Must be a girly type with a name like that :E

Around 30 voluntary redundancies will be announced at MACC/ScOACC shortly, with at least another 30 to follow. Mostly from ATSA staff.

I think you mean Technical and Scientific Services of which I believe Operational Analysis, Asset Engineering and Quality Assurance are part (although P. Baron's recent news article makes the T&SS division redundant).

The powers that be are looking for Operational Analysis to lose 7 people (10%) although I think they only recently got reduced by 10%...so I guess that's really 20%.
Not sure how many QA and AE, but I believe this is also supposed to be about 10%. Interestingly Operational Analysis are generally speaking on STAR grades which are some of the lowest in the organisation.

The email was up to 22 Vr's in the ATSA grade at Swanwick TC/AC of which a stampede is expected. Curious thing is though how can this progress, as overtime is still going on within the AC ops room even in winter. This is surely a sticking point which the unions should follow up on. Or is it a case of out with the old.....4 months later bring in new personel as short staffed and on a "contract" and no pension liabilities.
Now.... i can't remember nats laying atsas off to recruit 4 months later....:E:E:E bit like the economy, cyclycle and people never learn.
Oh and a way to save money. ..the 2 new director post RB has added, and 5 Safety managers along with the WM's cut to 2 each.(being kind)......that would save ...(directors £120k+pension cont= £150k each(conservative guess) 3 safety managers +3 WM's £100k+pension cont... low and behold £1.05m not a bad start and would not be missed. Some might say 5 WM's and Safety managers= even bigger savings:ok::ok:

Yahoo

We could easily (at swanwick) get rid of all of the Training and Safety Managers (5). They are only duplicating what is already done by a GS/LAS training manager and a GS/LAS Safety manager on the watches.

The Ops managers (a layer above watch supervisors) - cut 'em down from 5 to 3. One to cover mornings, one afternoons, one to cover a core day, say from 9-4. They can rotate shifts amongst themselves.

The one covering the afternoon shift is on call overnight and at weekends (that's one in 3 weekends on call - still less than shift workers). This allows for leave to be taken as well.


The people in the above posts are all PCGs - removing their posts is extremly easy because of that fact. These cuts would save even more than 45 before POL's idea and is extremely workable.

It's not pie in the sky knee-jerk, it is a totally workable solution.

Also, has anyone else noticed that the great OS&I dept has been reshuffled, yet again, and that a manager who did not perform so well has been given a sideways move into a new managerial post. This was announced 6 days ago. So much for saving money!!

Has it gone up from 45 to 60, or is that a mistake? My nephew works there and was told last month 30 this year and 15 next year.

I'm all for thinning out jobs that are not required - as any business should do on a continual basis, but how do they arrive at the number of ATSAs they are asking for at Swanwick?

Are they all operational ATSAs?

Operational ATSAs are essential to safety - our number one priority. How come we can suddenly afford to lose so many without impacting on service delivery?

If we truly can lose so many without an impact on service delivery, why has it taken a recession for management to take this step?

If we can lose so many operational ATSAs, just how many non-Ops staff does that mean we truly don't need?

If we have been grossly overstaffed, then the heads of management should roll for being incompetent.

I just hope that once the dust settles, we are left with good ATSAs... there are a couple on the watch I am on in TC who would not be missed - generally the younger ones.

Unfortunately the older ones (who at least on my watch) tend to be more diligent, are probably the ones who will find VR terms more atractive - especially with rental allowances coming to an end this year after the TC move from WD.

We almost certainly can't afford to lose that many at the moment but in a post i-facts world it's a different story. In Asset Engineering staff have to agree to go by the end of March but won't necessarily go until their current projects are complete. NATS will make special provision for those redundancies from whatever profit is left this year and therefore avoid paying some tax but the people may go sometime later. The same may well apply to the ATSAs, they may not go until later in the year.

How many non valid ATCOs does NATS have and how many do we need? Each is expensive compared with engineers etc., who are being asked to take the brunt of the VRs. Arguably it's non/less technical staff who do the jobs at CTC that many here bleat about, but they aren’t the ones being pinpointed for VRs.

I appreciate that ops staff do a vital job that is the core of NATS, but remember that without the engineers you would never get your equipment, and everything out there like radars, updated or fixed. It takes a lot of (CTC) people to do all that and write all the documents that the UK and EC regulators demand. I’d love not to have to write another report, but someone has to do it or the regulators would close us down. Could the non valid ATCOs do it after 20+ years of rarely/never having to write long reports?

It’s 7.30 pm and some are still here at CTC, probaly having worked a 9-10 hour day with very short breaks to write to pprune, etc.

The problem with making valid ATCOs redundant is that you also have to stop all training as these trainees will replace the now redundant ATCOs. And that is illegal I believe. So valid ATCOs are generally safe. Even units which are probably overbearing due to the fall off of traffic cannot loose ATCOs as if there is an increase you cannot bring any trainees in for 3 years I think. However this may be complete rubbish so I await someone who knows a lot more to post so that I can be educated as well.

TR

If the company was to ask for volunteers within the ATCO community for redundancy, then would this not get round the fact we are still recruiting and training?

If no volunteers came forward, then NATS would not be able to just bin people, but a volunteer is a volunteer? I could be wrong.

The facts are that there is a downturn in traffic at the moment - if (supposition), a load of ATCOs who were 2 or 3 years from normal retirement volunteered to go early, it would not really impact on the company.

This is because when traffic rises again (which it will) in a couple of years time, the current college trainees will be just validating at units. The ATCOs who volunteered would have been retiring anyways, so would not have been able to cover the return of traffic!

The problem would lie if ATCOs with quite a few years left to retirement left on VR, then in 2 years time we would be down that number, plus the natural losses through retirement. We would then be playing catch up - something the chaps and chappesses at Heathrow tower could tell you about - still suffering 20 odd years after a large (shortsighted) cut in ATCO numbers.

fchan

You have a valid point - but the majority of Non valid ATCOs we have are in posts of such seniority that the pay is not ATCO pay as such, but PCG. The pay wouldhave been at about that level whoever was in post.
They (ex ATCOs) are generally in those posts because a prerequisite is to have been a valid ATCO. Most of those types of job have (quite rightly because of the knowledge required) that prerequisite.

The real question is not who should fill them, but which of those posts are actually required e.g. at Swanwick, do we really need 5 (or any) Safety and Training Managers (to give just one example from many)?

If no, then what becomes of the people in the jobs? Do we take them back into Ops rooms to try and re-validate them (when we are trying to cut costs), or do we show them the door, which is perfectly legal with PCGs?

The problem those people have is they chose to stick their head above the parapet when they took a PCG. Many a wise ATCO has stated that when you give up your license, you are losing a fair bit of protection. It may be galling to some, but ATCOs with a licence are fairly well protected because of the nature of the job.

These aren't good times and I don't like seeing anyone losing their jobs, but NATS needs to streamline, and has done since well before the current financial climate kicked in.

(Management - take note) - Streamlining does not mean getting rid of people/roles that are required in a mindless cost cutting exercise, but does mean evaluating roles and numbers correctly and then adjusting employee numbers. Unfortunately, this is not something that NATS has historically been good at.

I think TR has this right. Redunancy is redunancy wether voluntary or not. It is the position that is being made reduntant, not the person. Hence it would be illegal to hire any more staff with the same job description and title.

Anotherthing - that is one of the best well reasoned posts that I have read on here for sometime:ok:

Glamdring -

I'm not sure about the legalities - you may well be correct... I had been informed by a well placed rep that any ATCO redundancies would be through VR (if any).
I assumed that if this was the case then what I stated must be a possible way of making it above board.

Of course, we could ask for ATCO area VRs and recruit trainees for Tower/APP... then realise (in huge inverted commas obviously), that we got the numbers wrong and we now need to change the stream from TWR to Area!!!

Or, if we are really being pedants - if we were to get a qualified ATCO to VR, is a trainee ATCO really considered the same?

After all, the trainee would not be a direct replacement for the post which has been closed via VR, but is in fact recruitment in anticipation of a new post/requirement in 2 or 3 years time... If we only need 100 ATCOs now, but need 120 in 2 years time, are those extra 20 new posts, or posts which have lain dormant for 2 years?

My head hurts...

To stop companies using fake redundancies as a way of avoiding unfair dismissal claims somebody subject to compulsory redundancy can claim unfair dismissal if the post is filled too quickly. In voluntary redundancy scenarios those rules don't come into play. As long as it is a truly voluntary agreement the employee will have agreed to leave and therefore waive any right to claim unfair dismissal. NATS can quite legally move people into the holes created and has made no secret of the fact that it will do so if that is the most effective way of making the savings.

We were told that a business case will have to be completed for every person that goes. Will those only 2 or 3 years away from retirement make enough saving to justify the cost ? And of course they won't impact at all on CP3 costs which according to PB's e-mail is one of the drivers for this.

NATS will be skating on thin ice if they get rid of any ATCOs. It will be short term gain for long term pain in my opinion. We're still bringing in AAVA's at ScOACC, we're in the winter season of staff sickness, the economy will recover in time and the airlines will too, albeit leaner and better prepared for the future. If you cut staff numbers now, there will be no opportunity to release controllers from rostered positions to cross train so they will go into the summer and beyond still holding only one or two validations. Without a bit of slack in staff numbers you're not going to get people trained so that they can replace ATCOs at normal retirement date and over the next few years here at Scottish there are going to be quite a few of those who hold multiple validations. :hmm:

Before you get rid of any down there, could you send them up here? We'll need a net gain of 15-20 over the next 6 years if we get another strip of tarmac.:}

How much would an ATCO get if they did take voluntary redundancy, and what would happen if an ATCO took VR 20 years before pensionable age, what would that cost NATS, would they be able to, could they take VR and then bugger off to Canada/Dubai. It is not even an option for me I am just curious.

NATS staff
 

You will find a redundancy payment calculator on NATSNET.

Maybe its time for NATS/HMG to admit the private side isn't working, and indeed that it should never have been part privatised. I have never known morale to be as low at work as it is now. Unforunately nothing is likely to wake HMG up until and if something really serious does occur, but by then of course it will be too late :(
Morale at Northern Rock however is the highest it has ever been, and they cant cope with the demand for business :oh:.
Amazing how things can improve when you are state owned.