Fifth Resources pay meeting

The fifth meeting on possible changes to the BBC Resources pay system has taken place.

The meeting, held on 23 July 2002, followed on from the previous meeting with Resources management and discussed further their proposed annualised days system.

Night payments

Management said they wished to propose a night payments system that, in their view, reflected 'true' through the night working. They proposed £20 per hour for the hours 0200-0500 (broken down into quarter hour pro rata payments).

The union-side initially responded by saying that excluding the hours from 0001-0200 and 0500-0600 would not be a proposal that would find much favour amongst members.

Progression

On progression within each grade for those starting a new position management proposed 'normally' equal steps over five years starting from the 100% salary point (ie the floor of the grade) to 115% as the fully competent salary. This would approximately be equal to a 3% increase over each of the five years (over and above any normal negotiated annual salary increase).

Union representatives pointed out that the 115% was not in line with fully competent levels that had been applied previously.

These levels had been put in place because of the implications of moving from the previous grading system in the mid-1990's. A number of the old grades (eg 2N/2S), applicable to operational and engineering categories, where placed in single new 'wider' grades. Therefore to ensure salaries reflected seniority different fully competent levels were applied to these specific categories, a number of them being above the 115% level.

In view of this the union-side said that the 115% level proposal would negatively affect new current and new staff prospects compared to the situation arrived at the mid 1990's.

Management responded by saying they did not believe that differing fully competent levels within grades for certain categories were still applicable.

New starters

Reference was made back to the proposition made at the last meeting by management that new starters in Resources, including the current trainees, moved to the proposed pay system outlined by management during the meetings.

The union side asked why they would wish new starters to move to such a system in view of the negative feedback from members so far on the proposals as they were currently understood? Concern was also expressed about the implications of a two tier system with different conditions depending on when staff had joined - not least that in the long term it would, in real terms, reduce salaries in real terms as more staff move to the proposed system.

The current dispute on Resources trainees was referred to by the union. Management were informed that if they attempted to impose the disputed conditions for trainees, it could be interpreted they were attempting to introduce their new starters proposals by the 'back door'. If this occurred it could have negative implications on the overall pay structure talks representatives said.

Management were asked that if their proposals were cost neutral, as they claimed, what was the benefit for Resources? They replied that it was to move the culture from hours to days based on trust.

Union representatives said there were not control systems in place in relation to working time, and therefore it did not seem how such trust could be put in place. Management responded by saying that defining the length of a day 'would confuse the issue'.

The union pointed out that current Days Conditions staff do not normally have control over their hours when working in operational areas; and that Days Conditions has been extended to categories that don't in the main have control over their working hours. Management accepted that for operational Days Conditions categories self-scheduling exists only on planning days.

Work/life balance

In connection with the work/life balance, one of the points on the original agenda for the talks, union representatives said the current proposals did not address improving the current situation. Both the length of individual days, and the pattern of work throughout the year, were equally important. The management proposals did not address either of these issues.

In relation to any possible improvement in Pension consolidation it was pointed out that the Triennial Review report was expected on 17 October 2002. Management said without information on the Pension situation they found difficult to make any proposals concerning transitioning current staff to any proposed new system.

In view if this it has been agreed to postpone the planned union/management meetings in August and September. The next meeting is expected to be held in October 2002.