The details of the pay deal have now been formally and officially shared with the workforce, subsequent to the data leak in June of last year. We are now therefore finally able to correspond openly with you and without restriction given that the pay negotiations are now at and end and given that management have now officially gone directly to the workforce with the pay offer.
We are of the firm view that the workforce should reject the pay proposals outright. Members are strongly advised to seek union advice before agreeing to anything in one to one meetings.
Firstly, and as a fundamental issue of paramount importance and great concern, we wish to point out that NIW has not set out (a) the specifics of the workforce’s present terms and conditions on pay and reward that will be affected by the proposed changes and (b) the specifics of the proposed amendments and changes to those existing terms and conditions by virtue of the pay proposal.
It is our position that the workforce need NIW to set out the relevant terms and conditions and how NIW proposes to amend those relevant terms and conditions in order to effect the new pay and performance regime. This is needed so that we all can have a clear understanding of the effects of the proposed changes on the relevant terms and conditions.
To be clear, we do not have the details of the proposed changes to your contractual rights and NIW have not confirmed the position in relation to the specifics of the terms and conditions to be amended and the nature of those amendments. Therefore, as a starting point, there is an absence of a clear view of the proposed changes to your contractual terms and conditions. We believe this is entirely unacceptable. It is further our view that it is unacceptable that this fundamental issue, as to how terms and conditions will be affected, be left until after the consideration of the details of the pay deal itself. It is our position that NIW’s approach seeks to “put the cart before the horse”.
Further, and in any event, from the very beginning, we have been deeply concerned about the pay proposals themselves as put forward by management. NIPSA made a pay claim for a straight 10% pay increase with no strings attached and no pay and grading review. This is not what has been received. Rather, a complex and opaque proposal was put forward which required expert advice so that the Union could understand the out workings of what was being suggested. The pay proposal is in our view needlessly complicated and it offers no contractual underpins.
We sought relevant expert advice to ensure that you, our valued members, would be protected and fully aware of all potential pitfalls and implications. This was absolutely essential given the complexity of the issues presented by the pay offer and was obtained subsequent to having received legal advice.
Our expert report (pdf below) is now available for your review on our official website:
https://nipsa.org.uk/ni-water/1157-expert-report-and-concerns-on-the-pay-offer-updated
We urge each of you to take the time to go through the expert report as it sheds light on the complexities and dangers hidden in the offer, which may not be easily understood at first glance. As a starting point we would ask that you read the executive summary which gives a neat summary of the very serious concerns identified in relation to the pay offer.
We have also included a short summary of headline concerns arising from the pay offer at Appendix 1 to this bulletin. These are by no means a list of all concerns and we include the appendix as a starting point for the workforce in getting their heads around the difficulties and dangers associated with the pay offer.
At first glance, the pay offer may appear to be reasonable, even generous, given the offer of an increase in pay. We understand that given the present cost of living crisis, members will be eager to receive additional monies as soon as possible. However, upon further analysis it sadly becomes clear that the pay offer, as it was prior to negotiation and as it stands, is absolutely not in the best interests of the workforce.
Originally, the company put forward a new pay matrix, which removes contractual rights, and which did not allow the option to retain present terms and conditions. Whilst NIW have now given the option to retain present terms and conditions, no substantive alteration has been made to the pay proposal and it remains, in our opinion, unsuitable.
Our expert report makes it clear that the pay offer is in fact detrimental in nature, as it poses a significant threat to many of your contractual rights and is not as attractive as it first seems in terms of pay reward.
The contractual rights affected include, but are not limited to:
- Contractual Right to Pay Progression: The proposed offer could remove your contractual right to fair pay progression, hindering your ability to advance within the organization based on merit and experience.
- Contractual Right to Performance Pay: Under the new proposals, your contractual right to performance-based pay could be compromised, impacting your potential to be rewarded for your hard work and dedication.
- Contractual Right to Collective Bargaining: The offer might also undermine your contractual right to collective bargaining, limiting the influence you have in negotiating for better working conditions.
Furthermore, the expert report highlights that the pay offer has far-reaching implications, not just for the present, but for your future pension entitlements and various other aspects of your employment.
In our ongoing efforts to safeguard your rights, we have corresponded extensively with management, seeking clarity and further negotiations on these critical matters. Unfortunately, from our point of view, NIW has not been forthcoming in addressing these concerns, leaving us with unanswered questions and unresolved issues.
NIPSA has consistently argued that the pay and grading review and the 22/23 pay deal may need to be seen and dealt with as separate issues in the best interests of the workforce. The company has however sought to place the two issues together during the course of negotiations. We have been pressing for the pay reward of 3.3 % revalorisation to be implemented without delay as it does not require giving up contractual rights that can be clawed back over time, unlike the proposals under the pay and grading review. The pay reward and the pay offer are two separate things, yet NIW have refused to proceed with the 3.3 % revalorisation and has insisted on tying up the 3.3% reward with the new pay offer. We believe this to be wholly unreasonable.
Further there has in essence been no material shift in the pay and grading review as put forward. The only shift by management was to change position to offer a limited choice of staying on present terms and conditions however on promotion an employee would move onto the matrix associated with the pay and grading review. Neither of these options were suitable on the basis of the expert advice received. The matrix itself is complex and unclear. As of 31 August 2023, further ambiguity has been injected into the mix as a result of a lack of clarity in respect of what the position is in relation to terms upon promotion. We believe that management have ultimately adopted a “take it or leave it” approach in relation to a wholly ambiguous pay system which we believe is not in the best interests of the workforce.
