MACC move worries
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MACC move worries
After listening to colleague worries over the last few weeks, and knowing that managers read these forums, I thought I’d air some of them and see if there’s any reaction; and please-no criticisms from those who are unaffected.
With the current and unforeseen recession, some colleagues are extremely concerned about the negative equity they will find themselves in with the move to NPC. Houses, flats etc bought before the economic downturn, and subsequent landslide in values, will put staff into large amounts of negative equity as GSP figures reflect current market saleable value instead of either mortgage value or value pre-recession. Figures can be overhead and openly discussed of amounts ranging from £20,000 to £90,000. Some of these mortgages were taken out by people either new to the unit or by people hoping to better their chances of finding comparable properties in the move or even by staff with expanding families. Some staff have said the move will now effectively bankrupt them; with the only apparent NATS remedy being an interest free loan over 3-5 years. For some that represents an unaffordable amount to repay in that period.
Offers made and accepted on property within the NPC catchment area are now found to be in excess of the current saleable value due to the economic downturn; meaning that up to a year before the move some staff are already into a negative equity situation before they move and in some cases before their new property is even finished, even though NATS encourage early moving.
In this atmosphere people are beginning to question the legality of whether NATS can force employees to relocate in the knowledge that it will effectively (no exaggeration) bankrupt them or at least force them into such a massively adverse financial situation which would not have occurred if a recession had not appeared. Any current negative equity staff may find themselves in would, of course, have no meaning if they were not in a position of having to sell because of an employer’s decision to close the unit. This situation will of course be made worse by the impending change to redundancy terms which will take effect at the time of the move. Good timing that one!
Staff thoughts;
Redundancy. The legal definition;
‘The statutory definition provides that the dismissal must be attributable wholly or mainly to the fact that:
• The employer has ceased, or intends to cease, completely or in an employment place, to carry on the business for the purposes for which the employee was employed; or
• The requirements of the business for the employee to carry out work of a particular kind, completely or in a particular place, has ceased or diminished, or is expected to. ‘
It seems to most staff that the legal definition does indeed apply in this case, the ‘mobility clause’ being subject to legal challenge.
Constructive Dismissal. Definition;
‘ If you're forced to quit your job because of the way you're treated, it's called constructive dismissal. Although there's no actual dismissal by the employer, the end result is the same as if you'd been sacked. It's often very hard to prove that your employer's behaviour was so bad as to make you leave, so you should get legal advice before leaving your job.
The reason for leaving your job must be serious - there must be a fundamental breach of your contract. Examples include:
a serious breach of your contract (eg not paying you or suddenly demoting you for no reason)
forcing you to accept unreasonable changes to your conditions of employment without your agreement (eg telling you to work in another town, or making you work night shifts when your contract is only for day work)
bullying, harassment or violence against you by work colleagues
making you work in dangerous conditions
The employer's breach of contract may be one serious incident or the last in a series of less important incidents that are serious when taken together.’
Again, in the second instance, the term seems to apply to the MACC case where an adverse financial effect due to recession would definitely result because of a relocation.
Whilst the whole banding dispute (which of course is not helping in this instance) has not gone away and will shortly be tested legally, these other concerns (redundancy and constructive dismissal) cannot effectively be legally tested until notices of posting have been issued. MACC staff believe that these will commence in the beginning of the new year; at which point these other issues will then be open to legal challenge.
Could the recession give NATS the chance or ‘excuse’ to delay the move for ‘business reasons’, thus allowing property prices to somewhat recover and make the move less painful for staff?
Wouldn’t dream of suggesting it.
With the current and unforeseen recession, some colleagues are extremely concerned about the negative equity they will find themselves in with the move to NPC. Houses, flats etc bought before the economic downturn, and subsequent landslide in values, will put staff into large amounts of negative equity as GSP figures reflect current market saleable value instead of either mortgage value or value pre-recession. Figures can be overhead and openly discussed of amounts ranging from £20,000 to £90,000. Some of these mortgages were taken out by people either new to the unit or by people hoping to better their chances of finding comparable properties in the move or even by staff with expanding families. Some staff have said the move will now effectively bankrupt them; with the only apparent NATS remedy being an interest free loan over 3-5 years. For some that represents an unaffordable amount to repay in that period.
