Work Related Stress / Occ Sick Pay

Uncertain

andrea_louise wrote: »

Further info! The employer changed the Occ Sick Pay scheme in April this year. The unions that represent the workforce had signed it, and it would appear that she is due to 61 days. 0-12 months 30 days, 12-24 months 30 days, 24-36 months 61 days. This information has not been communicated to the Employees, her Union rep only found out about it today. Thank you for all of your input.

Andrea

Can a Union agree to your contract being made less favourable without asking you? :eek:

andrea_louise

Would not have thought so, I thought something of this magnitude would have to be ballotted? Nor I thought, could the Employer invoke it without informing their 12,000+ Employees?

andrea_louise

Uncertain wrote: »

Can a Union agree to your contract being made less favourable without ask you? :eek:

Thank you for your valuable comments today. Your an :A

Googlewhacker

Uncertain wrote: »

Can a Union agree to your contract being made less favourable without ask you? :eek:

I thought they can, also if a union agrees to a contract change this looks on favourably for the employer come an ET by an employee who is not a member of the union

SarEl

Googlewhacker wrote: »

I thought they can, also if a union agrees to a contract change this looks on favourably for the employer come an ET by an employee who is not a member of the union

Absolutely correct. This is called collective bargaining, and provided the employer and the union have a collective bargaining agreement in place, the union officials may agree any variations in terms and conditions without further reference to members. The deal also then covers non-union members, who do not need to be negotiated with individually under collective bargaining regulations. The union officials involved account for their negotiations and agreeemnts through the union structure normally - so members are informed at branch meetings. You didn't go to branch meetings? Ah, but it's all there in the small print! Unions normally ballot (although it does depend on their individual rule books) if agreement cannot be reached.

Unions are generally loathe to ballot too, when they know their members have no appetite for strike action, because it simply shows how weak their organisation is in the workplace. I cannot see any union finding this change to terms and conditions palatable - my guess would be that it was this or redundancies, and they knew that the only other choice - strike action - would not be backed by members (it seldom is).

Elizpse125

SarEl wrote: »

and what this mean in terms of what she gets paid (half pay, for example - isn't half pay - it is half pay plus SSP).QUOTE]

I am really sorry to use this thread.

I have just joined today and looking through posts to try and find some answers to my queries and will post a new message but I have just seen this quote from SarEL

I get three months full pay and three months half pay and my half pay has started at the beginning of June



From what you say in your quote, does my pay seem correct SarEL?

I have probably misunderstood, so please excuse my ignorance.

Thank you

Elizpse

SpringDach

I can relate to your post entirely. I worked for the NHS and was signed off with anxiety/stress. I eventually was put on to half pay with no warning, and this added to my anxieties.

I felt there was a lack of support from my managers. They wouldn't relocate me to a different department, as there was no budget for recruitment. Meaning they were not filling vaccancies that became open, and they wouldn't replace my position if I moved. I felt very trapped, and more or less driven out.

I am glad your cousin has someone like you to support her, as sometimes it can be just as difficult being off work, and all the worries that come with it.

Feel free to PM if you wish. I hope things work out for her.

dickydonkin

SarEl wrote: »

Unions are generally loathe to ballot too, when they know their members have no appetite for strike action, because it simply shows how weak their organisation is in the workplace. I cannot see any union finding this change to terms and conditions palatable - my guess would be that it was this or redundancies, and they knew that the only other choice - strike action - would not be backed by members (it seldom is).

A bit of a general statement that is strictly not true taking into consideration the BA situation and factions within the public sector recently taking strike action.

Just wait until the impending cuts in the public sectors commence, then we will see if unions are 'loathe to ballot'.
Unfortunately, there are no winners in a strike situation.

Variations in contracts are now commonplace as employers only have to cite difficult trading/financial conditions to justify their actions. Unfortunately there are many companies struggling to survive right now, many of who are having to restructure which could involve a variation of contract - which is a less bitter pill that the alternative.

Signs of the times I'm afraid.

Googlewhacker

dpassmore wrote: »

A bit of a general statement that is strictly not true taking into consideration the BA situation and factions within the public sector recently taking strike action.

Just wait until the impending cuts in the public sectors commence, then we will see if unions are 'loathe to ballot'.

Unfortunately, there are no winners in a strike situation and variations in contracts are now commonplace as employers only have to cite difficult trading/financial conditions to justify their actions.

Signs of the times I'm afraid.

It will be a bloodbath and there will be strikes again left right and centre, whether they will be as bad as the 3 day week I doubt it but there will be inconveniance.

Unions are loathed to ballot because even with their bravest face on they know they are in a losing battle so the best they can hope for is to reduce the changes and redundancys

SarEl

dpassmore wrote: »

A bit of a general statement that is strictly not true taking into consideration the BA situation and factions within the public sector recently taking strike action.

Just wait until the impending cuts in the public sectors commence, then we will see if unions are 'loathe to ballot'.
Unfortunately, there are no winners in a strike situation.

Variations in contracts are now commonplace as employers only have to cite difficult trading/financial conditions to justify their actions. Unfortunately there are many companies struggling to survive right now, many of who are having to restructure which could involve a variation of contract - which is a less bitter pill that the alternative.

Signs of the times I'm afraid.

Not a general statement at all. I did not say "unions were loathe to ballot". I said that they were "loathe to ballot when they know that their members will not support them". The instances such as BA prove my point - a union will always ballot if it knows that the members have an appetite to fight.

But I agree that variations of contract are relatively easy pickings for employers right now. But I suppose it depends on who is swallowing the bitter pill. For workers its usually a choice between poorer conditions or "russian roulette redundancy". For companies it is never a choice between profit margins and shareholders payouts, or keeping the staff on their comparatively lesser contracts.

And I sincerely hope you are correct about the public sector unions. But I won't be holding my breath. I believe that power in the workplace needs rebalancing, but I don't see any signs that it is happening.