will no longer be possible.

the only way I see that the current levels of payments at the top end could be maintained would be to drastically increase the basic terms at the bottom end. This would be rejected on the grounds it would make new starts and those 60-65 (who currently dont cost anything) prohibitively expensive.

[poi098]

Does anyone know about the review of working practices that's just been completed by Price Waterhouse (or suchlike)? Apparently the aim is to get more out of existing WP agreement, and rumour has it the fabled surplus of ATCOs could disappear at the stroke of a pen.

Could this explain why NATS so keen to cut redundancy costs?

[Minesapint]

There are pletnty of PCG's (way too many :E ) PTMG's and those that can't wait to retire so NATS managers (those that are left ;-) should not need to look too far. ATSA's replaced by iFACTs will 'release' a high number at LACC amd THAT is why NATS needs to reduce redundancy payments as well as the non operationsal ATCO's.

In my humble opinion.

[Me Me Me Me]

NATS doesn't NEED to reduce redundancy costs... NATS WANTS to reduce redundancy costs since they've been given the opportunity to do so by the government.

[poi098]

Think we need info from the unions on where negs are at. My understanding is that, even under existing Ts and Cs, one month per years service is enforceable, as that is not discriminatory. Can we therefore assume that the unions will only agree to something that is significantly better than this?

Also, are unions trying to link any other issues to this - e.g. removal of compulsory redeployment from SSA?