1st Collective Consultation Meeting. 2nd September 2014 at 12.30pm. Location - Plc Boardroom, Imperial House. Attendees

Transcription

1 1st Collective Consultation Meeting 2nd September 2014 at 12.30pm Location - Plc Boardroom, Imperial House Attendees (AH) Andrew Harley Group HR Director (PR) Phil Rixon Senior Reward Manager (SDW) Steve Davies-Wright Senior HR Business Partner (CS) Chandni Shah HR Business Partner Jenny Elliott HR Coach Alisha Gervais HR Coach (TR) Tony Riviere Marketplace Manager - Constituency 1 (GH) Grahame Harrison Marketplace Manager - Constituency 2 (PC) Paul Cook Shop Manager - Constituency 3 (PP) Paul Plowright Business Support Manager - Constituency 4 (YM) Yvonne McCorry Marketplace Manager - Constituency 5 (MD) Martin Dixon Shop Manager - Constituency 6 (DP) Diane Park Marketplace Manager - Constituency 8 (SP) Stephen Fitzpatrick Release Technician - Constituency 9 (SM) Sarah MacMurray Marketplace Manager - Constituency 10 (DE) Dave Ereira Release Technician - Constituency 11 (MV) Mike Vanning Head of Research - Constituency 11 Start pm 1 AH summarised agenda to be covered. a. Introductions and descriptions of roles b. Purpose of meetings SDW/PR c. Process timelines SDW

2 d. Meeting notes SDW e. Communications SDW f. Basic principles SDW g. Question and answer session h. Close and next meeting AH confirmed roles of participants. His role to Chair meetings, guide discussions, represent the company, ensure consultation is full and fair, that representatives recommendations and comments are fully considered, and, on behalf of the company, respond to points raised by reps, and decide at the end of the process whether to proceed with the proposal. Reps thanked for volunteering and recognition given to the importance of their role. Steve Davies-Wright's role to ensure proper process is followed, answer questions on process, drive communications, and gather required information. Phil Rixon to provide pensions input, access external advice and present the basis for the company proposal. Alisha Gervais and Jenny Elliot are note takers and will provide HR support on process and communications. Chandi Shah to provide HR support. 2 Round table introductions 3 AH Confirmed that John Moloney was absent and reps asked if one of them would be happy to contact John and update him on proceedings. 4 Paul Plowright volunteered to do this and it was confirmed that a request would be made later in the meeting to the reps as to whether they would be happy for John to dial in at future meetings 5 AH stressed that consultation process is about the reps engaging in the discussions on behalf of their constituents. AH also confirmed that Consultation is different to negotiation and is about discussing, sharing, seeking information and a way forward, getting inputs, suggestions, and ideas. AH explained the importance of having full discussion, making decisions and updating those colleagues affected as soon as possible. This was in order to reduce anxiety, bearing in mind the time elapsed since issue of initial letters. AH said that Colleagues will be anxious to learn more and the frequency of meetings will have a significant impact on our ability to provide them with this information. 6 SDW stated that the 1st Consultation meeting was about setting the scene and explaining the process that will be followed. Subsequent meetings will have more time dedicated to information sharing and debate.

3 The purpose of the meeting 7 SDW explained the purpose of the process and what the group would be expected to cover over the 60 days Company present more detail on proposals, let reps request clarification and challenge. Company capture reps views on proposed changes with regard to (i) ways of avoiding them (ii) agreement or otherwise (iii) details of any objections Company listen to counter arguments, proposals and alternative suggestions. All discuss these proposals and explore merits All explore alternative solutions. Company answer all questions raised by reps in relation to the proposal All consider ways of mitigating the impact of the proposals All examine process for considering these proposals to ensure its fair. Company take reps view into account before reaching a final decision. Company to Confirm final decision. PP asked what the election results and turnout were in each constituency, and which representatives are now representing a constituency other than their own. SDW stated that the only constituency in which an election was held was Constituency 4, and that he will provide the other information. Process timelines 8 SDW confirmed that within the next week the reps would receive a section 188 letter via , confirming their role and providing further background information. SDW stated the formal consultation period would commence once reps received this via and will last at least 60 days from this date. 9 SDW outlined the process that would be followed if the decision was made following collective consultation to proceed with the proposal. SDW explained that this was being done in order to enable reps to answer any questions in this area.sdw stressed that provision of this information did not suggest the company had any predetermined outcome, but was based on the need to make reps aware of all potential outcomes

