The agreement between G4S and GMB has not been published, so there will always be an element of doubt. The recent allegations are the publication of a response from the DWP (whose G4S offices are secure) of 2 October 2019 (if recently) to the DEPUTy secretary general of the PCS, John Moloney, who confirms that “we [DWP] confirm that G4S DWP has confirmed that it has no strike agreement with GMB. The non-strike agreement is the national recognition agreement of G4S Security Services UK. It is perhaps not surprising that Mr. Black`s statements do not contain any strike clauses in this agreement. However, there is strong evidence. The 2015 GMB Congress 164 request, entitled “G4S SECURE SERVICES RECOGNITION AGREEMENT,” supported the qualification. So what was the union charged by Congress (which represents the wishes of the members)? Congress believes that G4S acted in bad faith in abandoning its agreement with GMB to pay for SIA licences, and it is time for our members to fight for the maintenance of their existing conditions, and we should indeed fight to improve these conditions and not submit to a slow deterioration. 4. For a period of at least three years from the beginning of the agreement, the Students` Association undertakes to make funds for union membership available to its employees at the minimum wage. As a union for the vital private security industry, we welcome this new agreement as a milestone. The security sector is changing, with the impact of legal authorisation and working time.
This agreement will allow the union to play a full role with the company in managing this amendment. We look forward to working constructively with G4S to recognize and fully reward the professionalism and know-how of the industry. We expect other large employers in the sector to share the same sophisticated views as G4S and to offer all industry professionals the opportunity to be represented at the table with an independent, professional and forward-looking union. Whatever the rights and injustices of the case, no strike agreement has absolutely a place in the industrial strategy of a responsible union, and I hope that the GMB – and all the other unions – will take steps to ensure that existing agreements, which also require a thorough review of all recognition agreements that are yes-multiple, are eliminated. This Congress calls on the SAR to work to renegotiate the existing recognition agreement with G4S Secure Services to remove the “No Strike” clause in it. The application was implemented with the following qualifications: it relates to the 2006 recognition agreement for G4S Guarding. GMB has done everything in its power to renegotiate this agreement, but the company opposes any change to the clause referred to. The proposal is correct to call for the removal of the “no strike” clause. However, the request is incorrect when it indicates that gmbh members are slowly submitting to the deterioration of their terms and conditions and are not facing G4S because of their proposal to pay the AIS fee. It is also inaccurate to say that “no battle can be won with G4S as long as there is the non-strike clause.” SARL members win against their employers by organising, growing the Union, engaging in themes and negotiating improvements.
This is the core GMB@Work and applies to both security personnel (G4S) and any other group of members. Answer Section: A new recognition will be negotiated with G4S in the hope of reaching an agreement by March 2016. This may be important, because there is no doubt that the No Strike Agreement refers to the 2006 Landmark Agreement was cancelled when, in June 2016, the GMB published an update on progress (see page 24) on what it had done to renegotiate the G4S strike agreement (page 1: “from June 2016” and therefore as General Secretary of Tim Roache, although at first it was correct).