anotherthing

You are getting confused Roffa.

Lets take the case of someone who wants to vote no as an example.

The majority of people vote 'yes' - the changes come in.

The person in question has to accept the vote - they cannot strike, they cannot take any industrial action whatsoever.

They can give up extra validations, stop doing AAVA's/overtime, stop doing extra curricular activities (meetings etc).

That is not industrial action per se. It is not 'throwing their toys out of the pram'. It is that person saying that they will no longer assist a company that has drastically reduced their potential pension (deferred pay), by doing things for nothing.

All the activities I have listed above are done on 'goodwill', even to an extent AAVA's which are actually, if you are on or near top of the scale, not even time and a half.

They save the company money. How much do you think the company saves by having people do AAVA's and extra sectors? I can bet you it is several million pounds per year.

This is a dog eat dog world nowadays, why should anyone give precious spare time to a company for nothing??

Working to the letter of your contract is not 'throwing your toys out of the pram'.

Expecting financial reward for doing work over and above your contract is not 'throwing your toys out of the pram'.

It's not rocket science!

Roffa

Fair enough.

I look forward then to the first person who withdraws their goodwill having a whinge about not being allowed to go on an EG, or get that extra column's leave at a weekend that is over and above the requirement in the WPP etc. If you want to effectively work to rule then it's not unreasonable to assume the company will play the same game.

It's a two way street.

alfie1999

You've stomped right in to a minefield there mate.

eglnyt

Yes if you read my post 1699 I said that

Yes but if it could be considered as industrial action there are a number of pre-requisites including a properly constituted ballot for that action to be official. If it's unofficial you can still do it but you won't enjoy any of the protections that come with the official tag.

Actually it might be. The relevant legislation is not very specific as to what constitutes industrial action so without very detailed knowledge of previous cases and perhaps a court judgement you won't know

mr.777

I think you'll find that working your full hours (no EGs etc) and other such things, are things that people would be prepared to sacrifice. I certainly would be. As you, correctly point out, it IS a 2 way street.

Vote NO

eglnyt

I think most of us old timers would agree that NATS is not the company it was since PB took "control".
Basically we dont like what has happened to NATS over the past few years, and as such it is preferable to take our well earned days off, instead of coming in to meetings and keeping the company afloat by doing AAVA/ overtime. Make no mistake, NATS would flounder if ATCO/ATSA did not man the sectors on our days off. NATS can no longer operate efficiently, in profit, without goodwill/aava/overtime.
If we choose not to come in on our days off, then that is our right and legal choice. We are not in the Military and are therefore not bound by Military legislation. The "ball breaker" is the Pension loss.

anotherthing

Roffa

Having had a career before NATS, I can assure you giving up the odd half hour early-go is not a hardship. Maybe to some molly coddled people it will be.

Early Go's are a privilege, not a right. As for an extra leave column... doesn't happen at my unit

alfie1999

eglnyt,

Please provide evidence to back up your suggestions that withdrawing from a purely voluntary individual arrangement could be in any way construed as industrial action.

If you'd been voluntarily helping out the company by working to 1730 (extra time unpaid) for a few months but then decided to start finishing at your contracted time of 1700 would this be construed as unofficial industrial action?

PPRuNe Radar

No objection to working full hours, it happens 99% of the time now anyway, so it's no skin off my nose. But also expect no leeway on the minor duty over runs and enhanced hours/SRATCOH busts which I experience from time to time. It can most definitely become a two way street, with the full backing of legislation to report such instances on my part.

The AAVA agreement is voluntary ... therefore if I withdraw my participation, what will I be charged with in legislation ?

Attending meetings or projects on my rostered days off are not compulsory ... therefore if I withdraw my participation, what will I be charged with in legislation ?

Holding validations over the MUR, which I do not require to hold since they are not compulsory, might present competency maintenance issues for me and in accordance with the Local Competency Scheme agreed with the Regulator I am quite entitled as a licence holder to restrict my competencies to the MUR ... therefore if I withdraw my extra validations, what will I be charged with in legislation ?

Deciding that a sector must be either adequately manned or alternatively has an appropriate regulation put in place to contain traffic to a safe single person operating traffic volume is not only wise, but also well within my rights to expect as a licence holder ... or for me to expect to provide to my staff if I am carrying out supervisor duties. Therefore if I insist on agreed staffing measures, which have presumably been put in place for safety reasons, what will I be charged with in legislation ?

I can't wait for my local management to threaten me with something all because I am abiding by the detail of my working contract and rules and procedures which have been agreed with SRG.

