Question submission

[daniel craig]

Once again, I agree with Boy George.

We are legally now in a period of consultation. Despite what may have come across at the initial meetings, this process is not our employer welcoming our questions and doing us a favour by being willing to answer them in a bid to reassure us. Rather it is a period where we are supposed to be able to tell our employer what is important to us and our employer is legally obliged to try to achieve an outcome from the transfer with which we are happy. It is therefore essential that we make the most of this process as, although many of us have previously received good treatment from our current employer, they have been less than helpful in enabling us through this consultation period, and will in any case soon cease to be our employer and have no responsibility towards us. Also, how we represent ourselves at this stage is the first impression that our new employers have of us.

The initial questions that did not reflect the whole team's views were not even sent to the whole team, and were, I think we're all pretty much agreed now, quite unprofessional (at best). This is no-one's fault: it was inevitable in the short time-frame and given the lack of information at that stage. However, it is now imperative that we take responsibility and ensure that they go no further. I have asked my rep to stop this from happening, and I encourage others to do the same.

I am not aware of any questions being removed from the new/revised set. As far as I know, those that could not be answered by TUPE regs were included, albeit in professional language. But if Jo/Eslin/Vicky can tell us what has been removed, then the problem can be easily solved.

The only other feedback that I can see regards removing the custom & practice redundancy precedent. I think this is a fair point that we should consider. What does anyone else think about this?

Regarding the earlier posting about the new pension only legally having to match 6%, when I signed my contract, I was told that our current employer matched nothing (although they used to match contributions years ago), so the new pension would be better even at the legal minimum. It's possible that we might be on different plans depending on when our contracts were signed.

Unfortunately, I too have heard from someone who's been through two TUPEs, but the story was not quite as positive as another contributor's. He read up on the process and when he realised that his new contract was not as watertight as he would have liked, he insisted that it was changed (unlike his colleagues who could not be bothered). He is now the only person not forced to work bank holidays as part of his normal hours.

[The Beatles]

Hi all,

re the initial set of questions that were sent

Just to let you know that because i work the weekend shift, I also did not manage to get my concerns noted on the first set of questions that went out, it would be great if the second set could be sent out soon, as i would really like my opinions to be made clear to HR before the transfer takes place.

I think it's important that everybody's opinion is noted irrespective of how trivial a question may seem to somebody else. I also think it's important to remember that we are a group, and that within any group there will be a great deal of variation in priorities, I'm sure that HR will understand this and that they will not hold the whole team accountable for one person's opinions. Saying that, we do need to ensure that our questions represent our concerns (group or individual) as fully as possible as presumably this will be one of the factors that influences our contracts. Thinking about it, I'm also not sure that we should be trying to answer questions by interpreting the TUPE guidelines on behalf of the team. We could get it wrong (highly unlikely I know but nevertheless), perhaps let's leave the interpretation to HR?

Thanks to everybody who has worked so hard accumulating information and questions.

[tintin]

test

[daniel craig]

Further to Beatles' posting, I know this is a bit sneaky, but on second thoughts it might also be quite useful to ask questions to which we already know the legal answers as a way of checking out our employer/s?

[Adam Ant]

Hi all, I would like to thank all for working on everyones behalf to spread the word. I think this is an amazing way to communicate to us all and thank the person for initially setting it up.

I do agree that we should send a new set of revised questions and do agree that these questions will be used to "negotiate" our deal.

Please could the revised questions be emailed to the whole team for our thoughts asap.

Many thanks everyone.

[Happy Elephant]

We knew very little about the outsourcing process in the beginning and it has been a huge learning curve. For example, knowing about TUPE, reading (and understanding) all the literature, and ascertaining what our ‘rights’ as employees consist of was a lot to take on board… and this was before even taking into account the very varied emotions/concerns of all of us.

Moreover, as mentioned previously, it’s not as easy as a group of employees all getting together after work to discuss things, as we all work such varied hours and are based at different sites. Everyone has their own views and what’s important to one may not be to another and so forth… so I agree with other postings that it is always helpful to see any corresp/information beforehand so everyone can feel comfortable about what is presented to management/the new provider.

Human nature is such that speculation is always rife before something concrete lands. Between us, it’s great that we have such a wealth of knowledge and experience (previous, learned and learning) that we can pool, and support each other going forward. Thanks to the reps who are coping with it all on an extra level.

To comment on a couple of previous items:

1. UBS did indeed stop matching pension contributions in 2002. Thank you to D Craig for raising this.
2. I checked with PPP and they do offer the same (or a chosen, reduced level of cover) to ex-UBS employees. Each person will receive his/her personal quote, but when I rang it is (unfortunately, yet perhaps unsurprisingly) at a way substantially higher premium without the corporate discount in place. If anyone wants to ask for his or her own quote, the number to call is PPP—UBS Group Leavers on 0800 028 2915.

