Openreach - Compulsory Overtime

The Solent Branch has received a number of queries regarding compulsory overtime for new grid members. Hopefully, the following information will give some clarification.

• Compulsory overtime was introduced as part of the ‘Flexible Attendance Patterns Framework Agreement’, voted on and agreed by members in November 2009 (against Branch advice) and implemented in April/May 2010.
  
  Extract from the Flexible Attendance Patterns Framework Agreement
  
  Overtime
  
  6.1 Overtime - When customer requirements dictate, and on the day flexible working cannot accommodate these requirements, team members can be required to work additional hours as overtime. The CWU at the appropriate level will be consulted and volunteers will be sought in the first instance. In these circumstances overtime maybe up to 12 hours per week. This will be determined by business need and is not guaranteed overtime. Where overtime can be pre-planned, then individuals will be given as much notice as possible with a minimum of 24 hours and volunteers will be sought. Overtime will be allocated in a non discriminatory manner subject to skill, geography and business demand.


• In the first instance, overtime requirements should be met on a voluntary basis.


• The CWU at the appropriate level will be consulted.


• Compulsory overtime maybe up to 12 hours per week.


• The agreement states that a minimum of 24 hours notice will be given.


• Overtime will be allocated in a non discriminatory manner subject to skill, geography and business demand.


• Team members who have a personal and domestic (P&D) roster are not excluded from working contractual overtime, however the nature of their personal and domestic needs should be considered sympathetically and respected where the P&D shows that the team member is unable to work contractual overtime at the time needed e.g. a P&D where a team member does not work a Saturday because of caring responsibilities that team member would not be able to work contractual overtime on a Saturday but could be required to work contractual overtime during the week.


• If you were scheduled to work and swapped or traded attendance with a colleague, your manager should be aware of this and not ask you to work contractual overtime, or to ask you only as a last option.


• If the reason you decline /refuse is that you will be financially impacted, your manager should take this into account as potentially reasonable grounds not to work overtime. e.g. if you have bought tickets for an event or booked to go away for the weekend. There is, however, no process to reimburse you for any loss should your manager decide that you must work.


• There will be occasions when team members are unable to work overtime and managers must treat requests to be excluded fairly and sensitively. Managers should be pragmatic and exercise judgment as to how you deal with such cases on an individual basis. They do not have a pre agreed number of declines /refusals a person can make or any ‘allowance’ – all cases need to be considered on their individual merit. Neither the manager nor the individual should seek to compare their situation with others – each case will be different due to differing personal circumstances.


• If an individual refuses to work contractual overtime without good reason they may be subject to the disciplinary procedure for failing to comply with their contractual commitments.


• If a team member accepts that they have to work overtime on a previously rostered day off, and subsequently reports absent for duty, this should be recorded in the same was as decline/refusals and NOT recorded on INFORMe as an absence.


• Managers /resource leads should keep a list of who has been required to work contractual overtime and selects names from the list in order, skills and geography permitting, and also takes account of P&Ds. This tracking/monitoring information will be made available to the CWU as requested.


• If the decision is made to cancel the overtime, any team member who had been required to attend and no longer is, will have this credited to them, i.e. they will go to the bottom of the list for the next time contractual overtime is required. Managers are instructed to make sure this is not common practice.


• Contractual overtime will not be cancelled on the day.

---

BT Group: Future First
BT Group has been pressed by the CWU Executive to make clear its resource intentions and what enablers will be used to manage its resourcing profile following the end of a BT Group-wide release scheme. The response by BT Group is the launch of a trial to test a different Voluntary severance scheme which will be reviewed to test its attractiveness and will be launched 4 May in BT Operate only. In essence the scheme is a mix of cash and pension service credit and the core terms are reproduced below.

• A cash payment (payable when you leave) of 0.5 months basic salary for each year of continuous service with a maximum payment of six months basic salary, including London Weighting and/or Pay and Pension Protection Supplement.
If members have had a period of continuous employment with BT that includes both full-time and part-time employment the period of continuous service will be based on the number of hours the member has and length of service equivalent to if a member had been a full-time employee. Members will be able to see this figure on the estimate screen on the BT People System. The cash payment is tax-free up to £30,000. Amounts above that are taxable.
• A pension enhancement as described below (credited to the BT pension arrangement twelve months after the leaving date if the member is not already drawing pension benefits at that time and also has not transferred out of the BT Pension Scheme or BT Retirement Saving Scheme).
• If a member of the BT Pension Scheme (BTPS) the enhancement is equivalent to the addition of two months pensionable service for each year of continuous service with a maximum addition of twenty-four months pensionable service.
• If a member of the BT Retirement Saving Scheme (BTRSS) BT will pay a single contribution to the BTRSS equivalent to two months core contributions that both the member and BT were paying to the BTRSS as at 1 April 2010 for each year of continuous service with a maximum of twenty-four months. The core contribution will be based on the contributions a member was paying to the scheme which attracted employer matching contributions.
• If a member of either the BTPS or the BTRSS members will receive the Future First cash payment but not the Future First pension enhancement.

Pay In Lieu Of Notice (PILON) will not be available to people leaving under Future First. All other decision-making criteria will apply as per Newstart.

The scheme will open on 4 May 2010 and applications must be submitted by 1 June. The exit date for Future First leavers is 30 June 2010. BT has been pressed over the issue of the strain on pensions funding, the response has been that this is cash neutral due to the reduced cash incentive, and the delayed payment at the time of paying into the pension fund when the pension is drawn are offsetting any costs. Members will have to wait a minimum of one year before the pension can be drawn and must draw down the pension by 31 March 2012 and the pension easement rules will apply according to the individual’s circumstances.

A copy of the associated Question and Answers document is available as apdf on our newsletters page.


BT Operate: Field Engineering Performance Year & Impact on CTC Selection
BT Operate have changed the Team Member performance year so that it runs from April to March rather than from October to September. At the end of March all team members had an APR (although the last full year APR was in September 2009).

In Field Engineering, counselling meetings are to take place by 14 May 2010. The March APR includes ratings against each of the nine capabilities as well as covering both what individuals delivered and how they did it. This should be used by members when applying for jobs and will be used as well for CTC selection purposes until the next full year APR in March 2011.

The arrangements that will apply for the other operational units are being requested.


Openreach Grading Anomalies and Long Term Cover
As Branches will be aware, the CWU has many concerns over the long term coverage (acting) in roles. There are also a number of grading anomalies which need to be resolved. A lot of this stemmed from the obvious embargo on substantive promotion whilst the previous grading review was undertaken within Service Delivery Transformation. The Union has been in discussion with Openreach on these issues and can report that some progress has been made. Openreach is reviewing all posts that have been covered for some time.

It has been agreed that some 41 team members primarily in Midlands, Wales and West who had been covering roles for more than 12 months will now be appointed substantively. These include a number of planning posts. Openreach is now looking at similar situations in all other regions and this process is aimed to be completed by the end of April.

For roles which have been covered for less than 12 months, the first stage is to confirm that the role will continue. If it is confirmed, then the role will be advertised following a trawl of people on Pay and Pension Protection who may be suitable. As part of the last meeting with Openreach, we also discussed people on Managing Changing Capabilities. Some 14 have been found substantive alternative roles.

The Executive team also took the opportunity to raise two current anomalies – Training Administrators in the Midlands and System Development roles.
Openreach continue to argue that the Training Admin role is A2. The Union is seeking evidence to substantiate the argument for B2. Openreach has agreed with the CWU that the System Development roles are not C3 (many of the team members are D1) but has argued that it believes the roles to be appropriate to the Reward Framework as opposed to NewGRID. The CWU contests this.

In respect of the generality of coverage, it is hoped to produce a 3 monthly report of who is in receipt of cover allowance. The CWU has asked to be supplied with this to ensure that the NewGRID process is adhered to.