4 10 SDW indicated that if the proposal does proceed after the period of collective consultation, then letters confirming this, and requesting that employees sign variations to their contracts are likely to be distributed week commencing 10th November. PP Enquired about the purpose of a proposed informal meeting with the individual before commencing their formal individual consultation following collective consultation and SDW confirmed this was in order to be able to check with them why they did not want to give their consent and ensure they have all the required facts. 11 A number of reps questioned who would do this and SDW confirmed it could be HR or their Line Manager that would meet with those who had not signed the letter giving their consent to the proposed changes There was discussion about the current planned incentive (i.e. double Company contribution for the first year), and when a member had to accept to obtain this. SDW said that it was envisaged that this may continue to be available into the individual consultation stage and that a reasonable time would be offered for consideration. However the timing and principle of this should be considered as part of the collective consultation. 12 PC questioned what would happen to individuals if they refused to sign at their informal meeting. SDW stated they would then move into individual consultation. 13 Various reps asked what would happen if they still refused to sign at the end of individual consultation. SDW stated that they would be served notice of termination of employment and at the end of their notice period, offered a letter of re engagement in the same role with same terms and conditions with continuous service, but without the final salary pension plan. 14 PC suggested there was no incentive for colleagues to sign and accept the new terms if they didn't include the pension plan. SDW confirmed that if they failed to do so, their employment would end with immediate effect, as by this time will have already served their notice in their current role. 15 MV asked whether there was any possibility that terms set via collective consultation could be varied in individual consultation and SDW confirmed that no variation could be made at the individual consultation stage. MV also asked if the proposal would be considered in the light of the individual impact upon member situations during the collective consultation. SDW said that consideration to the impact across a range of member positions is part of the evaluation. 16

5 TR Asked whether the likely outcome of the consultation would be that the pension plan would close. SDW stated this was only one possible outcome. There were a number of possible scenarios and a final decision can't be made until all options have been explored and discussed. 17 PR went on to state that there was a wide spectrum of potential outcomes; with at one end, the plan carrying on and at the other end, the build up in the plan stopping, with a menu of things in between. Reps have this opportunity to recommend and argue in favour of what they feel is the best way forward. PR emphasised that the Company s current proposal was to close the plan to both of two different elements of future benefit build up; i.e. ceasing build up of future service years, and the calculation of final pensionable salary at 30 June DE asked whether this meant a possible outcome could be retention of the final salary pension with accruals. PR stated this was a possible outcome, as it was one of the options up for discussion, but the company needed their views and recommendations. Meeting notes 19 SDW confirmed notes would not be verbatim, but would capture key points, questions, answers and matters that required future action. A table of questions and answers would be produced and attached to the minutes. 20 SDW asked for two volunteers to check the minutes and stressed the need to turn this around as fast as possible. PP and DE volunteered to check and respond on behalf of the others, but asked that the draft notes be sent to all reps as soon as they are available and the two of them would respond with comments on behalf of the group. SDW confirmed notes would be typed that evening, checked the following morning and sent to the reps by 12 noon the following day. The reps agreed they would check and return them by 5.00pm on the day following receipt, which would be two days after the meeting. SDW confirmed the company would place a copy of the meeting notes on the L&G website the following day (3 days after the meeting) and send a hard copy to all affected employees home address on the same day. Communication 21 SDW confirmed all reps now had company mobile phones with exception of Yvonne, who has agreed to allow reps and those in her constituency to use her private number. It was agreed by the reps that their phone numbers and e mail addresses would be placed on the L&G site and sent out as hard copy with the minutes. With your consent we would post your numbers and addresses on the L&G website.

6 22 SDW confirmed that Gmail accounts have now been set up for all which could be accessed via the phones. There had been initial problems with these accounts which should now all be fixed. SDW also went on to say that the conference call facility was available to the reps and MV and DE stated they had used it with success. Basic Principles 23 SDW stated that during the 60 days, the company can only deal only with the reps, as communication direct with those affected would risk undermining the reps delegated authority. SDW also explained that if reps can provide questions via e mail in advance of the meetings, this will enable the company to be in a position to answer the question at the meeting and discuss. SDW stressed the need to agree the minimum number of attendees required in order for a meeting to still proceed, bearing in mind holidays and sickness, saying common practice would be 25%. SDW also asked for the reps to confirm the circumstances where they are happy for someone to dial in to the meeting. Reps confirmed they wanted a minimum of 9 in attendance from 12, of which 7 had to be physically present and two on conference calls. Reps were happy for dial in to apply in medical or travel emergencies. The reps request was agreed. 24 SDW confirmed that reps would be privy to a lot of information, some they would need to read, discuss and share, however some may be highly confidential. The company would make it clear if they are not able to share the information. Adjourn 13:36 Reconvene 13:43 25 AH moved the meeting onto discussing the questions and stated the intent to provide answers to the written questions provided in advance by the reps. 26 DE asked if rather than going through the previously submitted questions first, he be allowed to read out some new questions put together by the reps in the pre meeting that took place just before the main meeting. AH said this would be fine, but that they may not be able to answer them without a further opportunity to consider them. 27 DE's first question was that, In the interests of a fair and reasonable consultation process can written responses to questions raised be returned 5 working days(from receipt in post) prior to the next formal group meetings, so that the answers can be properly shared and understood by the constituents of each group.

