Glamdring Likes This :ok:

DC10RealMan - Well said :D

Negotiating to take on the responsibilities of another colleague in order to secure a better pay deal is abhorrent.

It is ironic, that when I hear the rationale for negotiating more money for taking on met, it is usually by those same people who have a go at management for leaching as much money for themselves as they can.

Pot, kettle, and black spring to mind.

A letter that was floating around today was that the union had rejected the managements offer due to the changes to working practices that they insist on including in the pay deal. And management have requested one final meeting on the 14th April.

Time to stand united
 

This was sent out yesterday from the ATCOS’ Branch.

ATCO PAY TALKS REACH IMPASSE!

Dear Colleague,

The Prospect ATCOs’ Branch pay team met Management again today. After prolonged discussions we have reached an impasse. We have rejected the offer made to us as it again falls short of our aspirations. Management insist any deal must deliver items including an open ended AAVA agreement and MET provision. Our views as to the value of these items differ significantly.

Management have requested a final meeting with the ATCOs’ Branch on 14th of next week. They will also meet with the other constituent parts of the NTUS who are also far from agreement.

We have made it clear that this will conclude negotiations on pay 2011. We will communicate immediately following this meeting.

ATCOs’ Branch Executive


With regards to ATCOs negotiating a better pay rise by volunteering to take on a task done by another group, what if that other group had already given up that task and its’ members were already leaving the company on voluntary redundancy?
As far as I understand it, at no time has the ATCO team offered to take the job of any other trade group. Quite the opposite in fact; Both Prospect and PCS have told management that any transfer or sharing of a task can only be done if BOTH parties agree to it. If in doubt, see the quote referring to the PCS Aviation Section meeting.

“At the meeting it was AGREED that the way forward was to protect as many ATSA jobs as we could at airports and one way we could achieve that was ensuring that the task of MET Observation was a core task of ATSAs during the day but that we would look at the task being undertaken by ATCOs at night, and as a contingency during the day (when no ATSA cover could be found and only as a last resort) at airports. That was the AGREED PCS line then, it is still the PCS line now.”

###### (name omitted), PCS Assistant Secretary, Operational


I hope those that read and contribute to this forum are very conscious of the fact that ‘Managers’ post here too. Not everything you read is true and for the best and most up to date info just speak with either the Prospect BEC or PCS GEC.

The last thing we want to do when we approach such a critical stage is to be fooled into becoming a split workforce.
Management are wary of our combined strength and will try to exploit any weakness, real or perceived. Surely we are wiser than to give them an open door by giving credence to rumour and non truths.

We are ALL at a critical stage and events could begin to move quickly. This is the time for all union and staff members to stand firmly behind their respective unions and provide a strong and united position. We have asked our Reps to take a stand, now is the time for us to stand with them.
:ok::ok:

jonny B good,

Thank you for that clarification.

That explanation is very enlightening. It is good to see a considered and factual reply for a change.

<<With regards to ATCOs negotiating a better pay rise by volunteering to take on a task done by another group, what if that other group had already given up that task and its’ members were already leaving the company on voluntary redundancy?>>

At my unit only 2 have taken VR, and for reasons other than 'giving up the task'. No sign of the others legging it through the terminal with wheelbarrows full of cash.

<<As far as I understand it, at no time has the ATCO team offered to take the job of any other trade group.>>

To quote the letter you posted: Management insist any deal must deliver items including an open ended AAVA agreement and MET provision. Our views as to the value of these items differ significantly.

In other words, show us a decent amount of cash and we'll consider it.

<<If in doubt, see the quote referring to the PCS Aviation Section meeting.

“At the meeting it was AGREED that the way forward was to protect as many ATSA jobs as we could at airports and one way we could achieve that was ensuring that the task of MET Observation was a core task of ATSAs during the day but that we would look at the task being undertaken by ATCOs at night, and as a contingency during the day (when no ATSA cover could be found and only as a last resort) ”>>

With the changes in ORO and rostering, that contingency and 'last resort', will become more of a 'norm' before you know it. The sure fire way of protecting the remaining ATSA positions is not to enter into any form of negotiation with regards to covering MET, simples.

<<The last thing we want to do when we approach such a critical stage is to be fooled into becoming a split workforce.>>

Oop's, too late.

RVR600

I’m sorry, but you’re either NATS management trying to split the work force or you’re naive enough to do the job for them with your comments. :ugh:

The Prospect ATCOs’ Branch wouldn’t touch MET if PCS wouldn’t agree to let them do so. There may not be a high uptake at your unit to take VR but at some of the other units the desire for VR amongst the ATSAs has actually outstripped the availability. Quite a few of them realise as well that in a few years’ time most of their jobs, especially at EFPS equipped airport units, will be replaced by fully automated MET systems anyway and they are happy to take the extra money whilst it’s still available.

