Meibc Settlement Agreement

As noted above, SEIFSA and MEIBC`s trade union parties have indicated their intention to invite all employers` parties to the Board, including those who do not have seats, to a meeting so that they can vote on the extension of the SEIFSA/NUMSA conciliation agreement and the administrative agreement. It is important to note that the agreements have not yet been renewed and that employers who are not affiliated with SEIFSA associations are still not bound by these agreements. SEIFSA signed on behalf of the 24 associations and confirmed that two associations were still involved in internal mandate procedures . . . SEIFSA recommends that increases be made from July 1, 2014 for all planned employees who worked during the strike and, in the case of the staff who participated in the strike, from the date of signing of the transaction agreement, July 29 and/or the date of their return to work. This vote took place on Tuesday 4 September 2018 and, unsurprisingly, with the support of employers` organisations that do not have a vote on the MEIBC Constitution. The representative of the Border Industries Employers Association (BIEA) was not present at the meeting. NEASA did not sign the transaction agreement. Main collective agreement in the metallurgical and mechanical sector 2015-2019 We believe that this remedy is clearly illegal and that we will file an application for review with the labour court to overturn the decision. . We will keep members informed of developments.

The first page of the main collective agreement from July 2014 to June 2017 in the metallurgical and mechanical industry. . The bargaining board will convene a management committee meeting within the next two weeks to ratify the transaction agreement, confirm the position of the two pending seifsa federations and pass a resolution extending the agreement to all bipartisan employers and workers in the sector. MEIBC`s VERGLEICH contract: July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2017 was signed yesterday by the six unions at a plenary session. . This approach was adopted because the four member associations of SEIFSA, which sit on the Council, were unable to vote on the extension in the normal course and therefore had to resort to different tactics.

Print Friendly