[WhitneyHouston]

We have all been thrown in to this process at the deep end without any support or advice from the business; they dropped a bomb shell and left us to muse and simmer. We should all value that individuals react and behave differently and as such some appear to be more “laissez-faire” and others pro-active.

Clearly, from the posts on the forum, individuals across different shifts have explicitly expressed their dissatisfaction and are not agreed about how we are being represented by the initial set of questions. It is also apparent from the posts on the forum that we are contradicting ourselves. Contrary to what has been posted, the “team” as a collective were not consulted regarding the initial questions and as such I have tried to re-address this with a revised set of questions which appears to also be causing some concern amongst the team, the process was certainly not intended to cause upset, but to engage all members to provide constructive feedback. Not that the weekend team’s process needs to be defended, but it was felt that copying the questions verbatim style potentially undermined our position with some of the questions and did not position us professionally and in an organised fashion. Consequently the questions were re-organised, considering all viewpoints and opinions. At no point did “one person” decide what should or should not be included and questions were not deleted, merely “organised”. It was felt that asking the same question five times in a grammatically-flawed fashion, asking about 20 different benefits in 20 different questions and asking questions to which we already knew the answers was counter-productive to the consultation process and potentially wasting resources that should be focused on providing a collective, air-tight, mutually beneficial contract for the whole team.

I don’t think for one minute that anyone is directing criticism to any one individual regarding the initial set of questions, more the process and as such we should not be getting defensive and losing sight of the fact the team needs to be represented, and if team members are obviously unhappy about their current representation then this should surely be addressed by individual representatives who should be encouraging agreement? The weekend team have addressed this and on behalf of the weekend team I can say that we are happy with the questions going forward. Additionally, concerns and views that have been shared during the week, both on the forum and alternative communication mediums have been addressed and hence questions revised.

Personally I would hate to think that I am stepping on people’s toes and have taken the stance that the revised questions are currently from the weekend team until a mutual resolve can be found. It is unfortunate that we have this disparate two-tier Q&A process, however, I understand that the questions have not reached senior management yet and certainly not the transferee, hence there is opportunity to organise ourselves and have total agreement going forwards? I will ensure that these questions will be circulated through the department and encourage any feedback to then make further revisions should they be necessary.

[WhitneyHouston]

Please see italicised text for revised quesions:

General
• Please advise any actions that will be taken in connection with the transfer that will affect employees, e.g. the name and intentions of the transferee and when the transfer will take place as well as any legal, economic and social implications of the transfer for the affected employees that may not have been covered in questions raised specifically under this consultation
• What actions does UBS envisage that the transferee will take following the transfer: e.g. redundancies, change of workplace, shift hours, possible injection of new employees, or other re-negotiation of contracts, service/satellite provision? Please also advise if the transferee will not take any such actions
• Please advise how transferred employees would be affected by future re-tendering or in sourcing
• Please confirm that following the transfer the transferred employees will not be prevented from applying for jobs at UBS
• Will the transfer affect employees when applying for credit or references with external agencies and/or companies?
Contracts
• Please advise if the transferee can rewrite employee contracts (thus not guaranteeing current conditions of pay, benefits, notice period etc.) after a “fixed” period of time and under what conditions
• Please advise if the transferee can knowingly freeze salaries and pay increases to bring employees in line with existing transferee employees
• Please advise if a new probationary period will commence once employees have signed the new contracts with the transferee and confirm that the length of service will automatically carry across
• Please advise timeframes in which to agree and sign new contracts
• As the transferor, please fund independent legal advice (the provider to be chosen by employees) to review employment contracts and/or compromise agreements
• Please confirm that the transferee will honour existing taxi allowances provided by UBS
Employees working flexible/specific hours/roles (due to business and personal needs)
• Please confirm that employees working different roles to those stated in their contracts, will continue to work in their accepted roles and receive financial remuneration retrospectively of these additional work activities
• For employees currently on a contract which has been arranged under the flexible working request ("subject to business needs"), will these contractual hours be honoured?
• For employees whose contracts state different hours to those that they have conventionally and consistently worked over a long period of time, please confirm that the working hours will be honoured by the transferee under “custom & practice”
• Please confirm that employees fulfilling first aid and evacuation warden roles will continue to be recognised and paid for these roles and receive requalification training as necessary both in UBS (e.g. for AEDs) and externally (St John Ambulance) (CFAWs for employees who live outside London and do not work conventional hours) as appropriate
Redundancy
• Please confirm that transferred employees whose roles may become redundant in the future will always be entitled to redundancy settlements no less favourable than UBS’s established enhanced compensation packages (defined as, “… 4 weeks pay per year for a minimum of 13 weeks … “, 28th February 2008, Minutes of meetings of the UK Employee Forum (UKEF)). This must also include shift allowances as agreed by two employee forum meetings.
Pensions and shares
• Please advise what pension arrangements will be made both in respect of (a) existing UBS pensions and (b) the transferee’s pension arrangements for employees
• Please advise what will happen to existing Equity Plus shares and options
Benefits and discretionary allowances
• Please confirm that all employees’ benefits and entitlements (from contractual to discretionary) will be 'like-for-like', as stated. Please also advise precisely how employees’ entitlements will be met by the transferee. Some of the entitlements include (but not exhaustively) Valueflex benefits (including PPP level of cover and pre-existing conditions and insurance), maternity/paternity entitlements, Equity Plus, Matched Giving, Employee Assistance Programme, Experian credit report, emergency family care, nursery vouchers, continued access to UBS car parks, extra holiday purchasing, parental leave, emergency leave, enhanced sick leave, Charles Cameron & Associates, UBS parties, season tickets, staff discounts, Art card, membership of UBS clubs and societies, etc.
• Please confirm that any future benefits that may be offered to UBS employees will also be extended to the transferred employees, so that transferred employees are not disadvantaged by the transfer and can maintain terms and conditions similar to those that (a) they could have previously expected, and (b) are in line with remaining UBS employees
• Please advise how ongoing health claims and outstanding season ticket loans will be handled
• Please confirm that transferred staff will still be entitled to use the UBS medical centre and receive existing services
Bonuses and remuneration
• Please confirm that the transferee will conduct future salary and condition reviews, including annual bonus awards, on no less favourable terms than UBS’s
• Please confirm that the Bank Holiday and overtime policies, procedures and allowances will continue on no less favourable terms than UBS’s

