At its meeting on 27th May the National Executive Council reached agreement on the outcome of discussions between eircom and the CWU on changes in the Service Assurance and Service Delivery areas.  Those changes along with supporting documentation were issued to the Branches on Friday, 30th May 2008.

The purpose of this circular is to explain the rationale behind the National Executive Council’s decision.  As you will be aware over the past number of months there has been intensive discussions on the company proposals commonly known as Project Clear or Celerant.  Those proposals sought wide ranging changes including the closure of all Centres with the exception of Cork and Dublin.  It was the Executive’s view that in order to agree to such a change, there would have to be financial compensation for the members concerned and a ballot on the outcome of the discussions.  It became apparent early on that the company would argue that these changes were encompassed by the change clause in the Towards 2016 national agreement. For our part we saw these changes as major structural change and therefore it was our view that we would argue that at third party if necessary. 
Following the AGM’s it became apparent that many Branches were of the view that we needed to water down the company’s proposals to the greatest extent as the changes proposed were just not palatable to the majority of the members.  As a result I convened a meeting of all Branch Secretaries, National Executive Council members and Co-ordinators in Union Headquarters prior to our Conference in Kilkenny to outline the options available to the Union.  The consensus from that meeting was that we should negotiate on the company’s proposals with a view to watering them down to the greatest extent possible before deciding whether or not it was in our interest to refer the matter to a third party.  On that basis, intensive discussions took place with the company with both sides agreeing that nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed.  That position was also clearly explained at our Conference.  The outcome of those discussions therefore was debated at the National Executive Council meeting on Tuesday, 27th May and was subsequently agreed on Wednesday, 28th May.  A further meeting of the eircom Branch Secretaries, Co-ordinators and NEC members took place at Headquarters on Friday, 6th June at which the National Executive Council’s decision was discussed and explained. 

While it is fair to say that there was some disappointment expressed at the Executive’s decision not to conduct a ballot, there was an understanding that considerable progress had been made through the discussions by the Officials at Union Headquarters and that the resulting documentation bore little or no resemblance to the original company proposals.  There was also a concern that if we went to third party based on the original company proposals that while some financial compensation may have been available that the cost in terms of the impact on our members would not have been acceptable. The meeting was also informed of the Executive’s view that as a result of the negotiations by the Head Office team there would be minimal impact on COTs.  The success in maintaining all but two of the Centres was also a key factor as were the guarantees given in relation to the staff presently working in the Centres in Waterford and Dundalk.

The National Executive Council is aware that there were expectations for a ballot on the outcome of the discussions on what was once Project Clear or Celerant but we are of the view that the new agreement contains little that caused so much concern in the original proposals.  We have also had to take this decision against the background where ComReg has once again put the squeeze on eircom in relation to its investment returns allied to the decision by the Department of Communications to refuse the company’s application in relation to Broadband rollout.  When one takes those factors into account along with the international trading position of Babcock & Brown which has been widely reported in the media, I hope you will understand that taking a gamble at third party where all circumstances are taken into account was far too risky a strategy for the members concerned.