Who Agrees a Local Agreement?

[Mezza]

Can anyone answer a fairly straight forward question for me.
A little background as to why.........
In my DO there are 3 indoor staff that pre revision had worked to a 1 in 4 rotate for over 10 years.
We had our revision and shortly after were told by our DOM that in order to fall in line with the rest of the office and to be fair we had to change to a 1 in 6 rotate.
I should point out here that nobody in our office wanted any of the indoor duties on the basis of the 1 in 4 rotate - in fact nobody wanted them due to the fact they all worked their full hours every day, unlike all the delivery duties that can go home when done.

The indoor staff decided to fight the decision and took it all the way to Level 3 Grievance where it was rejected on the basis that a local agreement had been put in place to change our hours.

The local agreement referred to was when the office voted on the shift pattern we would work following the revision. As they have always worked to a 1 in 6 that was what they agreed to.
The 1 in 4 rotate of indoor staff was never mentioned during this vote and there was never a mention that the indoor staff's rotate would need to change.

We tried to support our Level 3 on the basis of recent National Agreements mentioning accommodating staff on different patterns etc.
During our Level 3 Grievance hearing we were shown a copy of the local agreement and it was pointed out that an attached file (which we have never seen - it was just the computer icon for an attached file on a page) contained the details of indoor staff changing their rotate. Apparently it was agreed and signed by our DOM and local rep.

So i would like to know:
A/ Should the indoor staff not have been consulted during the amended agreement?
The delivery staff had a huge meeting when they had to vote on their shift pattern.

B/ Is it just the DOM and local rep that need to agree anything for a local agreement to take place and be signed off ?

Incidently, our Area Rep has said he had no knowledge of the attached amendment.

[slinder123]

just work your full hours

[Himaggen]

The Rep' has one job only, to represent their Members, (it is not their job to make decisions on behalf of those Members).

They should discuss all 'local agreement' proposals with all Members, adding their recommendations, (based upon their unique knowledge), then put forward the resultant majority vote. Nothing should ever be signed without those discussions and a vote having taken place and any Rep' doing so should be forced to stand down immediately.

[fishtank]

A local agreement is agreed by the members in an office, it looks like the changes to your particular shift patterns were slipped in under the radar which was a bit naughty but...do you honestly believe that your office would have rejected the proposal purely to protect the shift patterns of the indoor staff?

I don't know your office but I think that's highly unlikely so what you're really left with is a point of principle.

[dvbuk55]

Although in principle you should be consulted and actually agree the changes before being implemented once the deed is done there's no chance of getting it overturned. There should be a review of the revision after a number of weeks but if it works there's not going to be any case to put forward for consideration.

[Mezza]

I think my point has been slightly missed........the whole office voted on the attendance patterns they would follow post revision. There was even the threat of a walk out because they didn't agree to our DOM's suggested pattern.


However, the indoor staff had the amended attendance pattern forced upon them without a vote or consultation.

We haven't had out PIR as yet, but then our revision was only 15 months ago !!

The planners were due to return last month to start another revision (probably just a table top one), but couldn't come as our Aplus system is about a year behind. Nobody has updated it for at least 12 months as the DOM Support (who used to maintain it) was forced out on delivery each day after the revision.


I know there is slim to no chance of getting this overturned as it has already gone to a Level 3 Grievance and there is nothing you can do after that.

[Himaggen]

I think my point has been slightly missed...

...the whole office voted on the attendance patterns they would follow

However, the indoor staff had the amended attendance pattern forced upon them without a vote or consultation.

Are you telling us then that the indoor staff are not part of the whole office? Because my interpretation, and that of the grievance decision maker, is that they are and have therefore agreed by way of the majority.

[Mezza]

To be honest at the meeting the staff were presented with the DOMS idea of new attendance times and it was rejected point blank.
The staff then suggested via our Area rep that we work as we were with a very small adjustment on a Saturdays attendance - but maintain the 1 in 6 day rotate.
I emphasise 'maintain' the 1 in 6 rotate - as the indoor staff were not working that to be able to maintain it in the first place.

I appreciate that the vote went with the majority, but the indoor staff were never told their attendance patterns would be changing before or even at that meeting.
So as far as they were concerned they were voting to 'maintain' their pattern as was.

The meeting between the indoor staff and the DOM took place a good week or two later, where we were told our pattern was changing.

Add to that the attached amendment to the local agreement the whole staff voted on and there was obviously a separate issue to deal with the indoor staff.
As stated earlier, neither our Area rep or the indoor staff have ever seen the contents of that attachment - we've simply been told it is the details of the indoor staffs amended attendance - agreed locally between the office rep and DOM.

I know we'll never get that 1 in 4 rotate back, but it's nice to hear on another thread that some offices allow staff to have different patterns whilst we've been told we can't. Oh, and it wasn't for budgetryor cover reasons apparently either.