BAND4ALL

Yet to attend a brief but has the question been asked if there is a massive NO vote what will the Union/s then do?s

By the way VOTE NO for now!!

1985

They said today that they don't know. I don't think they have any plan in that event. They did say however, that if they went back to the unions with this offer rejected then there would be no backing for a strike.

Ballstroker

New Q&As were posted to the intranet today. They claim that the memorandum of understanding between the company and the union is a legally binding contract.

Now it's a while since I studied law, however I'm struggling to work out how the staff are privy to a "contract" between the union and the company. So in my albeit limited understanding the MOU is complete horsest and not legally enforceable.

jonny B good

memo•ran•dum /memrndm/ noun (pl. memo•randa /memrnd/)
1 (formal) = memo: an internal memorandum leaks of confidential memoranda
2 (law) a record of a legal agreement which has not yet been formally prepared and signed: The two sides have signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the conflict.
3 a proposal or report on a particular subject for a person, an organization, a committee, etc.: a detailed memorandum to the commission on employment policy

©Oxford University Press, 2005

It would actually appear that what is being presented at the briefings is exactly what the NTUS are saying.
It is a record of a LEGAL agreement yet to be formally prepared and signed. This means the final document which will be signed, only in the event of a yes vote (hence why it is still only a memorandum of understanding), will be the legally binding document. Unless I am very much mistaken, what is being presented is the memorandum and the legal teams are in the process of drawing up the final document.

GM WAN TO BE

Just a quick note to let you know that all the hard work you guys have done is appreciated, although at times it may not seem like that.

Good presentation today as well.

Cheers

GMWTB

Ballstroker

Jonny b good.

In that case how will the memorandum become legally binding? Under the terms under which the pension trustees operate, or under my contract of employment? My very simplistic legal brain has a problem with both privity of contract and consideration when this memorandum is claimed to be a "contract".

121decimal375

I cannot get my head around the thinking of the union to why they cannot back legal action???

we are not immediately saying we will walk if this proposal is pushed on us, what we are saying is we want options.

Surely if the union cannot support us then surely there is no other option but to replace them? lets not overlook that im sure they have done a fantastic job over the years to secure some really good increases etc, but like anyone in position, maybe they have gone as far as they can.

There are too many unanswered questions to even consider a vote, never mind a yes one!

My sincere Thanks to all the hard work of those who are working so hard behind the scenes to fight this isssue. We all owe you guys alot and you have my full support!

If you cant understand the full issues then its a NO vote!

hold at SATAN

From the NATS forum stranex says::

I agree the effects of the cap and two tier won't be felt for at least 5 years. NATS are hardly going to offer us earth-shattering increases in these so called current financial climes... or have they a bung lined up to get us to vote for a 2 tier pension but allowing NATS to keep their pension contributions down?

more likely they are taking a longer view to supress the pension scheme and set us up FOR SALE!

VOTE NO. Like somebody (sorry, too lazy to find ur screen name) said a couple of pages back, NATS does not need to fund 41% (if that's what it will be) every year. That's how much it will need in TOTAL. Therefore NATS must have a good case for going to the regulator and removing the cost pass through (else NATS go bust Mr. ERG - as they keep telling us) and asking the pension trustees to allow the money to be paid over three years (i.e. until the next triennial report).

NATS are very quick to take money out of the fund, but reluctant to put back in: "sorry guys our hands are tied, ERG, airlines, the bloke next door doesn't like it".

The way the scheme has been funded is like buying a wool jumper that fits perfectly in the shops (100% funding). But then you stick it in the washing machine (financial gloom) and lo and behold it shrinks and it doesn't fit anymore (deficit). Now you've got to chuck it away (close the scheme) or give it away (change terms and sell the company). The trick is to buy a slightly larger size (surplus) and when it comes out of the wash, it will still fit. In fact if it's large enough, it will still fit after several washes (downturns).
You don't want too big a size of jumper (surplus), but then again, you will be able to keep wearing it as the inevitable middle age spread kicks in (increased future commitments)

The pension is the main thing that keeps up locked into working for NATS, well that and working with some of the most professional and dedicated folks in the business. Let's hope NATS doesn't cut off it's nose to spite its face.

Dee Mac

I've a wee problem here, not only do I not fancy the cut in pension (using their figures) proposed, but a MOU/legal contract - who cares? Our pension as it stands is supposed to have an Act of Parliament protecting it, that isn't stopping management at the moment, what makes any MOU any different? I'd like an answer from that from those that accept the changes and MOU, I'm genuinely intrigued how this "promise" is any better than the last one. Are you willing to accept further changes 7 years down the line?
This is about pensions, it's also about showing some unity, we're talking an NSL sell-off here, then the same for NERL and god knows what will be left of our T&C's if we roll over to this. Think about this for one moment, there is no campaign to fight this yet it seems the massive and concerted campaign by NATS and our (ha) union to persuade us to accept this isn't exactly running into placid acceptance is it?
If we had someone (a union perhaps) to coordinate a campaign to fight these changes, we'd probably be home and dry by now. Shame on Prospect, just received my magazine today - nice to see they'll fight for some pensions but not ours
PS The only option I'll accept is the pension I've got today.

Gonzo

That's the point. The pension scheme itself cannot be changed, apart from the Act of parliament, so contributions into the pension have to be changed. Some might say it's semantics. However, others might say that as soon as we, the workforce, voted in non-pensionables such as AAVAs, we already opened the door to non-pensionable salary.