Homeworking Review & Workplace Stress in UKSO
18 March 2010
Ms Barbara Nerval
ER Manager
BT Global Services

Dear Barbara

Homeworking Review & Workplace Stress in UKSO

Thank you for meeting with the CWU yesterday on the Homeworking Review and workplace stress in UKSO and for giving an update on Site Rationalisation. I said I would write to you following our meeting to state the CWU’s position on the Homeworking Review and the stress issues. I will write separately to you on the issues we raised on the ongoing site consolidation.

Firstly can I state how angered my team were to be presented with the UKSO conclusion that no further agile/homeworking would be considered in the areas under Review, (other than those exemptions already agreed), and that the review was to be further extended to cover DBAM. The CWU does not accept this conclusion as a valid outcome of the trial and argued strongly that the evidence you presented failed to support your case.

The statistics that you shared with us showed two things. Firstly that the pre-trial Homeworkers and Agile workers were far more productive than their office based colleagues. This was of no surprise to us as this is the clearly stated view of our members and is consistent with the situation elsewhere in the Company.

Secondly your statistics indicated an overall improvement in productivity during the trial. What your statistics did not show was the cause of this improvement. Throughout this trial period an unprecedented level of cross-skilling has been introduced. The Harrier system has been rolled out. The Company has introduced a major focus on Right First Time. All of these will have impacted on overall productivity. The claimed improvement in productivity has not been consistent across the piece. In the Service Desk area all of the average measures of Incoming and Outgoing calls, Trouble Tickets and %RFT have all fallen from the pre-trial levels.

The union accepted at the introduction of the trial that there was a need to co-locate to evolve the new jobs and training needed as part of the transition. We expected that after the trial period the jobs would be looked at afresh to judge their suitability for a return to more agile working. We believe that once these new jobs are established a return to more flexible working would provide a further boost to productivity that is consistent with agile working across the piece.

UKSO presented us with a number of comments from managers about the supposed benefits of the Return to Office. The Union should like to point out that these comments run totally counter to the stated policy of the Company on agile working and the stated benefits of agile working that Global Services sells to its customers. Had such comments been made in the public domain they would have caused the Company severe embarrassment.

The Union were able to point out the completely contrary views expressed in huge volume from our members, your employees, who actually do the job. They correctly pointed out the higher productivity that they could provide through agile working. They gave concrete examples of the greater flexibility inherent in agile working, pointing out in the last few months alone that those capable of reverting to homeworking had covered their colleagues during the gas incident at Thurso, during the adverse weather conditions this Winter and the significant peaks of work which they covered on overtime from home. The Company also gain from reduced property costs and lower sick absence. They also pointed out the costs to themselves in travel and time costs, and the detrimental impact on worklife balance.

In summary the CWU rejects the conclusions reached by UKSO management on the Homeworking Review. The CWU fully accepts that not all jobs are suitable for agile working. Equally the CWU will campaign against any ‘no go’ areas for agile working and will seek to expose just how out of step this part of the Company is within the rest of BT and modern thinking around flexible working.

Turning now to the issue of workplace stress. Recently the union has received an alarming level of reports of workplace stress, simultaneously from a number of separate locations in UKSO. These indicated a number of people off with stress related illness. Others breaking down in tears at their work and reports of people sitting in their cars dreading coming into work at the start of the working day.

These anecdotal examples are supported by your recent CARE results in this area. This is an unacceptable situation and must be addressed. The union was glad to hear of a number of initiatives that you are putting into place, including mental health workshops and absence case reviews. The union intends to monitor this situation independently through its branches. We will continue to share any feedback we receive with you as we have done up until now. If we find that this situation is sustained or replicated you must know that we will not hesitate to act to protect the health and well being of our members.

