The first negotiation meeting on the additional salary of level IV-VIII workers took place on Thursday 14 June, as provided for in the memorandum of understanding signed in May.
The trade union organizations have already clarified their proposals:
- a notice art. 53 timely, inclusive of colleagues already involved in the “canceled” scrolling affair
- a significant increase inmonthly institution allowance
- a significant adjustment to the amount of compensation availability
- the provision of position allowance already provided for in the 2022 and 2023 supplementary contract
The administration sent to the unions and then explained through its representatives at the table its “platform” for the 2024 additional salary, which starts from the following proposals:
- notice art. 53 within the year with the same criteria as last time, admitting to the selection the colleagues who have appealed and have a sentence, and with reservation those awaiting a sentence
- review and extension of allowances
- avoid the heap between allowances
- review remote work management of shift workers (introducing prevalence)
- application ofposition allowance for 3 administration officials following the determination of “specific organizational positions of particular complexity”
- provide a liability indemnity for i representatives of the territorial offices
- provide compensation for specific responsibilities
- replace, for i Headquarters managersthe shift allowance with a hardship allowance
- increase the amount of the allowance by availability
- increase in2% monthly institution allowance
- negotiation on funds for non-MUR entities arriving, defining the projects to which the allocation will be related
Appreciating the fact that the administration put its “platform” in writing (responding to a unitary request), we said our opinion point by point.
On the announcement ofarticle 53 we disputed the numbers of colleagues who appealed: in our opinion, around ten are missing from the appeal.
We agree to avoid, where possible, the cumulative indemnity.
The management of work remotely (including that of shift workers) must be brought back into the union discussion, as required by the contract and as already decided in the minutes on remote working signed at the end of February, and as requested several times in recent months. It cannot and must therefore not be discussed within the framework of the additional salary, but in the specific discussion table.
We agree on the application of theposition allowanceeven if the proposed criterion did not appear sufficiently clear.
We also agree on theallowance for territorial representatives, which however are only 4 in levels IV-VIII. At the very least, there should be a commitment from the administration to resolve the problem also for level I-III colleagues who perform the same function.
We agree less on theintroduction of new allowancesmoreover defined in a decidedly vague way: they risk becoming prizes for the managers’ favorites and we therefore propose to postpone the discussion until next year.
The replacement of the shift allowance with a hardship allowance for i Headquarters managers still appears not well defined and risks not responding to the needs that led the Institute at the time to define the figure of the RDS. We will talk about it with the staff involved, together with the other unions.
Regarding the increase inmonthly institution allowance, all the trade union organizations judged the proposed increase in administration to be largely insufficient (2%). The FLC CGIL has asked to start at least from the figure already allocated for the IEM in 2023, equal to 7,500,000, which should allow a 2-digit increase. We pointed out that compared to inflation at 17% in the three-year period, at the moment there has only been an increase of 2% in 2022, to which we therefore believe it is correct to add a further 15%.
On resources allocated by the 2024 budget law we pointed out that we need to find a contractual solution that widens the audience of recipients as much as possible, if only to be able to use them all. Certainly at the moment it is not possible to include them in the additional salary, just as it would be wrong to link them to an evaluation process, which would further increase the bureaucratic burden without any need. It is therefore necessary to compare ourselves with other bodies in the sector that have already addressed the topic in the best possible way and find solutions capable of distributing these huge resources to all staff at levels IV-VIII.
We asked to schedule a next meetingwhich should be scheduled soon.
There is agreement on the possibility of an initial agreement (excerpt) only on the art. 53. There will be a technical investigation into the beneficiaries in the coming days.
We reiterated the request to schedule meetings on other urgent topics (art. 15, additional salary of I-III, locations, remote work). Regarding the offices, the general director Camisasca promised an ad hoc meeting shortly. Furthermore, a meeting with President Chelli will be scheduled before the summer.
As regards the appeals for the valorisation of the passage to level III, in the next few days we will send specific FAQs and a pre-accession form to be filled in to all the colleagues who participated in the meeting with the lawyer last 6 June and to those who wrote to us in the following days.
The general manager informed that the 3-I SpA, which has not yet defined the Industrial Plan, would intend to “recruit”, through an expression of interest open to public and private workers, around 25 administrative staff, giving priority to the workers of the three member bodies (INPS, INAIL and ISTAT). We had already reported the inappropriateness of “handing over” colleagues to 3-I, in particular in administrative functions, for which at the same time Istat reported profound deficiencies in the last PIAO, which it is trying to fill with various tools.
