URGENT - Text of a proposed Collective Grievance to be adopted by workers at DNEG, London
This document was created by DNEG employees in consultation with BECTU officials. The text of the Collective Grievance that will be send to DNEG Management will be as follows:
To DNEG HR Department.
We, the undersigned, wish to lodge a collective grievance about the way in which DNEG are consulting staff about the proposed pay cuts. We understand that this is a very challenging time for the company, and to be completely clear, we are not, and will not, ask the company to do anything that will result in job-losses.
We do not accept that asking for a longer and meaningful consultation will do anything to damage the company’s trading position or its capacity to preserve jobs as the company has already proposed retrospective pay cuts at one point during this consultation.
In return for an agreement to consult with us according to the terms set out below, we will agree that any changes agreed by that meaningful consultation can be backdated to the date currently proposed by the company. Indeed, the company will have our support for any reasonable changes to the employment contract if they can be shown to retain staff at current levels.
Individuals have already been told that it is likely that this wage-cut consultation may soon also be followed by job-cuts and a reduction to the headcount at DNEG. We believe that we should not conclude any consultation about wage cuts until we have also had a meaningful consultation about job-losses that are likely to follow in the short-medium term.
We believe that, if any jobs are lost in the near future, should also be done fairly as part of a redundancy process with a full consultation and that people with less than two years of service should be treated in the same way as everybody else.
We do not believe that it is fair to treat people working on Fixed Term Contracts in the same way as people on permanent contracts who will have their jobs preserved by these cuts, and we believe that these people should be treated differently. These people have less of a stake in ‘saving jobs at DNEG’ and it is unfair to ask them to take the same cuts as everybody else.
This brings us to the substance of our grievance.
We object to the speed that this consultation is being done in. The company has still not shared all of the details of the current proposal with the staff and we are still hearing rumours about an ‘equity pool’ among other things, yet the consultation period end-date is imminent.
We are asking the company to halt the current consultation and re-start it as a meaningful collective consultation that is done to an agreed and reasonable time-scale. We do not accept the proposed changes, and if the company refuses to offer a meaningful consultation, we will be forced to either work under the new terms under protest while exploring all legal means at our disposal to compel the company into a meaningful collective consultation, or resign our positions. Individuals who are party to this collective grievance may take a different position on this question.
Our understanding of a meaningful collective consultation is as follows:·
Staff should be invited to elect a representative group of representatives from among the staff who can meet privately and negotiate collectively.·
It is important that we can verify the company’s claims about its trading position and prospects, along with the claims about the reasons that these changes are being sought.·
These staff should be given privileged access, under terms of confidentiality, to the details of the company’s finances, trading position, along with the forecasts that DNEG are basing their projections on.
The reps elected in a collective consultation should be able to appoint independent advisors of our choice. They should be able to work under similar terms of confidentiality to advise us on the company’s understanding of its trading position. It is important that all staff can reassure themselves that these wage-cuts are being proposed for the reason that the company is giving to staff.
It is also important that the balance of risk is being shared fairly between staff and shareholders, but also fairly among staff with different kinds of staff being treated fairly. At the moment, we are not clear that this is the case.
The group of representatives should be elected to include a representative group of everyone including people on Fixed Term Contracts, staff who have been furloughed, people with less than two years of service, people who have a long record of service, people who are on part-time or job-share contracts, along with representatives from all departments.
We are asking for this grievance to be conducted according to the company’s handbook, and with reference to ACAS guidance on best practice in cases such as this. Some of us would like to hold this grievance collectively, and some of us may be prepared to have their grievance heard personally. Those of us who wish to have their grievance heard collectively reserve the right to be accompanied by a trade union representative. We will be prepared to do this on a Zoom call if necessary.
We strongly urge the company to agree to this request. It is a very reasonable and minimal response to being unilaterally asked to accept pay-cuts of up to 25% and doing so will help to foster the goodwill that the company is going to need between staff and management going forwards.
Signed by: _____________________________________
If you work at DNEG London, and you wish to take part in, and support this Collective Grievance, click the button!