WORKERS at Barnoldswick's two Rolls-Royce factories are facing another Christmas of uncertainty, after a management letter told them the company's future in the town was now "less secure than ever".

To compound the misery, a further 52 job losses were announced at the Barnoldswick factories this week, with 47 of them to be achieved by the end of March.

The latest job losses are linked to the winding down of Barnoldswick's "fast response unit" - a department dedicated to one-off engineering jobs needed by other parts of Rolls-Royce worldwide and external customers. However, the job losses will affect workers in almost every department.

The letter to workers from Bob Morley, director of operations for fan systems, expressed "extreme disappointment" at their recent refusal to accept a pay deal tied to new working practices.

It was rejected, with employees voting instead to accept a straight 2.5 per cent increase backdated to last July.

Mr Morley's letter told workers that their failure to adopt new working practices had put the future of Rolls-Royce in Barnoldswick in serious jeopardy.

A copy of the letter was sent to the Craven Herald, with a single question hand-written across the top by the anonymous sender: "Is Rolls-Royce finished at Barnoldswick?"

In the letter to workers, Mr Morley stated: "I cannot emphasise enough how crucial the package proposed by the company was in terms of enabling Barnoldswick to become competitive and therefore securing its future."

He added that the Barnoldswick sites were uncompetitive in a number of product areas and that changes to working practices would have improved that situation.

"A similar package of change was proposed to the trade union during the 2001 pay negotiations. It was rejected. This is therefore the second occasion in the last two years that a clear message of 'no change' has been sent to the company through the rejection of pay deals linked to change.

"This pay deal was the last chance for this site to demonstrate a willingness to make the step change required. During negotiations your trade union representatives were given every opportunity to put forward their proposals for change and they submitted none."

Mr Morley's letter went on: "Unfortunately, the result of the ballot (to reject the pay deal) has now left a number of areas in Barnoldswick uncompetitive and extremely vulnerable. We have seriously undermined our ongoing efforts to retain and inload new work.

"It is now also inevitable that any future investment in Barnoldswick is under review and we must strongly consider ways in which to reduce our cost base and save money."

Mr Morley concedes in his letter that he has been contacted by the union with a view to further talks on new working practices, but warned that anything less than the proposals already made by the company would leave the company in the same position as it is now.

He told workers: "We have a difficult task ahead. Be in no doubt that the clear message sent to the company from Barnoldswick is one of not being prepared to make the step change required to become competitive. On that basis the future of Barnoldswick and all of us is now less secure than ever."

Reacting to the letter this week, union convenor for the Barnoldswick sites, John Boardman, said it had upset a lot of people and done nothing to help the ongoing negotiations.

He stressed that the workforce and its trade union were not against change, but that some elements of the pay deal proposed by Rolls-Royce had been completely unacceptable.

"Since this letter went out we've put in a nine or 10-page document about change that we believe is very constructive and Mr Morley has said he is prepared to talk," said Mr Boardman.

He added that workers in the repair and overhaul departments of Rolls-Royce plants in Derby and East Kilbride had also voted to reject similar pay deals, while Rolls-Royce Canada had balloted to go on strike.

Mr Boardman said that some elements of the company's proposed deal had been unacceptable, in effect asking employees to work overtime without pay. But the fact that workers had rejected the deal did not mean they were against all change and they were keen to continue negotiations.

Referring to the latest job losses, he said it meant another Christmas of uncertainty for workers who could start 2003 without a job. This time last year, workers had just learnt that 295 jobs would go from the 1,080-strong Barnoldswick workforce.

The latest job losses mean that the Barnoldswick workforce has now been cut by a third in just over 12 months. It is hoped the redundancies will be achieved through voluntary means.