Latest News Archive

Openreach: Attendance Patterns

15 January 2007

At the Openreach Briefing Committee held on 30 November 2006, a full report on the Attendance Patterns negotiations was given and the subject debated. Reference was also made to the concept of Aggregated Hours.

On 6 December 2006, the T&FSE considered a report from the team and the version of the proposed agreement existing at that time. After detailed debate, the T&FSE came to the following resolution.

"That the current state of negotiations be noted and the team authorised to reach agreement subject to the following caveats:-

1. That the governance must include the obligation on management to reach agreement with the CWU at the appropriate level on any change to existing patterns.
2. That patterns for new recruits, agency conversions and transferees be the subject of negotiation and joint agreement at the appropriate level.
3. That the notice period for change remains at 13 weeks, unless it is agreed by the individual that a shorter (4 weeks) period would be acceptable.

And further

4. That the subject of Aggregated Hours be negotiated as a separate, standalone issue and the outcome of these (Aggregated Hours) negotiations be placed before the T&FSE in due course for ratification".

A number of meetings followed throughout December. It was agreed the issue of Aggregated Hours would be dealt with separately.

The CWU Executive team argued that there had to be an obligation on local management to secure agreement with the CWU at that level. If agreement could not be reached, then both sides would have the facility to escalate with pre-determined timescales to respective Head Office level. Management has continued to resist this reasonable governance.

Whilst actually agreeing with the voluntary nature of a preference exercise, management have chosen to try to keep open the opportunity for local managers to change individual's patterns whether he/she participates or not.

A similar managerial response has been forthcoming in terms of the patterns for new entrants and agency conversions. This, as events have shown, is about worsening the contractual terms of new recruits.

At the outset, the CWU team took the view and made the commitment to members that we were not about changing existing attendance pattern agreements. We would support a process where individuals could voluntarily move between agreements in the full knowledge of the consequences. Contrary to fears expressed at the Openreach Briefing Committee of an attack on the Shorter Working Week, it is the notice period for change in CSIP that is the focus of attention. The CWU standpoint is that people should be able to freely choose whether a shorter notice period was acceptable.

There is an attempt to widen 'Seasonal Working' across the range of patterns. The CWU accepted that, for safety rather than commercial reasons, there could be a case made for seasonal working. We would wish that change to be the subject to local agreement or escalation if necessary.

Currently negotiations have stalled with management considering its position. This is regrettable because failure to reach agreement is down to management being unable to accept governance entirely consistent with the rhetoric around 'working together'. It is to be hoped that sense will prevail in the not too distant future.