Employee outsourcing questions
Reviews and opportunities
• Please confirm that the transferee will conduct performance reviews. Please also explain how promotional, training and individual opportunities will be offered following the transfer
• Please detail what technologies and computer packages will be available with training following the transfer
Miscellaneous questions
• If the transferee is taking over the management of presentations globally, please advise why this does this not include ISC
• How does UBS envisage that the relationships between transferred employees and UBS employees (including ISC) will change or develop?
• Will transferred employees still have access to their P drives and please confirm that personal data will not be deleted?
• Will transferred employees still have access to the UBS intranet and will they have new email addresses?
• Will employees’ comments and questions have any bearing on the choice of transferee?
Temporary staff
• Will temporary staff be transferred to the transferee on the same terms and conditions (hours, length of contract, rates)?
• For contractors who leave, will the three-month rule still apply before they can return to UBS?
• What is the ratio of contractors to permanent staff likely to be going forward?

[Ray Winstone's wife]

I've been reading through the forum and would just like to put my point of view accross. First of all I'd like to thank everyone who has involved themselves in the questions being sent and this forum, I really appreciate you stepping up to be representatives.

I have a little experience with TUPE, not personally but I know a couple of people who have been transferred over from company to company and have to say that although it isn't ideal (in an ideal world I'd stay working for UBS) but it isn't the end of the world (in my opinion).

Once UBS has decided who will be taking this department over, we should be having meetings with the new company to introduce themselves to us and to explain the situation in detail. They should give us all the information we require on the TUPE law and keep us informed of their intentions towards us. The TUPE law was created to protect workers from getting a "bum deal" from the new employers and ensure that everything that is currently on our contract with UBS will be included in our new contract with the new company. ("The introduction section in the US Employee Handbook (save for the contents of the first paragraph), the Sections ‘Terms and Conditions’ and ‘Benefits’, together with the letter of engagement and any documents referred to therein contain the terms and conditions of the contract of employment between employees and UBS". therefore we should received all the benefits that we currently receive in Valueflex. I'm sure that the new company will not be able to provide us with all of the benefits we currently receive but they will have to give us the amount of money in our valueflex accounts and then it will be up to us to use the money as we see fit)

It is not UBS responsibility to negotiate this with the new company, but the new employers legal responsibility to do so under TUPE law. In our profession this has been going on for quite a few years and I'm sure that every company that could potentially take over (particularly Williams Lea) are well aware of their obligations that they have towards us by law.
In my opinion there will be at least a months worth of to-oing and fro-ing between the new company and us with regards to our contracts, they wont put new contracts in front of us and expect us to sign them without explaining the whole process to us and giving us time to read the contract thoroughly, by law they must consult with us and treat us fairly, that is the whole point of TUPE law.

