250Kts

you are correct, there are limits to conspiracy - not trusting the count maybe going a bit far, but to answer two of your points..

The figures prove the pension will need more money thrown at it to keep it viable. No one disputes that fact. It's the ability or not (or willingness) of NATS to cover the extra cost which is the whole point of the ballot.

Again, correct... but it was only after the latest valuation (bearing in mind the downturn started at the end of last summer) that the Unions got rid of the OneNATSOnePension stance (without communicating the fact to the members). Therefore the goalposts did not move until the downturn began.

The ballot forms are to be returned to Prospect who have not exactly been unbiased in this matter and the forms have an individual serial number on them.

The question is why aren't we using an independent body.

And what guarantee do we have that there won't be a list of NO voters compiled.

Someone asked a few posts ago if the ballot was being run by Robert Mugabwe, which I thought very funny and a joke.

Now I am not sure it was a joke :confused:

I will not get my ballot paper until I go home tomorrow. In the meantime
Am I right in thinking that our Unions, who are fighting in the managements vote yes corner, are:

1) Enclosing vote yes propaganda with the ballot form
2) Counting the votes themselves
3) Have marked each ballot paper so that it identifies the voter :eek:

If so it all seems very unusual. (IMHO)

No change there then. And without wishing to be provocative if people think it is any other way then they have a lot to learn about how the process works. Conference is about the members being represented by delegates that the members choose to represent them and it is these, and only these people who get to vote.

I owld suggest it is rare for any ballot to be held without a recommendation to accept. Otherwise it is an admission that the negotiators think there is further to go. This situation is absolutely no different.

Why an ATCO-because we are so special compared to the other grades?

I'll ask again are you also unhappy with the PCS process as well?

The Prospect vote will have an observer, whose long family history of trade union involvement and reputation as someone above reproach speak for themselves. He has my confidence to see that fair play takes place.

I couldn't care less if the union know how I voted and decide to list me one way or another. What exactly are the BEC then going to do with that information ?? Give it to NATS Management as part of 'Shafting Staff Together' ? Sorry, I meant 'Working Together'. Or perhaps get the BEC Chairman (who is after all deemed part of the NATS Management team due to his workplace post and grade) to write me another condescending note ? In either case, they can't stop me voting the way I wish, nor can they stop me taking appropriate 'work to rule' type action on a personal basis if the vote doesn't go the way I would like it to. By doing so I emphasise that I will be complying with my NATS contracted hours and meeting all unit minimum validation requirements. I'll just be doing absolutely nothing extra such as AAVAs, attending things on rostered days off, continuing to hold validations over the MUR, and running a sector with less controllers than that agreed in the Working Practices.

It's not a bad idea to have some sort of security mechanism, although I would be happier if the serial number, if that is the approach taken, was on the back, as it is in UK elections.
I don't want someone who has a strongly held view (either way) to print their own ballot papers and do some ballot stuffing.
Ballot stuffing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The package contains a letter from the Union National Secretary and one from your Branch Chairman outlining why the Union is recommending a particular vote. That's been normal in any ballot I've ever received forms for.

Some ballots have more stringent requirements prescribed by law. If this one doesn't why would you go to the extra expense ?

The forms have been individually and rather crudely numbered with a hand stamp. There has to be some basic security to stop you photocopying 200 votes and sending them in.

I would suggest that anybody thinking of similar action takes expert advice from the union or elsewhere before doing so. Mrs Thatcher's legislation isn't very specific about what constitutes industrial action and taking any action that may be defined as unofficial industrial action would be very unwise.

EGLYNT,

Your last post just shows how little you actually know about ATC working practices!!!!

To do the MUR is all any ATCO is required to do, anything else is done as 'goodwill', something that may be lacking in the ops room in the future!!!!

Or may I suggest when asked to do anything extra the words ' HOW MUCH?' are spoken, after all we may need to boost our 'non-pensionable' pay!!!

Which manager are you EGLYNT????