Yours sincerely
Colin O’Callaghan
Assistant Secretary


BT advice on sick notes
UK sick note is being replaced by a fit note
From 6 April there will be changes to the medical certificate issued by doctors in England, Wales and Scotland (Northern Ireland is likely to follow later in the year). The Government is replacing the current “sick note” with a new document that is called a ’Statement of Fitness for Work‘ or, “fit note”.
The key change is that doctors will in future be asked to consider what work an individual might be capable of if workplace adjustments were made and to advise their patient accordingly. The aim is to get more people back to work as soon as possible because the evidence shows that prolonged absence is detrimental to health. GPs are being given guidance and some training in the type of temporary adjustments that might be helpful in speeding a return to work. Most advice is likely to fall into the following categories:
• A phased return to work
• Altered hours
• Amended duties
• Workplace adaptations
Other changes include allowing doctors to make assessments on the basis of a telephone consultation and restricting the maximum duration of any single certificate to three months instead of six months. Certificates can only be completed by a registered medical practitioner and will continue to be issued after seven days of self certificated absence. There is no requirement for GPs to sign people off from a spell of sickness absence or certify them as being fit for work.
The changes should generally be beneficial to BT and its people and should not normally cause difficulties.
Action for people managers
Managers should remember that advice given by GPs is to their patients and is not binding in any way on an employer. The type of adjustments likely to be recommended will generally fall within the scope of what BT managers would already offer someone returning from sick leave - so implementing them should normally be straightforward.
The decision on whether adjustments can be accommodated in any particular case is an operational one and rests solely with the line manager who should exercise his/her own judgement. Further guidance on this can be found at: http://humanresources.intra.bt.com/index/conduct/cmiscellaneous.htm (Q&A).
Managers do not need to get any sort of validation for advice given in a “fit note”. In particular, people must not be referred to the OHS simply to confirm advice given by a GP. If advice can be actioned then do it – if it can’t, then don’t. If adjustments recommended by a GP cannot be accommodated by a manager then the “fit note” simply becomes a “sick note” and the individual will remain on sick leave for the period stipulated.
BT has a great deal of guidance on making workplace adjustments and details can be found at: http://humanresources.intra.bt.com/11456. Specialist support is only required in a minority of cases but services such as Enable, RehabWorks and the OHS are well established and should be used when needed.
Further information can be found at: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_184645


BT Operate - Project Duncan
Agreement has been reached without any impediments on eligibility for grade advancement related to APR ratings and to advance only those engineers that have been clearly identified as carrying out work of a higher grade for 60% or more of their time, for one year and over.

Moving forward the intention is that such situations are reviewed in line with BT's standard recruitment procedures.
For those cases that do not fall within the scenario outlined above and are outside the principles of Newgrid, then the intention is that cover allowances will be ceased and people will be deployed on B2 grade activities moving forward. To be clear of the outcomes, it is both BT Operate and the Executive’s clear and unequivocal expectation that where allowances are removed, members will only undertake work commensurate to their substantive grade.


Project Holborn – Performance Management and Management Style
Members will be aware the union has been in detailed and intensive discussions with BT for some time now trying to seek a resolution to the issues surrounding Performance Management in particular and management style. Following meetings and two letters from the company, the Executive have this morning agreed a way forward.

The first letter sets out the new arrangements and also the principles that will apply. There is a clear commitment that there will be no managed exits nor will there be any forced distribution of ratings nor quotas for the number of PiPs, MUPS etc. These are definitive statements with no caveats of any kind. The APR scale will change to a 5 point rating, and the names of some of those ratings will change. The main change will be that ‘Generally Satisfactory’ will change to ‘Development Needed’. It is in this category that we should now see the biggest change for our members. Development Needed will NOT attract any punitive measures. People will be on development plans, but these will not be linked to formal warnings and it will not affect increments, redeployment or release.

Needs Improvement will disappear but Unsatisfactory will remain. Those not improving may find themselves marked Unsatisfactory and this will attract formal warnings. However, no-one can be put onto the Unsatisfactory category between performance reviews unless:

• Performance has deteriorated and is unsatisfactory against the standards set at the beginning of the performance cycle;
• The people manager has held a 1:1 with the individual to explain that performance is unsatisfactory; and
• An individual has been given reasonable time to improve.

A lack of improvement will not be enough to move someone to Unsatisfactory, between reviews. A monthly monitoring process has also been agreed to ensure we have visibility of the numbers of people being rated against these categories and to ensure that the above principles will apply.