Offers made and accepted on property within the NPC catchment area are now found to be in excess of the current saleable value due to the economic downturn; meaning that up to a year before the move some staff are already into a negative equity situation before they move and in some cases before their new property is even finished, even though NATS encourage early moving.
In this atmosphere people are beginning to question the legality of whether NATS can force employees to relocate in the knowledge that it will effectively (no exaggeration) bankrupt them or at least force them into such a massively adverse financial situation which would not have occurred if a recession had not appeared. Any current negative equity staff may find themselves in would, of course, have no meaning if they were not in a position of having to sell because of an employer’s decision to close the unit. This situation will of course be made worse by the impending change to redundancy terms which will take effect at the time of the move. Good timing that one!
Staff thoughts;
Redundancy. The legal definition;
‘The statutory definition provides that the dismissal must be attributable wholly or mainly to the fact that:
• The employer has ceased, or intends to cease, completely or in an employment place, to carry on the business for the purposes for which the employee was employed; or
• The requirements of the business for the employee to carry out work of a particular kind, completely or in a particular place, has ceased or diminished, or is expected to. ‘
It seems to most staff that the legal definition does indeed apply in this case, the ‘mobility clause’ being subject to legal challenge.
Constructive Dismissal. Definition;
‘ If you're forced to quit your job because of the way you're treated, it's called constructive dismissal. Although there's no actual dismissal by the employer, the end result is the same as if you'd been sacked. It's often very hard to prove that your employer's behaviour was so bad as to make you leave, so you should get legal advice before leaving your job.
The reason for leaving your job must be serious - there must be a fundamental breach of your contract. Examples include:
a serious breach of your contract (eg not paying you or suddenly demoting you for no reason)
forcing you to accept unreasonable changes to your conditions of employment without your agreement (eg telling you to work in another town, or making you work night shifts when your contract is only for day work)
bullying, harassment or violence against you by work colleagues
making you work in dangerous conditions
The employer's breach of contract may be one serious incident or the last in a series of less important incidents that are serious when taken together.’
Again, in the second instance, the term seems to apply to the MACC case where an adverse financial effect due to recession would definitely result because of a relocation.
Whilst the whole banding dispute (which of course is not helping in this instance) has not gone away and will shortly be tested legally, these other concerns (redundancy and constructive dismissal) cannot effectively be legally tested until notices of posting have been issued. MACC staff believe that these will commence in the beginning of the new year; at which point these other issues will then be open to legal challenge.
Could the recession give NATS the chance or ‘excuse’ to delay the move for ‘business reasons’, thus allowing property prices to somewhat recover and make the move less painful for staff?
Wouldn’t dream of suggesting it.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Home
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have sympathy for anyone who is forced to tear up roots in one place and move to somewhere they wouldn't really choose to be in order to keep their job...
However!
When you sign a contract in which you agree that you, "...are liable for transfer to any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the course of [your] employment." Then it's pretty clear that your employer is operating well within the terms of your contract to give you fair notice of a posting to another part of the UK.
On that basis, suggesting that you may have grounds for constructive dismissal based on an employer's breach of contract - when it is the employer who is applying the terms of the contract and you (theoretically) the employee who seeks to circumvent them... well can you really see a court supporting that?
That aside - there are some issues relating to the financial administration of a relocation in such difficult times. My first thought was that surely more people will seek to rent, rather than buy for the moment and wait on the market recovering.
I do know that there have been a few furrowed brows looking at the hit the company has taken on sales at reduced prices (under GSP)
I really think the guys at Manchester need to stop expending energy fighting the right of the company to move them - you ain't going to win - and concentrate on the detail of how the company works with you to ensure you are no worse off because they chose to move you at a time of recession.
However!