I'm no manager nor am I a lawyer specialising in industrial law but since the Thatcherite anti union legislation your rights to withdraw your goodwill have been severely curtailed. You can withdraw those things at any time as long as you don't do so in the context of industrial action. And that's the problem because unless you tell NATS why you are withdawing that goodwill it doesn't achieve much and as soon as you tell them it could be considered industrial action.

This is a very complex area of the law and you need to be very careful. If you don't believe me go off and research it yourself. DIRECT.GOV.UK is often a useful start.

EGLYNT

In reply I withdraw etc etc 'ON SAFETY GROUNDS', job done.

I emphasise that I will be complying with my NATS contracted hours and meeting all unit minimum validation requirements. I'll just be doing absolutely nothing extra such as AAVAs, attending things on rostered days off, continuing to hold validations over the MUR, and running a sector with less controllers than that agreed in the Working Practices.






I suspect you've overstepped the mark there.

In what way ? As far as I can see I've pointed out to a fellow poster on this forum why his proposed action may have repercussions he may not have thought of. I may be wrong in which case challenge what I'm saying. I might be right in which case it would be common sense to take what I said on board.

I agree. Its one thing Eglnyt for you to promote the YES vote ( and don't say that you aren't, because that !!!!! won't wash), quite another for you to lecture valid ATCOs on what they can and can't do.

FACT...if you are valid on a core sector at Swanwick, you are NOT required to be valid on another sector. Therefore, there is no problem with you saying you don't want to do that particular sector any more.

FACT...things like Working Groups are "extra-curricular" activities and do NOT form part of your terms and conditions as an ATCO. Therefore, again, no problem giving them up.

I don't know how other people interpreted your post but it read to me like a management warning dressed up as 'friendly advice'.

A sign of things to come I suspect.

Irrespective of whichever way I've voted personally I'll respect the result and, if required, would take part in any official action that may follow. That's the way the democratic process works.

However are some on here saying that if the vote goes against their opinion and the way they personally voted, rather than accept due process they'll throw their toys out of their pram in further protest?

Very grown up.

Why, exactly, is giving up validations above MUR and packing in working groups etc throwing your toys out of the pram? Maybe you can enlighten me as I am obviously too childish and not grown up enough to understand :ugh:

If you read what I wrote you'd see I'm suggesting you take some time to check out whether what you think is fact actually happens to be the case. It's up to you whther or not you do that but even if you think I'm a management plant it might be prudent to do so. Anything done by the union from this point in will be done with expert legal advice for very good reason and I certainly wouldn't take individual action without similar advice.

I would suggest that YOU re-read what I said.....YOU CAN GIVE UP A 2ND SECTOR VALIDATION ABOVE MUR WHENVER YOU WANT FOR WHATEVER REASON YOU WANT:ugh::ugh::ugh:

I am not condoning this or suggesting people do it, but your attitude is starting to get right up my nose now eglnyt. You lecture people 24/7 on here about this, that and the other but when proven wrong, you don't seem to have the good grace to accept this fact.

Generically...

If you're no voter and it's a no vote will you be giving up validations etc?

If you're a no voter and it's a yes vote will you be giving up validations etc?

In both cases due democratic process is followed, why should one result cause you to take further 'action' on a personal level?

Surely, if one accepts the democratic process, one goes with the result without further 'I don't like the result on a personal level so I'm going to drop my Midlands ticket' or such like action?

If the population at large acted like that after a general election the country would soon cease to function (more so than it is anyway at the moment that is).

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! :ugh::ugh:

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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 :ok:

Not wishing to be picky, but:

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

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.

Thank you.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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..."

Latest from the scientific Pension vote poll http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Poll Results latest http://www.drfun.com/breaknnews.gif


NO ....82%....98 http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

YES....18%....22 http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/sowee.gif

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

http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/i...ert/Turkey.jpg


Vote Here http://static.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon2.gif
http://snappoll.com/poll/301858.php

VOTE NO http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

MERRY XMAS