7 DE's second point was that the spacing between consultation meetings is too tight, allowing insufficient time to ensure members are kept fully-informed and have a chance to feedback to the Reps before further meetings. DE's third point was that it did not seem fair and / or reasonable for the first consultation meeting to commence 2nd September, as a number of elected representatives from some constituencies will only have been trained on the morning of 2nd September and therefore not been able to consult appropriately with those affected in their groups in the first instance. 28 DE asked a further question as to why Trustees are not being involved in the consultation process, as reps believe the Trustees responsibility is to safeguard the interests of their plan members, and this does not appear to be the case if they remain outside the consultation meetings/process. DE also asked for clarification on the Company s stance of not involving the trustees has been taken on why this approach has been taken DE asked on behalf of the reps that to support a fair and reasonable consultation process, the Company request the involvement of the trustees and their advisors. 29 DE asked if the company is at liberty to close the plan to future accrual according to the Trust Deeds and whether the Plan can continue without being fully-funded were there to be no remaining Active Members DE asked the company to share the advice the company has received relating to this. 30 DE Stated that as this is a potential removal of contractual term and condition, it would be beneficial to the consultation process if affected members could see the company s evidence for its ability to change employees contracts without consent, and to remove this valuable contractual benefit? DE also asked if it was possible to have visibility of legal advice received by the company relating to this process. DE asked what the individual consultation would cover if the process reaches this stage and whether there would be an opportunity for the outcomes from the collective consultation to be amended following individual consultation process. DE stated that each individual member will be clearly impacted differently by the proposed changes and any buy out of this contractual provision would need to vary in order to be considered fair or reasonable. DE went on to question whether an adequate impact assessment has been carried out for each individual member to assess the effects in relation to the benefits, to ensure all those involved in this process are treated equitably and are fully aware of personal impact? 31 GH asked whether individuals could be sent personal examples of how the proposal impacts them, based on the fact most people will fit in one of 6 bands. 32

8 PR commented that the company would look at that, saying it was noticeable in training that even the definition of pensionable salary was not known, or that it was the average of the best 3 in 10 years. It is a good example of some of the work that is needed in helping understand what the changes mean. The Company has provided more information. 33 PC said that some people haven't read all the information that was sent to them. They want to ring and ask for information, rather than read all that detail. We need a better way to help communicate with those affected. 34 DE suggested there was a need for personal impact statements that show what people will lose. 35 PR stated he agreed it was important that plan members read and engage and the Company needs to find the best way of doing this. Plan members will get need literature next week and if reps get feedback from constituents, we can see what other ways are needed. 36 DE asked a further question as whether the company has complied with age discrimination legislation in formulating its proposal as it has greater adverse affect for younger plan members. DE also asked what the legal and financial advice has the company sought and received regarding age discrimination and can this be shared with the members. 37 DE raised the point that to fully participate in either the group or the individual consultation process each member needs to be fully aware of the personal impact in what is a complicated subject. DE stated that the reps requested that each individual receives a personal impact statement and individual personal advice is made available and funded by the Company. The view is that individual personal advice sessions are urgently required and we would ask that surgeries with independent financial advisers are provided. The present situation is deemed to be neither fair nor reasonable as most people do not fully understand the impact of the company s proposal 38 AH gave his view that general feedback on IFAs is very variable. The information they receive impacts the information they provide. AH went on to say that an IFA might be good, but unless people are prepared to do their homework and provide the IFA with lots of data, the IFA may not be able to give good balanced information. The advice given would be based on the information provided. Can be good, but individual needs to engage. DE Stated that many would find financial advice helpful and should be considered. 39

