Odeon proposals rejected

Letter to Odeon members: Sound and projection harmonisation

17 May 2007

The Odeon SDC met yesterday at the Odeon Leicester Square to discuss the above. The union side negotiating team made a presentation to the SDC following which there was a lengthy debate on progress to date in negotiations.

Please find attached, a letter sent yesterday to the company, advising them that the SDC has formally rejected the position as it was left by the negotiating team at the previous meeting with the company on Wednesday 9th May. The letter goes on to set out the union's position in respect of ways of working going forward and regarding the pay award for 2007 the content is self-explanatory.

You are all aware of the original proposal as circulated by the company which set out amongst other things, salaried status based on a cinema grading structure for Technical Managers (Chief Technicians) and proposed a 39 hour week for Technicians with overtime and all other payments based on single time.

BECTU following a meeting of the Odeon SDC, set out its clear position that it would not accept that any member suffered detriment (loss etc) as a result of the company's proposal. We illustrated our point by saying to the company that most Technicians relied on annual earnings considerably higher than those derived from basic pay alone (e.g. premium rates for Bank Holidays, Late Night Shows and overtime) and that therefore, the proposal would mean in real terms, a pay cut for most of our members. To counter this, the union proposed a formula whereby all staff would be paid at the current hourly rate for 39hours, but in addition 4 extra hours at the current hourly rate, would be rolled into the basic to give a new enhanced basic rate for working the 39 hours. This we calculated would mean that most people would end up better off as a result of the changes and not suffer detriment.

The company throughout our many meetings, argued that in had conducted via an outside agency (Hays) a benchmarking exercise and that the benchmarking indicated that Odeon already pay well above the market rate for a projectionist. In fact the company argued that based on this, it was being generous in not attempting to freeze pay until Technicians rates reduced to market rates. The Union persisted in its argument that without a formula to protect existing members against detriment, it would not be possible to reach agreement.

Time was spent looking at other areas of the proposal including areas such as London Weighting, company sick pay and holiday entitlement. During our discussions on these areas of concern, broad agreement was reached in preserving for existing staff, entitlements already accrued and improving and extending London weighting which would become a location allowance and be paid out to Technical Managers on the same basis as for cinema managers.

At our meeting on the 2nd May the company had continued its resistance to the union proposal based on 39 hours worked for 43 paid (as described above) and so in order to move matters forward, BECTU indicated that it was prepared to move slightly and revise its position to one of 40 hours worked for 42 hours paid. In effect this reduced the proposal as put originally, by one hour paid in total. The company went away to consider this position.

At our last meeting with the company held on 9th May, the company asked that we consider further reducing our proposal based on what we dubbed 42 for 40 effectively guaranteeing the 40 hours worked for 42 hours pay for the rest of this year but reducing the working week to 39 hours next year thus taking a full hours pay away from the calculation from 2008. This actually represents a 2.5% pay cut to start 2008! The union resisted this move stating that its position on 40 hours worked for 42 hours pay was the absolute bottom line.

Following a series of adjournments, the company responded by agreeing in principle (subject to board approval) the proposals based on 42/40 but went on to withdraw its offer in respect of company sick pay, holiday entitlement and location allowance, reverting back to the position as outlined in the original proposal. At this point the meeting terminated.

As yet, the company has not confirmed that it has board consent following the end of the last meeting but in any event, the position adopted by the Odeon SDC today in the circumstances, makes board approval somewhat academic.

As you will see, we have indicated in our letter to the company, that we are prepared to meet next week but we also seek to make it clear, what the consequences are of not acceding to the position as we set it out in the letter. For your benefit, if we do end up in the dispute procedure and fail to resolve the situation satisfactorily then we will be balloting you on some form of industrial.

We believe that the company thinks it can run its business without you. They think they can train up front of house staff to do your jobs. We believe that there attitude throughout these negotiations demonstrated disdain for Odeon Technicians. We hope that you will continue to support us in our campaign to retain what is rightfully yours: a fair days pay for a fair days work.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely

D. J. Beevers
National Official

Letter to Mike Stevens, Group and UK HR Director, Odeon Cinemas: Sound and projection harmonisation

16 May 2007

As you are aware, the BECTU/ Odeon SDC met today at the Odeon Leicester Square to receive a report from the negotiating team following our last meeting with you, held on 9th May.

Although I understand that the position reached last week has not as yet been fully signed off by the company, I asked you when we spoke this morning, if the position was likely to be improved and you agreed it wasn't. On that basis we reported back to the SDC.

I have been instructed by the BECTU/ Odeon SDC to advise you that it unanimously rejects the position as it stood following the last meeting with the company. The committee believes that in overall terms, too many members will suffer detriment as a result of the revised position on hours worked and hours paid. This is not to mention the fact that some of the benefits in respect of holidays, company sick pay and location allowance payments have now reverted back to what was outlined in the original proposal. Our members will therefore, continue to work to their existing terms and conditions.

I am also instructed to advise you that BECTU will not accept a position where changes in establishment are implemented out-with the current extant agreement in other words, our members will not work with or train front of house staff or management to do their jobs on a part time basis if and when vacancies occur.

Finally, I have to advise you that the union wishes to have an urgent meeting with the company to discuss its pay claim for 2007 (backdated to 1st January 2007).

The committee has asked me to express its concern that to date you have cancelled two meetings, including today's meeting, given the importance placed on these negotiations by the company.

I must advise you that if any of the above three items are not agreed, we will have no alternative but to refer matters to the dispute procedure where if they remain unresolved, we will have no alternative but to ballot our members on industrial action.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

D. J. Beevers
National Official