Equally critically, these principles and the monthly review will apply for the quarter ending 31 March 2010. In addition there is a review ongoing of every outstanding case where formal warnings have been applied, to ensure that those warnings have been applied properly. We will be given the results of that review.

Standards will now be set at the beginning of the Performance Cycle thus ensuring that terms such as ‘the average of the team’ is not a target that is contemporary but only based on evidence from the previous cycle. Also, it will be the existing quarter’s mark that will be the predominant consideration on the rating to be applied, thus tackling the position that exists of a ‘sticky floor’ where one bad quarter determines the rating for a whole year.

We are still in discussions around levelling, but again we have achieved some change where the focus around levelling exercises will change so that standards and consistency are the main issues.

There is still a lot of detailed work to be done. There is to be one vocabulary (a glossary of terms), detailed discussions around the ratings and descriptors and also around standard setting. It is intended that there will be regular scheduled meetings during January to produce paperwork that can be put to the TFSE in February seeking agreement.

This will effectively mean a relaunching of Performance Management in BT and therefore it will be at that stage that there will be a statement from the CEO, Ian Livingstone. The statement will signal a clear change towards a more supportive and less punitive approach. This lead from the top is critical in ensuring there will be change at lower managerial levels, and for ensuring the buy-in from the Senior Operational managers.

The Executive believes that the measures being introduced should dramatically decrease the number of formal PiPs applied and shift the emphasis to being more about development. The monthly review mechanism, which is joint, will ensure we have visibility of exactly how the new measures are being applied and how effective they are. Clearly if the new approach does not effect change, the Executive will have to re-examine the position.

The letter also contains a clear commitment on the management style expected and it is the view of the Executive that it is the drive on performance management and managed exits that has driven that poor style. Clearly poor managers will not become good managers overnight, but we will now have the safeguards in place to ensure that the Performance Management procedures cannot be abused in the widespread way we have seen over the last year in particular.

BT are today issuing a statement from Alex Wilson announcing that there will be a change in the how Performance Management is dealt with and outlining the main principles. The CWU, for our part, have been very clear that this agreement has to be accepted and implemented in word and spirit. Managers cannot have secret managed exit targets, they cannot have secret quotas and there is no agreement on relative performance which means that league tables are now acceptable. The TFSE fully accepts that many members will be cynical about a new approach based on the existing track record of the company on this issue. The monthly monitoring that will take place will expose at an early stage if the agreement is not being implemented properly and BT are in no doubt about the need for them to deliver a better, more supportive working environment.




The Branch has received a number of enquiries about start times, and in particular, doing vehicle checks etc ahead of the agreed start times.
Please see below information below taken from a letter from CWU HQ.

As Openreach continues with the roll-out of ILM (there are now 7090 devices fitted), issues not directly related but highlighted by the new technology continue to arise.
One such is the vexed question of when someone actually starts work. It is relatively clear for Home Parkers but in recent weeks the issue of whether Yard Parkers commence work by logging on PRIOR to their official start time has arisen.
The CWU has consistently taken the line that there is no obligation for people to do any work prior to their start time. Some managers have claimed the opposite.
The issue has been pursued with Openreach nationally and has been resolved. A briefing was sent to all managers headed ‘Re-inforcing Code of Practice and the Correct Behaviours’.
In the briefing it reinforces the fact that " team members commence log-in at their start time. At the start of the day, Yard Parkers need time to log-on and undertake daily vehicle checks as well as pick up stores/equipment as necessary."

Hopefully this will clarify the matter.

Members are also reminded of the absolute necessity of completing the daily vehicle checks. It also must be stressed that, where defects are found, the appropriate steps are taken to have them rectified. Legally YOU the driver, are responsible for checking that the vehicle, including trailers, is in a roadworthy condition and it is YOU who will will be fined and/or have points on your licence if it is not.

---

---

Members should be aware of the following letter, received on the 5th Nov 2009, from Brian English, Head of Employee relations at BT, to Ian Cuthbert, head of the CWU Openreach team. The letter clearly states that BT will be enforcing part of the Union Facilities Agreement requiring any e-mail from Union Branches to members using @openreach.co.uk addresses to be authorised by BT HR before sending.

