|Salaries up, Subs up, members down|
Meantime, while the scandal over Simpson's £1/2 million payoff and pension continues, we have also learnt of secret plans for the union to increase subscriptions to ordinary members by almost 5% from September.
From: Alastair Fraser
Sent: 22 July 2011 21:27
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: RE: AR21
I am in receipt of the statements concerning the severance payment for former Joint General Secretary (JGS) Simpson. As a member of the Amicus GPFC meeting, I take exception to any suggestion that I was party to an agreement for severance payments for JGS Simpson.
The facts are these:At the time of the merger between MSF and AEEU, Roger Lyons was awarded a pay increase by the MSF Executive. JGS Simpson made a public point of refusing to accept a similar increase for himself.AGS Ed Sweeney met the Amicus GPFC some time (years) later arguing that GS Simpson’s pension should be based on this higher, notional salary and not on his actual salary. GS Simpson was said to be unconcerned whether this was approved or not. The GPFC did not approve the proposal.
At a later date Assistant General Secretary (AGS) Bayliss met the GPFC and reopened the argument for GS Simpson’s pension to be based on this higher amount. It now appeared that GS Simpson was more favourably disposed to accepting this benefit. We had a discussion, at some points heated, with AGS Bayliss. He presented no new facts to the GPFC and there was no reason for the GPFC to change its position. I recall Mr Bayliss making the point that we had looked after our “enemies” meaning severance payments to officers not sympathetic to GS Simpson, who had been forced out of the union. Mr Bayliss said we should be generous to our friends. The GPFC DID NOT approve the proposed changed to GS Simpson’s pension entitlement.
Severance payments to GS Simpson WERE NOT DISCUSSED at this meeting, or any other I attended.
AGS was the only officer or staff member at this meeting and I do not accept that it was a formally constituted meeting of the GPFC capable of making decisions. I challenge anyone to produce the minutes of this meeting.
For your information, details of the severance packages available to officers and staff in Amicus were never reported to the GPFC or EC. These were dealt with purely as a matter of negotiation between Bro Simpson and the officers’ and staff committees.
I had no reason to believe that GS Simpson would not retire normally at Age 65.
The merger with the T&G resulted, as you know, with agreement that GS Simpson would remain employed for an additional year until he was 66. The GPFC asked questions about the implications for his pension if such a proposal was agreed. I do not recall getting any satisfactory answers about any potential pension, or other, liabilities arising from this extension to GS Simpson’s normal retirement date.
I do not recall, at any meeting, any discussion about a severance package for GS Simpson.
Regardless of any affidavits you may have from individual GPFC members I would like to make it clear that I was not party to any severance arrangements for GS Simpson nor was I aware of any such arrangements being in existence.