That's exactly my philosophy in a nutshell. I'll abide by the majority vote, whatever that may be, and live with the pension decisions and the next steps which occur. But if I end up being penalised in the long run, then I see no need to continue to go the extra mile to help out and continue to provide the bonuses and give an easy ride to those in the company who see fit to make my terms and conditions worse. They have had many many years of the benefits due to NATS staff goodwill, meaning that the drastic staff shortages and resource issues have been papered over with relatively cheap labour and no impetus on them to resolve the underlying issues. And now they expect me to continue to help them out of that hole for the odd crumb while they screw around with something which is a major long term benefit of working for NATS ? Find someone else who is gullible

PeltonLevel

Not wishing to be picky, but:

eglnyt

As evidence I can only point you to the relevant legislation of which there is a great deal. It is not specific about what is industrial action but there is no doubt that action short of a strike, what we used to call working to rule, is. What counts as action short of a strike is open to interpretation.

In your example if you give up for purely personal reasons then it isn't industrial action. However if you and your colleagues give up and tell NATS that you are doing so in support of a grievance then it almost certainly is. If you carry out that action without following the prescribed path then it's unofficial action. There's a whole range of options between those two points that only expert legal opinion can give advice on. It's a difficult call if for instance if you give up for personal reasons against a background of industrial unrest.

Unofficial action is not illegal but taking unofficial action removes a lot of the protection you enjoy as an employee. You lose most of your unfair dismissal protection and could be sued by customers for subsequent loss. If this ends up as a dispute then it's in every body's interests to act as directed by the union and ensure that any action is official. That is the point I was trying to make with my first post.

I am surprised at the number of people posting here who think that UK law is logical, fair or that you have rights. I'm afraid that isn't often the case. Often when legislation talks about the rights of the worker it's actually really a limit. For example your right to be consulted on industrial action is the part of the legislation that sets very specific ballot requirements which actually act to limit your ability to withdraw your labour.

I seem to be in a time warp. My last post at 17:24 is shown as 09:15

alfie1999

Pelton,

Can you provide a reference that we can use to confirm your claim that not doing voluntary aava's or not holding extra unpaid voluntary validations is classed as 'working-to-rule' and as such industrial action.

In the abscence of any facts could you give us some of your reasoning.

alfie1999

Thank you.

PeltonLevel

alfie1999
I guess that if you do it before there is a dispute, you may be OK (and however heated the discussion on this thread is getting, we aren't yet in dispute, and won't be until management decide to impose a change without any agreement).
I was wondering whether industrial action in support of people who haven't yet joined would be legal. Any suggestions?

alfie1999

PL,

I agree with you that talking about industrial action is unnecessarily inflaming an already tetchy thread.

As for your second point I can't say i've given it too much thought; I think that the RPI cap is the real burning issue for most staff from conversations i've had rather than the pension change for new joiners. Others may have different priorities of course.

As for my own views on industrial action, it's something that i'd want to avoid at all reasonable costs.

eglnyt

There are a number of ongoing industrial disputes including the University of Sussex which would suggest that action against a proposal to close the scheme to new joiners can be legal and official.

Track Jitter

It is not mandatory to work overtime or any other form of additional attendance.

JuniorX

Just a point on giving up validations above MUR. If you work at TC (as I do) and you decide that, for example, you no longer wish to hold TC North and Capital and wish to revert to MUR, management would surely have to accept your wish. However operational reasons may dictate that your Capital validation is more vital and would rather you drop North. This would mean that you would now be below MUR and required to train on another sector to get back to the MUR you have to hold.

I know this won't always be the case, but I do think it is something management may do, and I think it's something that they would legally able to do? After all, it's their job to get the correct validations in the room as far as possible.

Northerner

Just to confirm that I believe Junior X has it spot on, certainly for TC, and I think for AC too. You can decide that you no longer wish to hold extra validations, but it is then up to the management to decide what it is that you drop.

Cheers,
N

"Keep smiling, it makes people wonder what you're up to..."

Vote NO

Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll

Poll Results latest


NO ....82%....98

YES....18%....22

Looking conclusive so far......and remember this, Management have gone from "there is no other option if you vote no" to "It depends on the size of the No Vote" ... FACT not fiction ! So what does that tell you? Basically, they have another option and have been , lets say, economical with some of the facts and will be caught out if the no vote prevails!

Ask yourself, how safe will my job be if this deal goes through and NATS is sold off ?

If you vote yes, you are a turkey voting for XMAS




Vote Here
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php

VOTE NO

MERRY XMAS