Management have attempted to assert that the Union’s main issue with the pay proposal lies in the potential erosion of collective bargaining. Whilst the undermining of collective bargaining rights is a serious concern, the reality is that that the pay offer presents serious potential detriment to the workforce in terms of pay, including risks to pay progression and to performance pay. At all times the primary concern has been to protect pay and get the best possible deal.
We have asked for details in relation about those employees on TUPE protected terms and conditions and the precise protections for such employees in the context of the proposals being implemented. We do not believe that we have clarity in relation to those affected other than it appears there will be no unilateral variation per se, however it remains wholly unclear as to whether and to what extent TUPE protection will remain in place for those employees who move to the matrix.
Although PMR remains it is said to remain under the old scheme rules and it is therefore wholly unclear as to how people move through the matrix, which has no points of scale, and it is wholly unclear where caps are. The PMR 3-2-1 approach would appear not be a correct fit for the proposed matrix system. We are told there are no caps in the new system however we believe that the reality is that the caps from the present scheme will exist in transfer to the new matrix scheme. For example, an employee at 110% moving to the matrix is in effect capped. The proposal seeks to attract individuals into agreeing to the detrimental change to their contractual rights by way of a wholly unsatisfactory and unattractive non—consolidated non-pensionable payment. We understand the non—consolidated non-pensionable payment to be £250. In essence, the individual is being asked to give up their longstanding and important contractual rights for a fool’s ransom.
You will note that the proposals set out a number of future projections claiming that only a small number of individuals would be anything other than better off. This is not accepted.
In respect of the proposed pay offer, it will be seen that our expert has concluded that the projections included as part of the pay proposal have no validity. Our expert concludes:
“Such projections have no validity as no contractual rights are offered to underpin them. In effect what is being proposed could be likened to purchasing a lottery ticket”.
The evidence obtained also demonstrates that there are a number of hidden features within the proposals that could have a detrimental impact on an individual’s current position. The expert report concludes in that regard that:
“The proposals are complicated, partial and in many respects do no more than make cosmetic change to what is currently in place, whilst expunging contractual safeguards. The 9% headline rate is deceiving. Pay inflation as of Feb 2023 was 6.7% with general inflation just under 10%.
Members are being asked to sign away rights and safeguards for what in our view is a disproportionate inducement compared to that they are being asked to surrender”.
You will see from the executive summary that the proposal is described as
“An emperors clothing offer and one that in our view has significant risk”.
We were shocked when we received the expert report and we immediately set about raising the myriad concerns set out in the report with management.
Hopefully you can now see that we simply could not allow management to force through these changes which we believe are seriously detrimental to the workforce. We therefore have been anxiously corresponding and negotiating with management raising our concerns over the past number of months. At times, management took, in our view, excessive time to respond to our correspondence raising concerns and asking for answers. On one recent occasion management took several months to reply to our correspondence whilst consistently claiming delay was on the part of the Union.
We have at all times sought to move matters forward as quickly as possible and, whilst there was an initial delay occasioned by the need to obtain a suitable expert report, this was absolutely necessary in order that we could properly analyse the pay offer and represent your best interests. We moved as quickly as we could at all times.
We have repeatedly complained about the lack of consultation and negotiation meetings and management produced no minutes of any meetings. The delay started on the Management Side with a failure to respond to the Pay Claim which was lodged on 31 August 2022 which sought above inflation or 10%, reduction of payscales and no strings attached.
We were asked to consider a pay and grading review parts of which would be negotiated after members sign up to it. NIPSA has asked for those issues to be resolved prior to any offer going out to members as members need to know beforehand what they are being asked to sign up to. NIPSA are entitled to all relevant information for negotiation purposes.
Management asked to speak to our expert, to which NIPSA agreed in the spirit of cooperation and the independent report.
The slightly amended offer subsequently made failed to provide the required detail on the new matrix and had no underpins to protect members’ contractual rights. Ambiguity remains in respect of terms and condition on promotion. Responses to questions asked and clarifications sought have been in our view vague. We cannot ballot without the required information to fully inform members. Management pushed for balloting however the reality is that seeking to negotiate the pay and grading review after members have been balloted is not acceptable.
NIW have accepted that in respect of the pay offer not all of the facts have been established and accept that are no guaranteed underpins.
We would stress that at no point did we reject the pay offer, rather we have been trying to negotiate with management to reduce risks and concerns and to ensure that there are proper contractual underpins. Ultimately, no meaningful movement has been forthcoming.
As part of the consultation process between the parties, in December 2023 we prepared a table (known as a Scott schedule) setting out NIPSA’s position in relation to issues of concern arising in relation to the pay offer. NIW provided responses to those issues in summary form by reply of 22 December 2023. We felt progress was finally being made however NIW subsequently sent a letter of 25th January 2024 with unilateral amendments to the Scott Schedule, which in our opinion sought to materially resile from NIW’s position as set out in the first Scott Schedule. Unfortunately, we are unable to share copies of either of these documents, which was proposed to NIW, as NIW have refused to waive the privilege of same. This refusal is revealing in showing the continuing opaque nature of the NIW proposal.
We have now come to a final conclusion after careful negotiations, consultation and having taken expert advice that:
The workforce should REJECT BOTH PART A AND PART B of the pay proposals arising from the pay and grading review by NIW.
As your representatives, we remain dedicated to fighting for your best interests. We will continue to strive for a fair and equitable resolution that upholds your rights and ensures a secure and prosperous future for all.
Thank you for your continued support and solidarity.
In solidarity.
Yours sincerely
Antoinette McMillen
Deputy General Secretary
(To access Pay offer details, click PDF image below)
