I thought it wise in the light of recent eircom Sectoral decisions to write directly to you to explain the reasoning behind those decision.  Given the challenges that face the Union in eircom, through competition and unfair regulation and particularly through new and merging technologies allied to the debt situation, it is absolutely necessary that we are organised in such a manner that ensures that we can get the best results for our members during these difficult times.

There is absolutely no doubt that deciding how we best progress under those pressures will be a difficult task and there are bound to be differences of opinions.  It has always been the case in trade unions that such difficulties are dealt with through well tried, trusted and agreed internal procedures and processes.  It is very unhelpful if indeed not more serious, when individuals operate independently of our agreed processes, as such actions totally undermine the democratic manner in which the union should operate.  There is also absolutely no doubt that it gives succour to many elements within the company which seeks to profit from any perceived divisions within our union.

Partnership
When I was appointed General Secretary, I visited every eircom technical branch in the country either at AGM or Committee level in order to get a feel for what the issues were from the people on the ground or from our activists who represented those same people.  It is fair to say that there was a tiredness amongst those people with Partnership and there was a view that the union side had lost its way in that we were not getting input from our members who were affected by the change programmes or we were not giving them sufficient feedback.  There was also a view that that there was insufficient effort being put into the union’s agenda and that the union’s identity was overtaken by the company’s change agenda.

As a result of those views, I attempted to establish whether or not there was a mood within the eircom side of the CWU to exit from the Partnership process.  I believe it is fair to say that the vast majority of union activists completely accepted that Partnership agreements were the best way to deal with an industry that is highly technical and constantly changing.  There was a firm acceptance amongst those activists that the traditional IR model would be detrimental to our members interests.  However, it was also believed that we had to revitalise the Partnership process to address our members concerns. 

To that end, I organised a special eircom seminar in Athlone to discuss Partnership that involved Branch Officers, Sectoral Executive Committee, National Executive Council, Co-ordinator’s and all relevant union officials. The result from the Seminar was that we should redesign Partnership to make it more responsive and inclusive while also developing and pursuing a union agenda.

Since then through a range of high level meetings with the company, some of which have been very acrimonious, we have developed a new method through which we will deal with change under the Partnership process and this has been agreed by the SEC.  That agreement gives direct involvement in all future key negotiations to Branch Secretaries, Branch Co-ordinator’s and to representatives from the Branches on the National Executive Council and Sectoral Executive.  This now in fact means that each branch will have key personnel elected and selected by their own branches at the coal face of those discussions.  It will now be incumbent on those representatives to ensure that they have a process within their branches locally to get input into the area of change that they are dealing with and also to give feedback to the members concerned in order that there are no surprises when hopefully agreement is reached.

I do not believe there is any other type of approach that would give directly elected and selected union representatives such input, while at the same time given their local involvement, allows them to deal with the problems raised by members at Committee meetings and at AGM’s.  It does not mean that the company agenda will change. Indeed it does not mean that life will become any easier for our members, but it should ensure that the members affected have input and feedback and through their elected and selected representatives and can make a difference to the company’s agenda.  It also allows the Union as a result of that process to develop an agenda based at the very least on the likely impact of the ongoing change programme.

Pay
Another theme that has emerged from those initial set of meetings is the view that many of our members pay in eircom has fallen behind comparable grades in outside industries and indeed outside of this country.  Comparing pay rates etc., is never an easy task and one is always loath to question any information given freely at meetings with the best of intentions.  In order to try and get a handle on the thorny issue of pay, I have therefore decided that I will, with Sectoral Executive approval, conduct a comparative exercise of pay rates in the areas outlined above. That exercise when it is completed should allow us to adapt a logical pay policy for our members in eircom.  In the meantime, whether we like it or not, we are bound by the terms of the national wage agreement, which precludes us from lodging cost increasing claims to all of the companies where we have representation.  The normal manner in bypassing that provision is by becoming involved in regrading, productivity, or incentivised payment schemes and it is fair to say that we need to be more imaginative in how we look at those areas.

Conditions of Service
The final issue that became apparent to me from the above meetings was the desire of many of our members to retain their existing conditions of service and there was a deep concern that the company change programme was being used as a justification to do away with many improvements in conditions that have been hard won through previous agreements.  It would be fool hardy of me to argue that in some cases this in fact has not been the case, but all conditions and practices need to be measured against what is in the best long term interests of our members and while it is easy to stand on ones dignity, it would be foolish of anybody to argue that the best long term interests of our members in eircom are not linked to a successful company.  I believe it is a question of balance and I would expect that through the new Partnership process the impact on conditions of service are protected and improved, where possible, through the development of the union agenda.

ESOP
The ESOT and the ESOP Board has been set up to deal directly with ESOP issues and we now have a very strong team in that area led by the Chairman of the Trust, Mr Jerome Barrett, National Officer.  By law, the ESOP Board has an obligation to deal with company issues on the basis of so-called fiduciary responsibility i.e. they are obliged to act in the best interests of all participants.

Notwithstanding that position, I find it hard that anybody could be foolish enough to believe that the Union should act in such a way that would damage the price of eircom shares, as (a)  it would impact directly on monies to be paid to our members in the future and (b) it would certainly impact on the ability of the company to attract share capital and investment which is absolutely necessary to maintain employment in the company going into the future.  While there is also a view that our members have paid for ESOP, we should realise that most workers outside of eircom cast envious eyes at ESOP and while it may now be to some degree taken for granted, we would be under selling ourselves if we did not realise its real value.

Conclusion
I have tried to give you my view of the important issues that now face our members in eircom following my first year as General Secretary.  It is my expectation that by my first conference as General Secretary we will have clear policy directions on all the major issues affecting our members in eircom, which will be there for debate by the Branches and the delegates.  Our only real chance of fulfilling our obligations to our members is by having easily explained, easily understood policies in all areas which we can follow to their benefit and which will ultimately only be successful if we all pursue that goal in a united manner.