When you sign a contract in which you agree that you, "...are liable for transfer to any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the course of [your] employment." Then it's pretty clear that your employer is operating well within the terms of your contract to give you fair notice of a posting to another part of the UK.
On that basis, suggesting that you may have grounds for constructive dismissal based on an employer's breach of contract - when it is the employer who is applying the terms of the contract and you (theoretically) the employee who seeks to circumvent them... well can you really see a court supporting that?
That aside - there are some issues relating to the financial administration of a relocation in such difficult times. My first thought was that surely more people will seek to rent, rather than buy for the moment and wait on the market recovering.
I do know that there have been a few furrowed brows looking at the hit the company has taken on sales at reduced prices (under GSP)
I really think the guys at Manchester need to stop expending energy fighting the right of the company to move them - you ain't going to win - and concentrate on the detail of how the company works with you to ensure you are no worse off because they chose to move you at a time of recession.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's at least one case back in the 80's when the mobility clause was tested at an industrial tribunal after a member of NATS/CAA staff resigned when posted from a regional part of the country to West Drayton. Some of the legislation will have changed a bit since then but at that time the tribunal considered only whether or not the application of the mobility clause was fair and reasonable. Its main consideration when doing that was whether there were good and legitimate business reasons for the move. Unfortunately in that case the tribunal ruled against the individual even though to some of us the business reasons seemed rather weak and obviously contrived. A rationalisation of centres is a far stronger business reason than those considered reasonable back then.
It is also worth bearing in mind that if your place of work is closed down the company actually has an obligation to consider re-location to avoid redundancy.
During the Field Engineering move to Spectrum House in the mid 90s there were some staff with a similar negative equity problem. It didn't affect me so I didn't pay much attention but I think the interest free loan was the eventual concession there.
It is also worth bearing in mind that if your place of work is closed down the company actually has an obligation to consider re-location to avoid redundancy.
During the Field Engineering move to Spectrum House in the mid 90s there were some staff with a similar negative equity problem. It didn't affect me so I didn't pay much attention but I think the interest free loan was the eventual concession there.
it due to the current financial situation okJoin Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sunny South
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As with the above posts, I sympathise with the guys n girls who may lose out with the move North.
However, having looked at constructive dismissal (and various other ways to get some justice from my last employer) you really have to have a watertight case and have followed a strict set of procedures before any lawyer will even consider your case. Unfortunatley for you Manch guys, the fact that you are on a mobile contract and, as stated earlier, your employer is obligated to offer relocation when closing/moving premises, which they have, means you dont have a case at all.
However, having looked at constructive dismissal (and various other ways to get some justice from my last employer) you really have to have a watertight case and have followed a strict set of procedures before any lawyer will even consider your case. Unfortunatley for you Manch guys, the fact that you are on a mobile contract and, as stated earlier, your employer is obligated to offer relocation when closing/moving premises, which they have, means you dont have a case at all.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: middle earth
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a lot of people will just not move house, see if they can ride the storm out, and rent a bedsit up there, meaning they will do a whole lot of commuting. This in turn will mean that NATS will not be able to rely on the usual people to do AVAs, as they will be back on the M6 to see their families; more people will be sick/ tired/ late for work; and in the in the 1 to 1s in the near future nobody will have a clue what they are doing, so will be unable or unwilling to commit to NPC. Why should they? They haven't had the decency to tell the ATSAs how many of them will have a job yet.
The rumours of a bung are rife, will it be 5 grand will it be 80, nobody knows, it may well be nada, or may be announced so late that everybody already left. I am quite sure the Airline group have not been told about the potentially catastrophic delays they will face if MACC goes up with 70 controllers, although the credit crunch may help paint over that if airlines keep pulling routes and going bust.
Some employees at MACC, as above, are finding that the GSP will simply wipe out any equity they had, if not even producing negative equity (IE deposit), and as such they simply cannot afford to move. Nobody in their right minds would think of selling in the next 9-12 months unless they were on bread and water. The TC move happened just in time for the controllers, and NATS are now sat on some negative lumps of property in the aftermath, they will not be risking that again, hence the horrendous GSPs that are being dolled out at the moment.