"Dear Mr Cuthbert
CWU USE OF THE COMPANY EMAIL ADDRESS SYSTEM
It is important that messages to our people, many of whom are CWU members, are clear, consistent and unequivocal if we are to avoid creating confusion in the continued dialogue on Service Delivery Transformation (SDT), and during the important CWU consultative ballot that commenced today.
We would expect that branches communicating through the Company global email address system only do so using the official CWU communications originating from Head Office or in the alternative use other agreed communications so that any information sent is factual, non-inflammatory and consistent with the promotion of excellent industrial relations which is the basis of the Facilities Agreement.
In order to ensure clarity of message and consistency on the key facts of SDT and the transition arrangements that we have agreed with the CWU Executive, we are ensuring that any message from Openreach to our people is authorised internally prior to it being sent out and is also shared with the CWU.
We have however now seen a number of examples of branches who have used the Company global email address system to communicate to our employees directly in a manner that is in breach of the Facilities Agreement.
Therefore to ensure consistency and accuracy in communications we will now be requiring all CWU Branches, who wish to avail themselves of access of the facility to use the Company global email address system to send messages, to obtain prior confirmation that the message may be sent using the global email address system. This is not a new process and has been in operation within the Company for a number of years and works well.
We discussed with you previously the introduction of this process at this time and we had hoped it would not be necessary to do so. Regrettably the actions of certain branches have now necessitated the introduction of this process.
From the date of this letter the process for CWU Branches wishing to use the Company global email address system to communicate on Openreach matters will be as follows:
• Prior to any message being sent into the email system it must be sent to a member of the Openreach Employee Relations (ER) team for authorisation. This request for authorisation should be to either Alan Towers, Gareth Bubbins or myself.
• The Openreach ER team will ensure that the CWU Branch receives authorisation or not within a 24 hour period. In the event that for any reason an authorisation request has not been dealt with in accordance with these timescales please do not hesitate to telephone the relevant member of the ER team.
• Failure to seek prior authority could mean that future access to the Company global email address system is denied to that particular CWU Branch and/or that branch facilities are withdrawn.
In conclusion, I can assure you that the reason for the above process is to ensure that the Company global email address system is not used for purposes that are inconsistent with the Facilities Agreement and the agreed arrangements negotiated between Openreach and the CWU Executive on SDT. Complying with the above process will ensure that branches do not inadvertently place their facilities at risk due to inappropriate messages.
I do of course fully recognise that each branch has every right to correspond with their members on any issues using private email accounts without seeking prior authorisation.
Yours sincerely
Brian English
Head of Employee Relations"

---

Misuse of Electronic Media: Change of Policy (BT)

To all BT Members
Misuse of Electronic Media: Change of Policy (BT)

BT has reissued parts of their Security & Conduct policies that deal with misuse of electronic media. The changes which have been the subject of dialogue with the union are in two particular areas.

First, the revised wording clarifies the already existing position with regards to any culpability for emails that someone who is not the original intended recipient finds offensive.
Circumstances in which emails may find their way to people who are not the original intended recipient could include someone checking another colleague's email inbox when that colleague is absent from the office, or the intended recipient forwarding on the original email to a number of other people. BT's clarification, which the union is content with, stipulates that the original author retains responsibility for the content of their emails, and therefore retains liability for any offence it caused, irrespective of how the person who is offended has seen or received the email in question. The guiding principle therefore has to be that members should not author an email that they would not wish to be seen on taste and decency grounds by anyone and everyone.

The other principal change in BT's Security & Conduct policies relate to the use of BT equipment by friends and family members. The policy clarification makes it clear that this constitutes unauthorised access/use of BT's electronic media.

