Standard Life set itself on a collision course with the Unite Amicus union yesterday as it issued a briefing document to all its managers revealing it has no intention of recognising the union unless forced to by law.
The internal two-page memorandum, which was disclosed to The Herald last night, says that collective bargaining in the company would be "a serious distraction to achieving our recently announced company strategy of future growth and efficiencies".
It says Standard "will not enter into a voluntary arrangement, only following a formal request from the Central Arbitration Committee", and warns of "significant resource implications including management time, employee relations, communications, training and education costs".
Scott White, spokesman for Standard, said last night that he had not seen the document.
Amicus staged two successful recruitment meetings for Standard members earlier this year following the introduction by the company of cuts in staff pension benefits as part of its demutualisation. Several hundred employees crammed into nearby hotels on both occasions, prompting requests from Amicus to meet the company.
But Standard repeatedly highlighted the important role of Link, the Standard Life staff association, in negotiating adjustments to the pension proposals, and postponed a preliminary meeting with Amicus until last week, after its consultation on the proposals had ended.
That prompted an orchestrated union protest at Tuesday's annual general meeting, which contrasted the "fat cat" pension of chief executive Sandy Crombie with the reduced benefits of staff. It also claimed that some of the insurer's 8500 employees earned only £12,000 a year. During Tuesday, Standard issued some 2500 words of counter-briefing on the issue to the media, and Crombie told questioners at the meeting that he could not "go forward" with the union because it had "not produced the evidence" for its membership.
Spokesman White said last night: "They refused to give Standard Life that detail ... the question was can you give us details of the numbers and they said quite simply no'."
David Fleming, national officer for Unite Amicus, commented last night: "Quite simply, that is not true. They have been given the figure. In fact I said to them there is no point in breaking it down, because if you do it voluntarily we will work it out, and if you do it the hard way we will have to break it down by business units anyway."
A successful application to the CAC has to establish that a union has 10% of a com- pany workforce as members, by business units, and then at least 40% of employees in a ballot must accept the principle of collective bargaining being introduced.
Fleming said: "We prefer to work with companies in a mature way. We think they (Standard) are being disingenuous about the costs and other issues - that doesn't reflect the relationships we have with any other major company. I find their behaviour extremely naive, it reflects the naivete of the way they have dealt with the workforce." He said the union's next move would be to make a formal application to the CAC.
Josie Westley, one of five full-time officials at Link and one of two authorised to talk to the Press, commented: "As far as we are concerned it is the choice of the individual how they are represented. We want to maintain a professional focus."
White added that the union's "basic level of truth" was in question, because the claim that many staff earned only £12,000 was a distortion. "Our staff have a hugely competitive package," he said.
One Amicus member at Standard Life told The Herald: "Up until now the company has stated they are interested in talking to the union. Now they seem to be saying that unions would be damaging to the company, which I think is against the spirit of the regulations.
"As a staff association representative I can tell you that a lot of people are very unhappy that the company by and large hasn't really talked to them over the years but has treated them fairly casually.
"It only started to play up the staff association because the union made an attempt to win recognition."
He added: "I have seen the membership lists and I would say the union has 10%. I think Standard Life knows it."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article