I would also like to say that even though it is great to have a forumn and everyone swapping information so that we are all aware of our rights, until we have a new company it is a little redundant (no pun intended), even though UBS will be in negotiation with the new company they will most probably be negotiating how much the new company is going to charge them not whether or not we'll still be using any of UBS's resources. Once they have negotiated their deal it will be down to us to negotiate our deals with the new company. The basics of the contracts will be the same for us as a group but it will be up to each individual person to negotiate anything that they are particularly unhappy with (My husband was recently involved in tranferring from Williams Lea to Xerox at HSBC and even though he didn't think to ask himself, colleagues of his said that they wanted more money from Xerox - and received it. Albeit the situation was different, it was from one outsourcer to another and not going from bank to outsourcer but I think it shows that there should be some room for us to negotiate individually). Before working for UBS I worked at Credit Suisse for Williams Lea and there was a few people who had transferred from Credit Suisse to Williams lea and they had everything that they had received from Credit Suisse on their contracts with Williams Lea. My husband also works with a guy who originally worked for Midlands Bank!! (for those of you not old enough to remember Midlands Bank it's who HSBC used to be and they used to give cool piggy banks to kids who opened accounts!!) He is still at HSBC now and has been Tuped over quite a few times and is still receiving all the benefits he used to receive when he worked for the bank all those years ago.


These are, of course, purely my own opinions and I am by no means trying to push these onto everyone else, but just wanted to let you know of my experience with this situation and to hopefully alleviate some worries that people without experience of TUPE may be feeling.

[Ron Burgundy]

Hi all,

Hope everyone is well?

Thanks to all for the research on the whole TUPE takeover.

I have just a quick question. We all get x amount in our Valueflex each month for various benefits which are discounted. When the takeover occurs does anyone know if the vendor has to give us the discounted monetary value of the benefit or the high street value of the benefit?

You Stay Classy San Diego.

[daniel craig]

Thank you Whitney for posting the revised revised questions. These now incorporate the excellent suggestions from Knightrider and The Beatles and show what we can achieve when we put our heads together. I think we're getting there. I'm really proud to be a w/e team member and am happy for those questions to represent my views when they go to management tomorrow. Thank you everyone for your input and especially Whitney for incorporating everyone's views so coherently, working in your own time, and putting the team's interests first. OK, that's enough now, I'm not going to start hugging anyone ...

It's a shame that we haven't been able to achieve total cohesion across the London team yet, but perhaps we'll manage this further down the line and it's a relief to know that we still have that opportunity.

On this subject, I haven't seen any postings requesting that we stick to the initial questions. I have seen many postings consistently saying that colleagues did not want to be represented by them. Perhaps if anyone does want to proceed with the initial questions they would be good enough to let everyone (or at least their reps) know, as at the moment it unfortunately seems that no-one except Jo/Eslin/Vicky are represented by those questions. I absolutely agree that if there are colleagues who still prefer the previous version then the representatives must represent them in some form, but I can't find these colleagues here?

[Knightrider]

Thank you Ray Winstone's other half for posting what you posted. That is very comforting. It just reiterates the fact that there are so many different people with different opinions involved, and that there is definitely a need to get all the available information together in one place before taking a stance. Unfortunately there are still loads of people who rather stick their head in the sand and haven't even had a look at what is being posted on here.

Am not sure what questions have gone out after Tuesday's email from Dimitrios

Dear All,

Many thanks for taking the time to compile a list of initial questions that you wish to have answered following the communication delivered last Friday. Michelle has sent these onto me.

As soon as we are in a position to do so, communications will commence with the relevant parties and we will work together to answer your questions fully.

Please continue to forward onto your shift managers or your HR representative any further questions you may have.

Kind regards
Dimitrios


Whitney, could you forward your revised questions to Dimitrios maybe? He is on 85073.

[mshinoda]

... that I haven't put my head in the sand. I have lot going on at the moment, so unfortunately I don't have the time to contribute as much as I would like to have. I do appreciate all the efforts though and I definitely won't sign anything that I'm not happy with, even if it means that I won't have a job.

[Knightrider]

... that I haven't put my head in the sand. I have lot going on at the moment, so unfortunately I don't have the time to contribute as much as I would like to have. I do appreciate all the efforts though and I definitely won't sign anything that I'm not happy with, even if it means that I won't have a job.

mshinoda, my remark was obviously not pointed at you since you have been following the conversation. It is absolutely fine that there are people just reading and not posting. No problem whatsoever ... I am just aiming to help clarify why Whitney is not getting any objections to go ahead with the revised list of questions except for 1 (or is it 3?) people.

[Flying Jellyfish]

Sorry have just quickly read the last few entries as I don't have time at present to read everything thoroughly but I will make an effort to do so tomorrow!

I work on the weekend shift and I know that some of my questions were not included in the original list sent to HR by Michelle. I think it is going to be impossible to get everyone on all shifts to agree so can we please just get an agreement from the weekend team and present the list as the weekend team's contribution. At least that way they can start working on our questions too.

I also agree that this is a period of consultation and by the time the contracts are issued, this will be too late. We need to negotiate now so that when the contracts are issued, they are more or less reflecting what we want. The issuing of contracts is the final stage in the negotiation not a starting point.

Thanks to everyone who is looking into the legal side of all this as I don't have the time myself.