Dee Mac

Gonzo thanks for your reply. So ... as I see it...

The scheme cannot be altered by NATS due to the legislation unless
A. The Act of Parliament is revisited and altered, or
B. We vote to accept changes -which are currently proposed.

Anyone feel free to step in and correct the above

But NATS have already said (for example) we (workforce) cannot increase our contributions due to the legislation !

???

eglnyt

The Transport Act protects the Trust Deed which governs the scheme. It effectively means that nobody can change any of the rules of the scheme without either an Act of Parliament or the agreement of everybody in the scheme.

However the Trust Deed always allowed NATS to decide what is pensionable pay so they can make that proposed change without changing the deed. They also don't need a Yes vote to make that change although obviously to do so against an overwhelming No vote would be a brave choice.

The Trust of Promise protects all those who were in the scheme in July 2001. The proposed changes are not contrary to that agreement because only new starters will be forced into the new scheme.

Prospect has already lost much of this battle in the Electricity industry where defined benefit pensions were closed to new joiners some time ago. There are still a lot of similarities between the two cases as they are both regulated industries. The regulator in both cases is suggesting that automatic pass through of pensions can not be defended and in the electricity case is even suggesting that the protection intended by Parliament should somehow be bought out. As a customer of the electricity industry I have an interest in that argument because I'm not happy to see my electricity bill rise for any reason and don't really care if it is to fund pensions or not. As a customer of NATS that nice gentleman who runs Ryanair probably has a similar view about his charges.

There is a whole heap of legislation and process surrounding the regulation of both industries and the idea that the Government can step in and just tell them to do something is laughable.

Not Long Now

DeeMac,
we cannot increase our contributions because of the no decrement clause, and upping our contributions is a decrement, unless as I understand it, every single member of the scheme agrees, which nobody seems to think is viable.

The scheme cannot be altered by NATS due to the legislation unless, there seems to be a C missing, which is, the company does it's best but just can't manage it due to severe financial difficulties or whatever, in which case it doesn't apply.

The current proposal doesn't alter the scheme as you still get the same benefit at the end, that is x 58th's of your final pensionable salary, but now not all your salary may be pensionable, just as AAVA's are not counted as pensionable now.

eglnyt

Dee Mac

I don't have access to the current version of the Trust Deed so I can't give you section numbers but, and this is from notes I made when somebody gave me access to an earlier version of the Trust Deed, Part 1 defines non pensionable earnings as:

Non-Pensionable Earnings means the aggregate of (1) that part (if any) of a Member’s remuneration from the Employers which is declared by the Employers to the Trustees to be non-pensionable and (2) the value of any benefits in kind received by the Member from the Employers.

In subsequent parts of the Deed which define benefits non pensionable earnings are excluded so by declaring a part of the renumeration to be non pensionable NATS can make the change. They've previously done this for a whole variety of payments including apparently AAVAs. (My grade doesn't get those so I've never taken much interest in the agreement). You would need to check the latest version of the Deed to be sure but it is unlikely that section has changed. I had expected people to ask to see the Trust Deed at the meetings but it hasn't appeared on NATSNET yet.

Not Long Now's option C doesn't apply to the Trust Deed. Nobody can change it without an Act of Parliament or agreement of every member regardless of the state of NATS. But the Deed does cover in great detail what the Trustees have to do in those circumstances and closing down the scheme is an option.

Option C does apply to the Trust of Promise which contains clauses limiting it's effect if NATS is in financial trouble. That document was recently published on NATSNET if you wish to read it.

eglnyt

"damn good chance of losing me a lot of income during my retirement"

Are you sure ? One thing I'm struggling to understand is the apparent contradiction between NATS as the nasty face of capitalism continuously exploiting its staff and the belief that the same organisation will agree to pay rises well above RPI in the future. How much you think you will lose in retirement depends on what figure you put in the modeller. The more optimistic you are the more you think you will lose. I don't have a crystal ball but I can't see how any organisation subject to an RPI-x income regime could pay much above RPI however much it might want to unless traffic growth was far higher than anybody realistically thinks. If you put realistic figures in the modeller you lose far less and are still much better off than anybody on the new defined contribution scheme.

For those of us who may be made redundant before our 40 years the current modeller is actually only half the story. What is also needed is a modeller which says how our pension is affected if we don't contribute for as many years. That has a huge effect on what we might get paid on retirement and against that the losses caused by the RPI + 0.5 limit will look very modest.

Del Prado

the only time we'd see significant pay rises is if we gave significant productivity increases, 'selling the family jewels*' was how someone put it earlier.
A few examples might be reduction in annual leave, individual rostering, longer hours or split shifts. would these be in return for extra spine points (and if so would that then be outside the RPI+0.5 cap) or would they be % increases (and therefore fall within the cap)?


*that may have been crown jewels

pelagic

"For those of us who may be made redundant before our 40 years the current modeller is actually only half the story. What is also needed is a modeller which says how our pension is affected if we don't contribute for as many years. "

Right on the button - ATSAs take note!

ZOOKER

"Significant productivity increases"
What, Whiteley staff having to attend 2 meetings a day?
LACC doing 26 an hour?

mr.777

Any news regarding the "Special Meeting" called by our brothers and sisters up the road at ScOACC?? Heard something about at work yesterday...

Stupendous Man

There will be a special delegates conference held just before the ADC next month. (The day before or morning before I think)
Motions can be submitted in the usual way.