Last week, the BPIF and Unite met to discuss the national pay agreement that, up until two years ago, had formed a major part of the industry’s Partnership at Work (PAW) agreement. The key word here is ‘discuss’, because it was not a negotiation, nor will it become one. Considering the federation’s members had opted out of a national agreement since 2008, it came as a surprise to nobody that the BPIF used the meeting to inform Unite that there would not be a national pay agreement in 2011.

BPIF members, or at least a large number of them, would rather negotiate pay increases on a local level, on the basis that different firms face different situations. A national agreement does not make sense, they say, when some companies can actually afford more, while a potential rise could kill others.

While the national pay agreement was by no means the PAW’s sole raison d’être, it was at its heart. Unite has previously stated no pay agreement means no PAW, and last week’s announcement will only serve to strengthen that belief. A follow-up meeting is scheduled for 18 April, at which the two parties will discuss the relevance of PAW as a whole.

Source of stability
Brian Capps, group human resources director at greetings card manufacturer UK Greetings, believes there is still life in the agreement, particularly for smaller businesses. "If a company does not have its own HR department the agreement can provide a lot of stability," he says. "There is no need for them to negotiate policies themselves and they have the confidence that there are guidelines in place."

It is not just small companies that can benefit from the agreement. Capps believes that the agreements on areas such as holidays, overtime premiums and sick pay can also benefit any company.

"You have a benchmark to reference," he says. "If a chapel asks for something extortionate an employer can point to the framework as an example. It is reciprocal too. Employees know where they stand; they know that there are standards supported by a collective agreement."

However, BAPC chairman Sidney Bobb claims the partnership is more likely to support larger companies, rather than small businesses, which have a modest, in some cases non-existent, presence within the BPIF.

He says: "Small companies don’t have HR departments, so it is just a discussion between employer and employee and they know how much they should be getting paid. Larger companies have HR specialists and although they know HR they won’t necessarily know the industry. It is useful from that perspective to have a reference point.

"But if smaller companies have any issues with sick pay or overtime pay it will be legislation that they reference, not an agreement. Small businesses are unlikely to be part of the BPIF and their employees are not likely to be part of Unite. Ultimately the PAW agreement will not have an impact on small businesses in real terms."

Flexibility failings
CPI UK trade books division chief operating officer Ian Smith believes many companies still want the PAW agreement, but he is aware that some would not miss it. "They feel it is restrictive," he says. "They don’t see it as particularly flexible. There are certain areas in which, in recent years, some companies have found other ways of doing things."

It has been suggested the agreement endures mainly because Unite and the BPIF are proud of its existence – it is unique in industry – and believe the fact it continues to exist is an achievement worth celebrating. But, as its detractors would argue, perhaps PAW has run its course. Today, both employees and employers are protected by legislation that didn’t exist even five years ago.

If an employee wants advice on overtime pay and their rights in that area, there are many sources available. Likewise for employers – for example, a quick Google search for the term ‘overtime premium’ returns 283,000 results. In this environment, where both employer and employee know that they will be supported by government legislation should a disagreement arise, is there really a need for an industry-specific partnership such as PAW?

---

30-SECOND BRIEFING
• December 2003 BPIF and GPMU initiate discussions to find an alternative to the National Agreement
• November 2005 Partnership at Work agreed, marking the first deal of its kind between a federation and union
• March 2009 National pay agreement negotiations hit a wall and are postponed until 2010
• March 2010 BPIF opts out of the pay agreement without entering negotiations, the first such failure since World War II
• April 2010 Unite releases details of 2009 pay increases in print industry, claiming that 74% of workers had a pay freeze
• February 2011 BPIF informs Unite that a pay deal will not happen in the foreseeable future; meeting set for April to discuss the future of Partnership at Work