In a statement on Wednesday, the Finance Sector Union (FSU) said Insignia Financial “blatantly rejected” what workers have called for during negotiations, opting instead to propose a “massive” reduction in longstanding redundancy pay arrangements.
The current enterprise agreement provides for up to 94 weeks of redundancy pay, which FSU national secretary Julia Angrisano said would be cut to 36 weeks after the first 12 months of the new agreement being in place. This is, however, an increase from the originally proposed six-month grandfathering proposal.
“This is a massive cut and would make it one of the lowest redundancy arrangements in the finance industry,” Angrisano said.
“These arrangements will disproportionately impact older, long-term staff who have dedicated years of service to the company, undermining their job security and financial stability. It’s a despicable move and a poor way to thank some of your most loyal staff.
“This also comes at a time when staff are already navigating uncertainties due to the company’s transformation initiatives and aggressive cost-cutting measures.”
The FSU said the negotiations, which have been underway since 26 February, have also included guaranteed pay increases, improved leave entitlements and the right to work from home.
According to the union, Insignia has “blatantly rejected” the workers’ calls to “maintain and enhance vital work-from-home arrangements, which has proven beneficial to both workers and the company”.
On Monday, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) fined Insignia-owned trustee OnePath Custodians $10.7 million in regard to alleged breaches by OPC of the SIS Act for failing to invest members’ default superannuation contributions in MySuper products.
In its quarterly update to the ASX on Monday, Insignia noted that $23 million of the additional $135 million it has put aside for remediation provisions relates to the OPC enforceable undertaking.
Angrisano said this was “yet another example of workers wearing the cost of the company’s mistakes”.
“That’s money that isn’t flowing to workers in the form of well-deserved pay increases because of the mistakes of senior management. It clearly shows Insignia values profits over the welfare and morale of its workforce,” she said.
“Their disregard toward protecting work-from-home arrangements is counter-productive to what we hope to achieve through negotiations which is to foster a positive work environment.”
In a statement to ifa, an Insignia Financial spokesperson said: “Insignia Financial is currently in negotiations with the Finance Sector Union to develop a single enterprise agreement. This will replace our existing agreements which were inherited through multiple acquisitions.
“We continue to work through the negotiation process and are pleased with the progress we have made to date. We remain committed to continuing to negotiate in good faith with the FSU to achieve a unified set of terms and conditions that meet the needs of our people and our business.”
Earlier in the negotiation process, an open letter signed by “thousands of Insignia workers” called on recently appointed Insignia chief executive Scott Hartley to “engage in meaningful negotiations” with the FSU.
“Unfortunately, this has fallen on deaf ears and Mr Hartley has chosen to ignore workers’ concerns,” Angrisano said.
“We believe the wellbeing of workers should not be compromised in the name of cost-cutting and it’s imperative the company upholds its responsibilities particularly to those who have shown long-term commitment and loyalty.
“The FSU will continue to advocate for fair and equitable treatment of our members and will not relent until these unjust proposals are withdrawn.”
When the CEO of the company responds to the issues in this news article as the union pushing lies and them not bargaining in good faith and then having to apoligise for these comments, it kind of shows you the contempt that even the CEO has towards staff in this organisation and his true feeling towards all these negotiations.
The contempt shown to staff is unbelievable – compared to all others in the finance sector we have the worst of all conditions. We were sold off by NAB – personally had no choice… but all conditions were guaranteed. Now they change it… now they cry poor – all the while knowing what they bought – profitable businesses in their own right. New CEO – we had hope briefly… now none.
We walk through the door to the office to a sign that says – looking after the financial wellbeing of all Australians. Most staff laugh as they walk past it now. Who in their right mind would even trust this company to manage their super if they are so keen to rip off half its workforce.
Insignia refuse to enshrine “hybrid” into the current EBA negotiations. We can all see that the reason for this is to allow them to increase the mandated office days at any point and use this as a “tool” for removing further employees without having to pay out redundancies. This is the ace up their sleeve! Increase the office days and hope that this forces many to quit.