The move was already going to be difficult enough, will be an interesting few months ahead, can we pencil in a pension strike for O date? Oh, wait a minute, it's not a date is it, it's O month. A year to go, and the vagueness continues!
The rumours of a bung are rife, will it be 5 grand will it be 80, nobody knows, it may well be nada, or may be announced so late that everybody already left. I am quite sure the Airline group have not been told about the potentially catastrophic delays they will face if MACC goes up with 70 controllers, although the credit crunch may help paint over that if airlines keep pulling routes and going bust.
Some employees at MACC, as above, are finding that the GSP will simply wipe out any equity they had, if not even producing negative equity (IE deposit), and as such they simply cannot afford to move. Nobody in their right minds would think of selling in the next 9-12 months unless they were on bread and water. The TC move happened just in time for the controllers, and NATS are now sat on some negative lumps of property in the aftermath, they will not be risking that again, hence the horrendous GSPs that are being dolled out at the moment.
The move was already going to be difficult enough, will be an interesting few months ahead, can we pencil in a pension strike for O date? Oh, wait a minute, it's not a date is it, it's O month. A year to go, and the vagueness continues!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nowhere
Age: 53
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a few issues in here for me.
1. Why is this not being classed as a 'betterment' move, a quick google shows that house prices in the North West are falling at 10 - 15% but in Bonny Scotland only 5% - why should we have to fill in the gap?
2. Whats happened to our local Prospect Reps (as good blokes as they are). There was a central meeting on relocation issues last week that our managers attended and our local reps weren't invited to. Of course Prospect will say "well we had central reps there", fat lot of use they are to us at MACC as we are well aware of how they have 'looked after our interests'. If ever a meeting should have been attended by our reps this should have been it.
3. We should all be saying we're not doing anything PC related after the 1st Jan until they sort out these relocation issues. That means no MOPS workshops and other stuff in Scotland unless they can get us there and back in a 7 hour window that we would ordinarily be working.!
I get the whole move to Scotland thing. I'm not happy about it, but I have to move as I can't afford to pack my job in and I actually do enjoy shifting traffic. But I fail to see why I should be £100k out of pocket, which I will be as house prices in Scotlan aren't going down in proportion to the rest of the UK.
1. Why is this not being classed as a 'betterment' move, a quick google shows that house prices in the North West are falling at 10 - 15% but in Bonny Scotland only 5% - why should we have to fill in the gap?
2. Whats happened to our local Prospect Reps (as good blokes as they are). There was a central meeting on relocation issues last week that our managers attended and our local reps weren't invited to. Of course Prospect will say "well we had central reps there", fat lot of use they are to us at MACC as we are well aware of how they have 'looked after our interests'. If ever a meeting should have been attended by our reps this should have been it.
3. We should all be saying we're not doing anything PC related after the 1st Jan until they sort out these relocation issues. That means no MOPS workshops and other stuff in Scotland unless they can get us there and back in a 7 hour window that we would ordinarily be working.!
I get the whole move to Scotland thing. I'm not happy about it, but I have to move as I can't afford to pack my job in and I actually do enjoy shifting traffic. But I fail to see why I should be £100k out of pocket, which I will be as house prices in Scotlan aren't going down in proportion to the rest of the UK.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe "O" date will slip long enough to see things settle on the financial front?
I beleive its called "O" month now, perhaps it will go to "O" year which would also give our wonderful managers an excuse to delay things which would benefit you guys at Manch and help them out of a mess
Good luck anyway and dont settle for second best, you have them over a barrel and without you guys they can't open PC
I beleive its called "O" month now, perhaps it will go to "O" year which would also give our wonderful managers an excuse to delay things which would benefit you guys at Manch and help them out of a mess
Good luck anyway and dont settle for second best, you have them over a barrel and without you guys they can't open PC
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Nowhere
Age: 53
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the other thing I hear is that Cartus who get to buy our propoerties are on the brink of financial metdown, which is driving their decsion in paying us peranuts for our houses.
