Merger with Noble Drilling
We have been in a new meeting with the company. But - as expected - nothing new has come out since the announcement of the merger November 10th. Many ask if there is any cause for concern. Basically, you may say that we keep our jobs and seniority, and we retain our Collective Agreement. Furthermore, there is also legislation encompassing this rig activity that secures our rights in the event of a transfer of undertaking and merger. The challenges probably come more in all the local agreements we have established with the MDN over the years. But no one may at this point time, predict what the new management of Noble Drilling will challenge us on. We will claim employee participation in everything we find relevant, and otherwise be prepared for everything. We will present news as soon as we know more.
Pension Insurance Scheme for Seamen (PTS) - post-payment
As previously stated, we have reached an agreement on a scheme for post-payment of PTS, and the company is presently supposed to have submitted e-mails to all personnel encompassed by the scheme. We have also received confirmation that the agreement also applies to those who have already started on the PTS.
Nordea Liv Pension
This relates to an older pension agreement from approximately the mid-90s, in which a lot of MDN employees with foreign residences have saving rights. But it now turns out that not everyone residing abroad and who was employed at the actual time, have participated the savings scheme. Following initial inquiries earlier this year, we asked the company to explain why some have this pension savings while others do not, even though they were employed at the same time and on the same terms. The company has not yet been able to explain why, and they have instead contacted the insurance broker. We subsequently approached the broker on the matter during a meeting on pension agreements in general. He will look at the matter.
If anyone else should remember something, or perhaps even better, have an old contract where the pension agreement is stated, it might be of a great help to get this settled.
Meeting on Pension Agreements in general
We have had a meeting with the insurance broker where we have reviewed all the Norwegian pension agreements. He encourages us to provide input on how our agreements can be made better understood and how we may get it more easily communicated.
On the same occasion, we also asked to have all our agreements updated on the Insurance Portal. Of course, he will also look at this.
MAF - Annual General Meeting
We are still planning for the Annual General Meeting in the Stavanger region on 28-29 January, with a meeting of the Board the day ahead. But the corona situation may present us with challenges in being able to comply with the plan. If we book a hotel and later must cancel, it will cost us money, so we await the situation. Our position remains that we must do our best to be able to arrange a physical meeting, and we will, in consultation with the Board, assess the situation again in early January.
Compensation for quarantine in general
This case is now split into two cases, respectively government-imposed and company-imposed quarantine. Unfortunately, there is still not much news from IE, but what we do know is that there are talks at government level and as previously mentioned, Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre was also confronted with the issue of compensation when he recently spoke at IE's National Congress. The question was not answered, however, but he will be reminded of the issue. Read more here: https://www.mafsiden.no/home/quarantine-compensation-
Compensation for corona test before departure offshore
MAF believes that the time the employee may spend on the Covid-19 test must be considered as part of the employee's period on board and be compensated accordingly.
Industri Energi does not agree with us and has therefore rejected to support our claims. IE believe that tests must be compared with meetings and consultations, and thus be compensated in accordance with clause 8 of the Collective Agreement, which states overtime for time spent, however, with a minimum of 4 overtime hours. Industri Energi has on 2 December submitted a summons with the said claims assuming that if they win in a judgment, we may use it to achieve the same in MDN.
Compensation for leisure time quarantine which is not imposed by the authorities
Back in August, MAF has made a claim against the company for compensation for all leisure time quarantine offshore valid from 24 June 2021. We believe that it must be compensated with rates for lost leisure time for the hours when no work is carried out.
The company has still not taken a position on this. But if they do not want to compensate, or still do not respond, then we will bring the matter further.
Quarantine stays and the right to leave of absence in accordance with clauses 14.1 a, b and c of the Collective Agreement
MAF believes that the company many times during the pandemic has broken with the Collective Agreement clauses 17.3 and 14.1 a, b and c, when they have deprived employees of the opportunity to report sick during the quarantine period, without causing any consequences moneywise when they have deprived employees of the right to employer-paid leave of absence when the need for the leave has been wholly or partly during the quarantine period.
However, it must be said that the company later accepted that employees could report sick during the quarantine period, without this causing any consequences. But this was not asserted retroactively for those who had already been affected in one way or another.
We have previously submitted all these issues to Industri Energi, but they have not taken a stand on them yet. We have probably had a presumption that if there could be a judicial decision on what a quarantine day should be defined as, against both the Collective Agreement and the Working Environment Act, then the actual cases could possibly be solved accordingly. But if there is no real definition of what a quarantine day really means related to work/leisure purposes, then the case must be re-opened as a separate case. The problem is probably just that it may be difficult to get settled without first having a decision in the main case. We believe that it may not be right that we both lose tariff and legal rights by having to sit in quarantine. And this must apply regardless of whether the quarantine stay is imposed by an authority or a company.
The election to the MAF Board is underway
Remember to exercise your right to vote. Contact MAF if you have not received an e-mail with a link to the election.