Social dialogue : Enough is enough !
Dear Colleagues ,
Around the turn of the year, you have learned through various channels, both from employees and employers, about the changes that were made to the Flex Reward Plan during the last negotiations.
One of the changes was the extension of the coverage offered by Medexel, e.g. in the field of glasses, visits to a psychologist, medication, etc. This extension obviously has a cost.
The intention of the unions was to make this additional cost a shared responsibility and thus partly to be covered by the employee and partly by the employer, as it has always been in the VOSSCO/ASCEL story.
Quite surprisingly, management refused to take responsibility and contribute to the additional cost. This eventually became a breaking point, causing negotiations to break down repeatedly.
Finally, the unions took their responsibility to sign the Flex Reward file, despite this fundamental flaw. In the meantime, the Medexel contribution can be financed through the Flex Reward Plan by our staff members, which creates an advantage in terms of purchasing power, since the premium can be paid through the gross salary (flex budget).
To make matters worse, after signing the CLA, the management came with the news that the coverage would not be as extensive as proposed during the negotiations.
One of the things negotiated, was an adjustment/extension in the sense that ALL medication on doctor's prescription, (not reimbursed by the health fund, but recognized by NIHDI/RIZIV/INAMI), would be reimbursed up to €250 from 1/1/2023. There is also an additional charge for this extension. Suddenly a rectification came (on 21/11/2022) after the CLA had already been signed: the management telling us that this does not apply to all medication, but only to medication linked to a serious illness or hospitalization. This is a big difference, which can amount to €250 per year, per family member, for certain medication such as e.g., Dafalgan! The employer had "misunderstood" the Medexel delegation... The additional cost for the extra coverage promised, would then remain as high????!!!!
This is totally unacceptable to the unions! When there are negotiations with a clear decision and a collective agreement is signed, the agreements, that frame the negotiations, to reach that collective agreement, should be respected! What is happening here is "du jamais vu" in the history of the social dialogue in this Bank! This shows no respect for the social dialogue and all the employees of this company.
The unions have questioned the employer extensively about this, but "what good are candle and glasses if the owl won’t see”?!
Such stubbornness of the employer, against all better judgment, has since become the rule. The list was already building up, but this latest incident is really "the straw that breaks the camel's back" for us unions.
The common union front has informed management that there is no longer any point in negotiating this way: there is little or no listening anymore to what the workers' delegation proposes, in addition the agreements made, are already not followed by the employer either.
As trade unions, we also want to reinforce this position by requesting "reconciliation" between employer and employee representatives at the financial sector level. This is actually a first step towards possible actions within ING.
If on February 8, during this reconciliation meeting, we can convince "the FOD Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue" of our case, they will encourage ING to get back around the table with the trade unions in order to unblock this impasse. This however, is no guarantee of a solution. If the employer persists in its stubbornness, we will inform you later on about the union actions we will organize within ING.
RE: V. Vanwalleghem BBTK-SETCa, S. Ruys ACV Puls, A. Verstraeten CNE, M. Dedeyne ACLVB/CGSLB
Comments