IN December 2001 when 2,272 Honda associates voted for union recognition for the purpose of collective bargaining on their behalf, they did so because the Associate Representative Committee (ARC) at the time did not consult workers on the agreements that they made with Honda management.

In the prelude to the recognition ballot, the union made it clear that if recognition was won, then all agreements in the future would have to be endorsed by the majority of union members before being signed. True to our word this has happened on every major agreement over the last 10 years and will continue while the union retains negotiating rights with Honda.

When the detailed Recognition Agreement was finalised in December 2002 in a ballot of union members on the insistence of Honda management, it contained three clauses which the union was unable to remove: 1 That all unsettled disputes would, at different stages, involve the union full time officers, ACAS and eventually be referred to an independent arbiter for resolution.

2 The ARC would be the forum for negotiations for changes to associates’ terms and conditions.

3 The ARC members would be elected by all associates and not just union members.

Since 2002 Honda associates have continually voted union members onto the ARC giving the union overall control, which it has used wisely in securing good agreements recognising both the needs of Honda and the needs of the associates.

When in 2009 Honda closed down all production for four months and associates were facing zero pay, an agreement was negotiated between the ARC and Honda and endorsed in a union ballot, which secured pay for those laid-off with the commitment to repay the hours in the future via associate ‘working time accounts’. It also gave associates a nine day working fortnight. While this was a tough agreement and no one liked paying back the hours, it fulfilled its purpose and when Honda refused to honour the time-off clause the whole agreement was reviewed with the ARC and the ARC sought to unpick the worst elements.

During the negotiations the ARC, with the cooperation of the management, consulted all the associates who fed back that they didn’t want to work longer hours on the production lines. Honda wished to extend the average hours that could be worked from 42 to 44 per week and the ARC secured payment for hours worked over 37 hours. Honda tabled a comprehensive final offer on January 10, however this still contained the proposal to move to an average of 44 hours and this conflicted with the wishes of associates that had fed back their views, so the ARC (union and non-union members) sought to involve the union’s full time officer as per the Recognition Agreement.

Honda management chose a different path however and reported back to the entire factory at a series of Genba meetings their take on negotiations thus far and unilaterally withdrew their final offer.

They refused a request from the ARC to report back to associates so that both sides of the dispute could be heard. Honda were also instrumental in briefing managers and coordinators (junior managers) in an anti-ARC campaign designed to set associate against associate and associates against their representatives.

The first good news is that the ARC have continued to do the job that they were elected to do and have secured payment for all associates’ positive hours in their working time accounts, resulting in more than half the workers receiving a pay bonanza of more than £600, with many associates receiving as much as £5,000 payable in April.

The dilemma for the ARC on this set of negotiations has always been that while most of what they had negotiated in Honda’s final offer was acceptable, extending working hours for production line associates was going to be less acceptable to them than to the 600 coordinators who do not actually work on the production lines and will very rarely be expected to work the longer hours.

However the second good news is that a new batch of associate feedback will be examined by the ARC this week and, if as expected this indicates that Honda’s final proposal is a way forward, then the union will be balloting its members on the offer and, if accepted will, as per Recognition Agreement, become part of all associates’ terms and conditions.

I would encourage all Honda associates to join the union and participate fully in decisions that affect their future and to continue to endorse the good job that the ARC does under very difficult circumstances by voting for the union representatives when ARC elections take place.

JIM D’AVILA Unite Regional Officer