I know that most of the ATCOs are not exactly jumping up and down to take on MET but with the above in mind, if we ATCOs are going to do it we might as well try to get the best possible deal out of it whilst the task hasn’t been fully automated yet and there is still a need for NATS to pay someone for it. Be under no illusion, the ATSA job at airports is going whether we like it or not. NATS have already started recruiting contractors at some airports to cover for the ATSA VR but this won’t be a long-term solution and they’ll be gone when technology permits.

Anyway, instead of directing all this anger and frustration towards each other and the union I think we should support them during these difficult negotiations. There have been people in the past on this forum complaining about the union keeping their powder dry. Well, as said before we have asked our reps to take a stand, now is the time for us to stand with them and show management we’re united and ready to take them on! :ok:

To quote the letter you posted:

Management insist any deal must deliver items including an open ended AAVA agreement and MET provision. Our views as to the value of these items differ significantly.

In other words, show us a decent amount of cash and we'll consider it.

Am I wrong or is that what ATSAs have done consistently since VR was offered? As far as I see it, the ATCOs branch have done nothing to the detriment of their PCS colleagues. If they had, the NTUS would have disbanded.

Your comments are therefore spurious.

A lot of smoke and mirrors. Let the AAVA agreement fall when due, there should be no movement on this, as it has nothing to do with a NTUS pay claim, just as Met is a sectional issue. There are a lot of new managers in our organisation who, think we are overstaffed in the operational areas, who have got used to staffing up with AAVA's and O/T for the respective grades, who think that we will roll over and do their will. Well, we have the power in our own hands to prove otherwise, it's not about splitting open the keg and lighting the powder. This is negotiation from days gone by, where principal and rights are being discussed, yes albeit to get extra money in our pockets, but also to defend our very existence and integrity as a united workforce.

As has been said, the real way to break the impasse is for AAVAs to stop, ATCOs to say 'we are happy to do them again, once you give us an acceptable pay deal for all... Until then I'll enjoy my extra days off!'

Sadly we all know there are some for whom self interest outweighs any solidarity towards a better long-term outcome.

Absolutely.

The Union should simply say to management, we will happily work out a new AAVA agreement with you, but not until after our current pay claim is resolved in full.

Then there would be some movement on the pay issue.

The two posts above are absolutely spot on :ok:

I cannot understand why the NTUS do not take this approach :confused:

I agree completely with the comments about the value of an AAVA agreement to NATS. Unfortunately, the withdrawal from any agreement and linking it to pay negotiations can be construed as industrial action and would leave any union open to legal action.
The AAVA agreement was withdrawn due to continued breaches by managers.
If the union needs to link industrial action to pay then a ballot will ensue. That is why we need to be clear on what we are doing, why we are doing it and most importantly, to stand united and not do Senior Managements work for them.
If you really want to know what is happening and why certain things are/are not being done maybe now is the time to speak with BEC/GEC members. Put the rumours to rest and find out the facts!!:ok:

Or the Union can put THE FACTS to the menbership to read :ok:

Jonny B Good,

As you stated, Prospect cannot withraw from the present agreement in order to extract a larger pay settlement. They are on notice to withdraw due to management breaches of the agreement.

However the present AAVA agreement is coming to an end. (date anyone?)
Prospect are well within their rights to not extend or renew it.
IMHO the AAVA agreement is hugely valueable to management, this is the biggest bargaining chip we have.

There is no need to withold the AAVA agreement as part of industrial action, the fact of the matter is we are negotiating for a CORE PAY DEAL. AAVA's, Met Obs and anything else are not core pay issues, unless we (foolishly) decide to make them so.

give us a decent pay award based on company performance (the same way that executives get measured), and bearing in mind last years pay freeze.

Then and only then should there be any negotiations on AAVAs etc. They are seperate issues

Precisely. You (the union) are not linking any Pay deal with any new/re-instated AAVA agreement, the union should simply say that they will resolve the pay deal first and then resolve the AAVA agreement second.

The sooner the pay deal gets sorted, the sooner an AAVA agreement can be done.

No industial action. No linking, simply a sequence of events.

And as far as I can see, it is not the union that apear to want to link a pay deal and an AAVA agreement, it is management that appear to be insisting on the two being linked (along with MET provisions).

Management insist any deal must deliver items including an open ended AAVA agreement and MET provision. Our views as to the value of these items differ significantly

IMHO NATS’s Management have badly overplayed their hand. Offering less than half the rate of inflation after paying out millions in Management bonuses and tens of millions in dividends was comical and if it results in industrial action I expect some of them to be quietly replaced.

As Paul Barron proved with his Pension reforms it takes a lot to get to get ATCOs to seriously consider industrial action, it's taken the current management less than a year.

.

I think your right - PC's finest PCS reps have just been promoted to a grade that doesn't exist (ATSA4+ !!!).

Never forget there is an I in union!!!