Major Projects Agreement to ‘die a death’

The Major Projects Agreement (MPA) – heralded as the new contract solution to avoid industrial disputes on construction sites linking pay to productivity – will “die a death” following its use on BAA’s £4.2bn T5 project at Heathrow, according to a senior union source.

CJ has learned that major clients from the oil and gas industries, sectors which were believed to be very interested in the MPA, have turned their backs on using the industrial relations agreement after witnessing nine months of growing unrest over pay this year by T5 workers.

Clients involved in the construction of infrastructure for the 2012 Olympic Games in London are also believed to be getting cold feet about using MPA for their projects given events at Heathrow.

T5 remains the only site to use MPA for M&E workers, despite it being set up in October 2003 – the agreement was also set to be used on hospital PFIs, but this never materialised.

Since the start of 2005 the MPA agreement has constantly been under threat after members of Amicus threatened strike action in April when BAA refused to cover claims for a £25-a-day travel allowances to the site. This was resolved after BAA sanctioned an extra £1 an hour.

However, the settlement has sparked a “free for all” with other workers demanding the same pay privileges; 180 steel erectors from Severfield Rowen who are employed under the NAECI “blue book” are now threatening strike action in protest over the offer given to M&E workers. Talks to avert the strikes are ongoing. A similar move is being considered by building and civils workers.

“The fact is that the MPA hasn’t delivered what was expected and can no longer use the hook of avoiding industrial unrest,” said one union official. “The architects of the agreement such as Paul
Corby of Amicus have now moved on and the momentum isn’t there.”

Another union official told CJ: “It is only because BAA is such a large and enlightened client that the MPA has held this long. This year has put a huge strain on the agreement and I am not sure how much longer it can remain intact.”

However, Amicus regional officer Frank Westerman defended the MPA. “The true test of the MPA is how many days the project has lost on site due to strike action. The answer is none, an achievement when you consider how many people are on the site.”