![]() However, management moved to force significant changes on its own behind a pretence of employee “input”. The complainants added that the AUSES/IFPTE went to great lengths offering to indeed be responsive and responsible in adapting to change, as long as change was managed in the context of a collective bargaining relationship where workers’ rights were respected and protected. ![]() It is in all our interests that the United States network responds and adapts to the changing environment, rather than resists change.” This means we will on occasion have to change policies and practices, even where they have been in place for many years. The complainants attached a letter dated 31 January 2005 from the Embassy Counsellor on Change Management to the AUSES chairman, which indicated: “It is our duty to run the Embassy in as efficient and productive a manner as possible. In a number of self-serving, contradictory, ambiguous and incorrect statements, the embassy management said that it welcomed staff “input” and “positive communication and dialogue” but behind this verbiage lay unilateral management power. Beyond that, embassy management had launched a campaign to undermine, marginalize, and de-legitimatize the employees’ chosen representative. Instead, management acted unilaterally to implement several changes in terms and conditions of employment injurious to employees, without bargaining with their chosen representative. According to the complainants, the embassy management responded to the employees’ choice of representative by cancelling dues check-off and refusing to recognize and bargain with the AUSES/IFPTE Local 71. The IFPTE granted the AUSES a charter making it Local 71 of the Federation. In terms of the relevant ILO Conventions, they joined an organization of their own choosing to further and defend their interests. In a democratic process beginning in December 2004, a substantial majority of United States-engaged staff joined the IFPTE and chose it as their bargaining representative by freely signing cards to that effect. Most recently, while the Embassy still recognized and bargained with the AUSES, bargaining had resulted in agreement on changes in pensions and health insurance. According to the complainants, the Embassy of the United Kingdom to the United States (hereinafter the Embassy), had recognized and bargained with the AUSES as the representative of locally engaged staff for almost 50 years on terms and conditions of employment and adjustment of grievances. The AUSES, Local 71 of the IFPTE, represents more than 600 United States-hired or “locally engaged” employees who perform a variety of staff functions at the Embassy of the United Kingdom, consulates, United Nations mission, British trade offices and other British government facilities in the United States. In their communication of 23 June 2005, the complainants provide first of all information on the Association of United States Engaged Staff (AUSES) and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees (IFPTE), indicating that the IFPTE was founded in 1918, is an affiliate of the AFL-CIO and the Canadian Labour Congress and represents more than 86,000 workers in professional, technical administrative, research and associated occupations in the United States and Canada. ![]() 135), and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 98), the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. ![]() The United Kingdom has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. The Government replied in communications dated 23 March and 25 September 2006. The IFPTE and AUSES provided additional information in a communication dated The complaint is contained in a communication from the Association of United States Engaged Staff (AUSES), the International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees (IFPTE), the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and Public Services International (PSI) dated 23 June 2005. Allegations: The complainants allege that the Embassy of the United Kingdom to the United States refused to recognize and negotiate with the trade union chosen by the locally engaged staff to represent them on the contrary, it allegedly unilaterally implemented changes in the terms and conditions of employment of locally engaged staff and announced plans to set up a management-dominated “Staff Representative Council”, inviting employees to go through the Council rather than their unionġ249. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |