The FSU has branded AMP’s confirmation that it will not use surveillance and monitoring on employees in their homes a “win” for the union.
Last week, Super Review reported allegations made by the Finance Sector Union (FSU) pertaining to new contracts given to AMP employees, which the union said permit constant video monitoring of employees – regardless of their work location, including at home.
Super Review also obtained a comment from AMP, in which the financial services giant said: “AMP is not and will not conduct camera surveillance on employees when they work from home.”
However, in its latest statement this week, the FSU hailed AMP’s reversal on the contracts as a “win”, interpreting it as an admission by the financial services firm that it “got it wrong”.
“AMP has now confirmed they will not use surveillance and monitoring on employees in their homes and has provided express written permission for employees to consult with professional advisers (including lawyers or union representatives) to obtain advice as well as the ability to engage in unpaid positions with other organisations,” the union said.
“While AMP has not amended the contract terms, these undertakings are a huge union win and are thanks to the hard work of all of our members who stood up against these concerning contracts.”
Attached to the FSU’s statement is a letter purportedly sent to AMP employees by the firm’s CEO, Alexis George – signed Lex – which said: “I am not immune to the feedback that has been received and engaged with many employees on Friday to try and allay concerns and, reconfirm the intention of the new contract is to modernise, an exercise we had not undertaken for many years.
“Given some of the commentary, I thought it was important for me as CEO of AMP to clarify a few of the areas that have been raised by our people as concerns. The items raised as concerns were never intended, but it is important that I set out some facts and clarifications that will hopefully assist you in making your own informed decision.”
The clarifications include an assurance that AMP “will never use camera surveillance” when employees are working from home, saying that this was never the firm’s intent.
The CEO also said that AMP allows employees to seek guidance from professional advisers, such as lawyers, accountants, or union representatives, regarding the new contracts. Additionally, she said, AMP is granting “express written permission” for employees to take on unpaid positions with other organisations, provided these positions do not create a conflict of interest or interfere with their duties at AMP.
George concluded the letter with: “I hope the above clarifications and permissions are useful in enabling you to accept your contract so that you are eligible to receive the benefits that we have outlined previously.”
In its latest statement, the FSU also alleged that AMP “has been using underhanded tactics and financial ‘incentives’ to pressure staff into signing it”, saying that “many members have told us they felt coerced into doing so”.
The FSU said that it will be making an application to the Fair Work Commission about these “terrible contracts”.
“Unfortunately, this is exactly what big businesses like AMP want – for staff to be on their own so they can do exactly as they please,” it said.
“It is clear we need to force AMP to negotiate with us for an enterprise agreement that genuinely protects staff, and the best way to do that is by securing a majority support determination. This means a majority of us at AMP vote [that] we want to bargain for an EA, and AMP will be legally obligated to negotiate with us.”
