Scottish Borders Housing Association has been "provocative" and "draconian" in giving formal notice to its salaried staff that their contracts of employment will be terminated if they fail to agree new terms and conditions.
Both Douglas Black and Rob Stewart, regional organisers of the UNISON and Unite unions respectively, have written to SBHA chief executive Janice Cambridge seeking an early meeting in a bid to resolve the situation.
"Failure to resolve this satisfa
ctorily will mean that both unions will consider all options available to them and respond accordingly ... you should not underestimate our intentions in this regard," states the letter.
The region's largest social landlord opened a consultation with all its salaried employees in October over changes in working practices, including the replacement of essential-car user allowances (worth nearly £70 a month) with enhanced mileage rates and the removal of flexible working (flexitime) procedures.
On Christmas Eve, a letter from Mrs Cambridge was sent to the 200-strong workforce, outlining the results of the consultation – that flexitime procedures would be revised, and revealing that the replacement of the car allowance had "generated the most opposition".
Despite these concerns, she said the SBHA board had taken a final decision to implement the changes "for business reasons". She explained the replacement of the car user allowance would be phased in with no change in 2010/11, but ongoing 33 per cent cuts over the following three years.
Mrs Cambridge said affected staff who felt the move represented a material change to their terms and conditions should consider her letter as notice that their employment under existing terms and conditions would end on March 31. Those choosing not to accept were told they would not be entitled to redundancy or other payment as a result of the termination of employment.
The union officials said their members had met on January 22 and asked them to write to Mrs Cambridge."We have to inform you that both unions view this action as provocative and unnecessary," stated Messrs Black and Stewart. "Our members are extremely angry at this draconian response and concerned at what it means for their future employment and ongoing industrial relations within SBHA.
"Given the stance taken by SBHA, our members' view is that your proposal be rejected and that our members will not agree to sign the consent form (attached to Mrs Cambridge's letter] authorising the change of contract.
"We have to stress that it is our wish to put industrial relations with SBHA on an even platform. However, your actions in this matter are jeopardising this ..."
Mrs Cambridge told us that she had not yet replied to the union letter as she was still working on details of a revised flexitime procedure.
"It would not therefore be appropriate to comment to the press before replying," she added.
Wardens to go – page five