As a shareholder and employee and I am extremely worried about the viability of this company under the current leadership and I like others have already moved out our superannuation from this company.
If you cant have your employees advocating for you, who can see the writing on the wall – you are in a heap of trouble and bringing in an ex AMP CEO with his eventual goal of retirement was not the solution.
You are going to need to do a lot of PR work in order to retain and gain any new members and its certainly not going to happen whilst the negative publicity is out there for all to see.
When MLC employees came across to IOOF (now Insignia) we were told our terms and conditions would remain the same. I had the option to stay with nab and I made my decision to move across based on this. Now, they intend to renege on this and my redundancy benefits will reduce by 50 weeks. What Insignia are proposing is not ethical and morally right. The fallout will be massive resulting in lower staff morale and engagement, and reputation loss. How do you trust them to take care of their customers financial security when they don’t care about their own employee’s financial security? I am disappointed and disillusioned with Insignia Financial as a customer and as an employee.
A significant part of the negotiations to date have been the consistent message by management that IFL does not have the profits or cash flow to even provide entitlements that 50% of staff currently enjoy this the reason for eroding the benefit. It got to a point that they wheeled out a company bean counter to show how unprofitable the company will be going forward. That is a strange way of giving confidence to staff thing will get better, let alone what investors and clients would think of continuing a relationship with this business
It is a terrible place to work right now, and they have just quietly told us to expect more redundancies in the coming weeks from areas of the business that went through a severe restructure just three months ago. Customers and employees are the farthest thing from seeing any care or empathy from the Insignia executive team right now. Scott wants to hit his cost-cutting number but has hired a bunch of new execs from his old haunts at AMP and ART. I guess the workers are the ones who will pay in the end so Scott can see his retirement out of this job!
I totally agree with you it is a terrible place to work, I had hoped going across from NAB to Insignia things might be better but the employee engagement score speaks volumes about how bad things are here. I am just so thankful to be nearing retirement & getting out soon but really feel sorry for those left who will have to bear the brunt of these cost optimization measures despite the appointment of multiple CEO’s of each section, it’s just not commonsense
From the recent employee survey, engagement levels were at a record low of 55% . This ranked in the bottom 10% of benchmarked companies. Speaks volumes on the fantastic job management is doing at the organisation.
The company is 5 years away from being nonexistent. Has only grown through acquisition and the FUM obtained via those acquisitions has and is shrinking.
What has happened to the culture of this organisation is pretty sad. Working for IOOF was like a family. As a staff member, buying MLC was where the culture changed to a political, GM heavy and PC environment.
Happy to be out.
I can tell you every MLC employee feels the same way. Most wish they jumped ship to NAB whilst they still had the chance. There are so many problems and I think we’re naive to think the new CEO will be the difference.
Same experience here but on the MLC side, such a shame
Agree Scott needs to be hiring leaders that can change cultures, be entrepreneurial and think outside the box
Be brave Mr Hartley look further afield than a bunch of execs that are one dimensional
Changing a business and culture means bringing in talent that can bring in new ideas, frameworks, collaboration , employee engagement and revolutionary processes
Ask yourself Scott have you really got this on your current exec team ?
Insignia has ALWAYS “valued profits over the welfare and morale of its workers’ (and clients). Nothing’s changed.
Would be nice if the FSU at least tried to support employees in small businesses. I’m sure all of the owner-operators of SMEs her are all tHe GooD oNes. But seriously, the amount of crap that small business employees have to put up with from business owners with zero protection from legislation or their union is pathetic.
Not surprised as I believe the overall culture of this firm is not good. I was made redundant and got a temporary secondment with a lower salary (junior position). However, on multiple occasions I was asked (and expected) to do the tasks of my previous role because “I had skills”. I really thought of going to fair work but didn’t go there in the end.