British Railways Board Company news

Change of pay period from 4 weekly to monthly

Members will be aware that the company has decided to move to a monthly paybill system with effect from the new financial year as a result of the change to a different payroll supplier. Earlier this year the union requested views from members on this matter and on the basis of the responses received I met with BRB (Residuary) Ltd on 13th April 2004.

At the meeting, I argued that our view is that to change members’ period of payment is a contractual issue and that to avoid a costly recourse to law it would be in everyone’s interest if this matter could be resolved by the company making a one-off payment to all affected staff, thus effectively buying out the condition. Ideally, the payment would be added to a person’s salary rather than be made on an ex gratia basis. The company indicated that they were receptive to this idea and took away my suggestion for further consideration.

To further update members, I would draw your attention to the next item.

2004 Claim for improved pay and conditions

Members will remember that as part of last year’s pay award the anniversary date for settlements was moved to 1st April.

The TSSA Claim

With this in mind, the union submitted a detailed claim in early April for:

 A substantial improvement in salaries reflecting increased costs of living, the continuing commitment by staff to an organisation that is running down its operations and the nature of settlements elsewhere in the railway industry;
 Improvements to family friendly policies and especially 26 weeks full pay for maternity leave, two weeks paid paternity leave and contractual adoption arrangements that run parallel with improved maternity provision;
 A reduction in the working week for full time staff to 35 hours over five days to improve the work/life balance and to mirror the trend that the TSSA has been able to achieve in most railway companies.

The Company’s Offer

I am now able to advise members that a meeting has been held today at which the company made their formal response:

 An increase in basic salaries of 3.5% with effect from 1st April 2004. The offer was set at this level to include compensation for the change of pay period and is the maximum allowable under Treasury Guidelines for earnings growth;
 A 3.5% increase in the Management and PB Staff Salary Ranges (minima and maxima) with effect from 1st April 2004;
 Harmonisation of family friendly policies with those applicable to SRA staff, the main details of which

Maternity Pay For staff with more than 26 weeks service as at the 15th week before the expected week of confinement and who return to work, to receive 18 weeks at full pay and the remaining 8 weeks at basic Statutory Maternity Pay (BRBR presently offer 6 weeks at 9/10ths average pay and 20 weeks at Statutory Maternity Pay);

Adoption Pay As Maternity Pay;

Paternity Leave 2 weeks paid leave within 56 days of the baby’s birth;

Parental Leave 13 weeks unpaid leave for each child, up to the child’s 18th birthday.

The claim for a reduction in the working week was declined.

Your views

With the foregoing in mind I want to conduct a referendum ballot of members to determine your view of whether this offer is acceptable in the current circumstances. A ballot paper is attached with a simple tick box facility. A "yes" tick indicates acceptance of the whole offer, whilst "no" confirms lack of agreement.

I have to say that on the face of it, the offer seems reasonable because other settlements in the railway industry are in the region of 3% and the Treasury have set an earnings growth threshold of 3.5%.The Treasury’s guidelines state that any offers at or above the threshold have to be justified as a result of specific circumstances, such as some reform or restructuring and it is on this basis that the company’s offer includes compensation for the change of pay period.

Further, the improvement to the family friendly policies is something that we have been trying to achieve for several years and potentially could go beyond those items listed because of the use of the words "the main ones of which are", lifted straight from the offer letter received from the company. The general principle espoused at the meeting today was that whatever the SRA get in this area, so will BRB (Residuary) staff.

The alternative view is that staff may have been offered 3.5% anyway. The company could not quantify how much had been included as compensation for the change of pay period although it was only ever likely to have been a token amount. Some members may also ask how valid are the family friendly policies if they do not apply to them personally.

Whatever your view, please return the completed ballot paper by no later than Friday 21st May 2004.

Outsourcing of Solicitor’s Department

I have been informed that BRB (Residuary) Ltd has decided to outsource their legal work on the basis that the size of the organisation does not warrant a dedicated legal function and that property sales are moving ahead. There is no certain date for the outsourcing as yet but the company are working towards a handover in June with an on-going overlap with the new contractor until September. Contracts have been put out to tender but at the date of the meeting in April the successful candidate was unknown.

I am advised that those people effected by this decision have been made aware of the situation with dates agreed for them to leave the company.

At today’s meeting management explained that a further review is being carried out of the litigation aspects of the department’s work. No further details were available other than that the person effected by this part of the department’s work shares a common Post Withdrawal Date with other BRBR staff.

The union will continue to closely monitor this development but if any effected members have any concerns or comments, please contact me and I will take the matters up.

Outsourcing of Property work

I have been informed that the company had decided to go out to tender to outsource property work but retaining an in-house client function. The contracts let to the successful applicants, Lambert Smith Hampton and Sanderson Weatherall, will commence from 1st July 2004 and continue until 31st March 2008. Greater delegated authority will be given to the contractors in order that they can operate on a day to day basis. The company also advised that they intend to drop the name of Rail Property Ltd but that this had no impact other than that described.

In the course of our discussions, the company explained that the effect on staff of the change will be that surveyors will see a reduced day to day involvement in transactions but have a larger role in managing and auditing the contracts. Another effect will be that the contractors will become responsible for making payments, thus taking this work from one post in London and one in York although alternative work, including an auditing function, is being developed for these individuals.

Management stated that they are currently going through an exercise whereby they are seeking to identify what people do now by requesting amendments to job descriptions. Their intention is then to carry out the same exercise after the new property contracts have come into place. One of the results of the exercise will then be to identify changes with the possibility of increased reward.

I understand that staff have been advised of these changes but the union will be keeping a close eye on how this whole process develops. Please feel free to contact me to discuss this (or any other) matter.