Given the credit crunch and the banks inability to lend money out, its hardly surprising that Cartus are struggling to attrcat investment that specialises in buying houses and selling them on at a profit. hardly a great business model in the current economic climate. Ergo, Cartus pay us the lowest amount of money they can possibly pay us. They sell lower than they pay us and NATS picks up the difference, thus NATS wants the lowest possible price as well.
Whilst I appreciate fully, I shouldn't be turning my move to Scotland into a money making venture for me - I think I am entitled to a fair price for my house and to pay a fair price at the other end. It seems by the time Cartus and NATS have fininshed de-risking their business, we are left with the S***y end of the stick.
Given the credit crunch and the banks inability to lend money out, its hardly surprising that Cartus are struggling to attrcat investment that specialises in buying houses and selling them on at a profit. hardly a great business model in the current economic climate. Ergo, Cartus pay us the lowest amount of money they can possibly pay us. They sell lower than they pay us and NATS picks up the difference, thus NATS wants the lowest possible price as well.
Whilst I appreciate fully, I shouldn't be turning my move to Scotland into a money making venture for me - I think I am entitled to a fair price for my house and to pay a fair price at the other end. It seems by the time Cartus and NATS have fininshed de-risking their business, we are left with the S***y end of the stick.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Destination 22
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
without you guys they can't open PC
The ocean can be moved in quite easily as all their kit is new and working (now!) and everyone is checked out on it. So unlike MACC - who have to move up - and the airways ops room - who need OCT for the new (to us anyway) kit - the Oceanic guys can move across the car park and start working whenever our glorious leaders decide.
And there will be much rejoycing and singing at CTC / NATSnet about how PC has opened on time - despite most of the staff and sectors not being in it.
But maybe I'm just being cynical.....
PC "O" date, isn't necessarily the same as MACC "close" date.
They are pushing their luck to close MACC in Jan 2010, given the amount of training required & resources available.
No structure is in place for how the MACC corner will be managed, no plans have been revealed for any ATSAs / grades / method of OPS etc.
Any wiff of trouble over Pensions or re-location hassle could see the whole thing go tits up yet.
They are pushing their luck to close MACC in Jan 2010, given the amount of training required & resources available.
No structure is in place for how the MACC corner will be managed, no plans have been revealed for any ATSAs / grades / method of OPS etc.
Any wiff of trouble over Pensions or re-location hassle could see the whole thing go tits up yet.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: South of UK
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of interest (sorry for the thread creep), does MACC remain a unit in its own right when co-located at Prestwick Centre with ScACC, (like LTC and LAC at Swanwick), or will the MACC sectors become part of ScACC?
RS
RS
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BD
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the bright side just think of the advantages of moving up north!! the quality of life here in the sunny north will by far compensate for the money you may lose ( though to be honest with the talk of bungs I guess you will not be out of pocket as us up here may be out of jobs!!!)
Integrated centre???????? 
single unit in name only.
MACC sectors will be in their own zone tucked away in one corner.
May as well put a wall around it.
All the fancy integrated plans went tits up when they realised they dont have enough ATCOs.
single unit in name only.MACC sectors will be in their own zone tucked away in one corner.
May as well put a wall around it.
All the fancy integrated plans went tits up when they realised they dont have enough ATCOs.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Northern Prison
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The gloomy move
Let me throw this into the ring. When it comes to OCT training MACC should refuse, citing the companies inability to address its employees financial concerns. If people have to move with negative equity against their will, cause NATS has them over a barrel, then the potential for sickness could dramitically increase. From a HF point of view the stress and strain of this situation on peoples home life would make it easy to get signed off long term sick. spouses/partners having to quit their jobs, children moving away from their friends and moving to a country you don't want to live in, throw in the fact that as a result of the move you are in a worse financial situation and have to change your standard of living. I'm surprised there aren't people off now. This whole situation is extremely unhealthy, and has the potential to be very dangerous with controllers distracted, tired and worried while plugged in.
On the plus its nearly christmas
On the plus its nearly christmas