This stands in contradiction to the approach adopted when portable computer equipment and remote access were first introduced. Then the prevailing view was that members should feel free to explore the equipment and used by friends and particularly family members was encouraged. However, the union has been willing to agree to BT's change in policy because of the changed circumstances in which we now find ourselves - with portable computer equipment and remote access now available on a very widespread basis, with the relative ease of getting online at home independently of the employer, and in the belief that a policy of use by friends and family has come to create more difficulties than it resolves.

---

Openreach Performance Management

At the Openreach Briefing Committee held on 25 September 2008, there was a fair amount of discussion on topics that would come under the generic heading of performance management. The Executive team will pursue this with senior management. We have already signalled to Openreach our discomfort about the levels of discipline cases based on Safety and Quality. On the last figures I have (May 2007), over the year from June 2006 to May 2007, there were 1347 discipline cases. Cases arising from Safety and Quality accounted for 33% of the total. A further 9% were under the general heading of ‘Manner/Behaviour’. In terms of quality some 76% of the cases arose from critical defects. Notwithstanding the fact that these statistics are based on a workforce of circa 30,000 during this period, they still give a sense that there may be an inappropriate emphasis on punishment rather than corrective action.

At the Briefing Committee some delegates spoke of a sense that PIPs were significantly increasing as well as drives to make people log-on before their official start time. In order that the Executive team can draw up a casebook of examples rather than relying on anecdote, I am writing to ask members to let us have details of cases involving discipline, PIPs, withholding of increments, etc that show unfair treatment of people. I would also ask for an evidence of increased or inappropriate PIPs. I am aware that providing such detail takes up valuable time but, in approaching management, it is much more powerful to be armed with hard
evidence as opposed to anecdote.

---

OPENREACH - AGILE CONTRACTS

During the service challenge last year there were a number of abuses of the specific terms of the so-called Agile Contracts. The abuses were, in the main, reduced following the joint statement agreed between the union and BT. Nonetheless, that episode gave a high profile to the terms of those contracts - specifically the requirement to work 4-12 hours overtime per week and the requirement to work away from home for up to 4 months in blocks of 12 consecutive days, including weekends. There is also the problem that some of the contracts actually specify the attendance pattern to be worked. Being a contractual term effectively nullifies, for those with such a contract, the provisions of the joint agreement on Attendance Patterns. It is claimed that the CWU did agree these contracts when they were first introduced. There is some truth in that but the agreement was for a specific set of circumstances. This was for networkbuild fibre trained people.

BT Retail Field Service adopted the contracts against our expressed opposition. They have now become the standard issue for all new recruits in Openreach Operations. We believe this creates differential terms and conditions based purely on when an individual actually joined BT. That cannot be sound. Furthermore, the contractual terms alluded to earlier in this letter may create a barrier in attracting recruits with caring responsibilities.

Motion 94 carried at the 2008 CWU conference stated: “Conference instructs the T&FS Executive to demand the withdrawal of the unagreed “Agile Contracts” issued to recent recruits by BT and that they are replaced by contracts applicable to existing Newgrid Grades. For clarity this would be the contracts for Newgrid Grades that existed prior to BT introducing the so called, and unagreed “Agile Contracts”,

The union have asked to discuss how we can achieve the objective so that all Openreach employees have the same principle contractual terms. It has been agreed previously that, in essence, the requirements on an individual are the same irrespective of when the contract was issued.

---

It is unfortunate that some BT managers are giving bad advice to members. We have had instances of members being told they cannot be accompanied by a union rep at grievances and disciplines. Apart from Fact Finding interviews, in any disciplinary or grievance meeting members have the right in law and set down in BT policy, to request accompaniment by a union rep. If you are called into a discipline meeting ensure you call us immediately for advice. Even in Fact Finding interviews you can request a union rep and if refused, have that refusal recorded.

Members are also being told that they must attend a discipline or grievance meeting whether a union rep is available or not. If a rep is unavailable on the date or time requested it is our right to request to change the date or time within reason. Managers should not demand your attendance without a union rep present.


Having clarified that you have the right to representation, this only happen if you tell us! We have found a number of members who, for whatever reason, only tell us about such an interview after the event. We can only provide representation when we know you need it, management won’t tell us, it’s up to you!