9 DE asked the company to provide resources for independent professional financial advice for reps, as in such a complex area this is essential for the process to be considered fair and reasonable. It would also be beneficial for the company to offer to fund legal advice for representatives. MV supported the request by expressing the view that in this complex area of pensions, in order to be a fair and reasonable process, the reps needed access to professional advice funded by the Company; otherwise they could not properly scrutinise the Company proposals. 40 DE Asked what are the forecast Company contributions for plan members under the plan and under the proposed scheme? The proposal is suggested to be cost neutral- is the proposal cost neutral to the company in terms of current plan members or across Ladbrokes employees as a whole. DE asked the Company to share the calculations and considerations that back up the Company s claim that its proposals for Pension provisions are not also proposals that will save cost. DE stated it would be helpful for the reps to see detailed comparisons of projected costs for plan continuation vs. the proposals over an extended period; we are therefore requesting that this information is provided. P PR gave a brief response to the effect that the Company s principle concern regarding the Ladbrokes Pension Plan was to better manage and remove volatility of the pension costs. 41 DE asked what alternatives to closure of the final salary plan to future accruals have already been considered and for provision of detailed information explaining why they have been rejected by the company. DE added that feedback received to date has been overwhelmingly that active members want the final-salary plan to be retained, and that, as a priority, all options now need to be thoroughly analysed and explored 42 AH confirmed he had captured those questions and would respond at the next meeting with answers. 43 SDW confirmed the need to address the meeting dates based on the concerns expressed earlier in the meeting. It was agreed to cancel the meeting on the 19th September in order to create a greater gap between meetings and add in an extra meeting around the 7th or 8th of October. Some reps also requested that the consultation meetings are held earlier in the day than a 3pm start. It was also agreed that there would be a 2 hour pre meet before each meeting for the reps, and that a room would also be made available to the reps directly after each meeting. 44 PR then went through each of the pre submitted questions from the reps and provided a response. Q1. Request a copy of the cash flow projections - estimate of money that will paid out over the 80/90 years. PR confirmed this has been incorporated into the wider Q&A which should be distributed by end of next week at latest.

10 45 Q2. Request information on distribution of colleagues in the plan - statistic by age, time in plan, time to retirement, grade categories, type of plan (e.g. 1/60, 1/80). (This would provide counts over Ladbrokes as a whole and therefore would not divulge any individual information) PR circulated a handout to the reps containing this information. 46 Q3. Request comparison examples shown in booklet to be re-based on same contribution basis in actual terms - as percentages are on a different base salary and the scheme costs colleagues more in the current examples. PR circulated a handout to the reps containing this information and indicated that this would be distributed to colleagues with the minutes, subject to comments received from colleagues. 47 Q4. Request changes Legal and general site pension calculator - the site assumes contributions are from now - this inaccuracy has a big impact if you only have a few years to retirement How can it be made realistic? PR confirmed that a few weeks ago L&G changed their pathways, so that the booklet was no longer like the screen.pr circulated a draft document to reps to comment on. 48 Q5. How can reps get access to their Consultation inbox via smartphone and get consultation Gmail account accessed via groups does not have 'normal capabilities' e.g. blind copy. SDW confirmed new Gmail accounts set up to rectify the problem. 49 Q6. Requested spreadsheet containing e mail addresses of all in constituency 11. SDW confirmed this has been provided. 50 AH Q7. Request copy of presentation material - PR confirmed these were issued on 18 August and asked Reps if they wanted them placed on the L&G website and they confirmed they did 51 AH Q8. Is the company willing to pay to for a financial advisor to assist each affected employee on an individual basis. PR stated that he would like to first send out the new pathway and additional documents and allow time for feedback. 52 AH

11 Q9. Is the company willing to provide the reps with an independent expert resource who can give them pension advice on these issues in order to help them better understand the issues and present their arguments PR stated what is important is the additional information regarding the volatility. If there is a need to know more about volatility we could engage further with LCP who provided advice at the Company s training session for Representatives. 53 AH Q.10 Request from the Trustees of the pension scheme an Interim report on the valuation of the plan. 54 PR PR responded by saying this would be for the Trustees to determine and that their next meeting is on 26th September, where there will be further discussion of the valuation; until that point we have nothing to share. 55 AH AH confirmed he would look at the questions raised, that actions and notes will be completed as quickly as possible and adjustment made to times.ah went on to say that the consultation period had not started, but will commence when 188 e mail arrives, probably Monday Thank you to you all. Meeting ends at 2.33pm These are notes only and are not intended as verbatim Actions SDW Mobile phone numbers and addresses of representatives to be posted with the minutes PR cost centre for travel expenses to representative SDW Book pre-meeting room for pre meetings SDW Chase any feedback that the new has not synced