Royal Mail (Industrial Relations)

[La Poste]

Found this page while having a look for tribunals involving Royal Mail, I thought I'd put it here, it's quite shocking really.


Royal Mail (Industrial Relations)
House of Commons debates, 25 January 2010, 9:55 pm
John Pugh (Southport, Liberal Democrat)

what I have to do tonight is to explain why, in the relatively small Royal Office in Southport, 46 postmen have been suspended or dismissed or have gone off work with stress; why I receive e-mails and letters from their wives, alarmed by the prospect of dismissal, loss of income, mortgage arrears and repossession; and why apparently experienced and loyal staff get dismissed and good postmen fear for their jobs. I have tried to answer those questions outside this place in the ordinary way of casework. I have inquired about specific cases, but Royal Mail will not talk about specific cases. I have tried to get comparative statistics, but Royal Mail will not provide them. I have tried, in desperation, writing to the chief executive, Mr. Crozier, but his underling replied with warm words that did not assist me with my questions. So here I am on this Monday night, not because I am against Royal Mail privatisation, although I am, and not because I think that the union states a good case in that respect, which I do, but simply because I know people who are losing good jobs and I understand what they, their wives and their families feel.

Let me explain. In my constituency, Royal Mail is summarily dismissing or suspending people for things such as not wearing their cycle helmets; for leaving letters in post boxes, even if they have never done it before; and for leaving mail, in exceptional-and I mean exceptional-circumstances, unguarded. All this is picked up and identified by a management intent on surveillance and on forcible action. It does not matter that the individual has an excellent employee record or that affairs are conducted differently elsewhere. I gawped with wonder when I recently saw in another town postmen without helmets cycling happily away from the local HQ, in full view of everyone. I will not mention the town for fear that at some later date those postmen, too, will get into trouble. No matter that management reserve the right to breach the rules on occasions themselves-that does not seem to have any impact. They sometimes do not sign for registered mail, especially if it is a letter from an employee about their disciplinary hearing.

It would be quite easy to leap to the conclusion that there is an underlying strategy to find reasons to shed experienced staff, so as to cut costs, replace permanent staff with casual or reduce pension liabilities. How else can we explain the fact that the manager who has sacked the most staff appears to be the most applauded by the Royal Mail? I do not go for easy explanations, but I am not entirely certain what other explanations I should offer in this case.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/? ... -25a.650.0

It's a good idea to read the whole article.

[La Poste]

It is a fact-a rather suspicious fact-that as experienced staff are replaced by less experienced staff, even if they successfully appeal to an employment tribunal, the crippling pension liabilities of Royal Mail are reduced. I have seen one case in which a saving of £37,000 was engineered, if I may put it like that, from such a dismissal. The management with that dismal record of suspension and dismissal received an award in 2009 for being the most improved. Is that because they have got gross staff hours down by 25 per cent.?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/? ... -25a.650.0

It's a very good read.

[La Poste]

Couple more links from another site, the Royal mail discussion starts about half way down the first page and concludes on the second:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 5-0020.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 5-0021.htm

The Minister for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr. Pat McFadden) seems to do most of the talking in defence of Royal mail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_McFadd ... itician%29

In October 2008, when Lord Mandelson replaced John Hutton as Business Secretary, McFadden took on duties as his Deputy in order to represent the Department in the House of Commons as Mandelson is a peer and can only address the Lords and therefore needs a counterpart in the Commons. McFadden was contemporaneously appointed to the Privy Council.

[Big Daz]

Last nights debate was a adjournment debate

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/busi ... rnment.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An adjournment debate is simply a way in the Commons of having a general debate without requiring the House to vote.
There are several different types of adjournment debate. Some allow the Commons to hold a general open-ended debate on a subject or a government policy without reaching a formal decision about it. Others provide an opportunity for backbench MPs to raise constituency issues or other matters relating to government administration or policy - and to obtain a response from a government minister.


In the Commons chamber
There is a half-hour adjournment debate at the end of each day’s sitting. Members apply for an adjournment debate to the Speakers Office. Subject matters of adjournment debates are varied; examples include debates on defence issues, pensions and combating benefit fraud. The Speaker chooses Thursday’s subject; for other days, MPs are selected by ballot.
At the end of the day’s business, which is normally 10pm on Mondays and Tuesdays, 7pm on Wednesdays, 6pm on Thursdays and 2.30pm on Fridays, the Speaker calls a government whip to move ‘That this House do now adjourn’.
The MP who tabled the relevant adjournment debate is called to speak and a Minister will reply. The MP has no right of response, but can intervene in the Minister’s speech if he or she is willing to allow it (called ‘giving way’).

[darth]

well done to john pugh.

[Pat Ostman]

"Wilful delay of the mail", I have learned, is a serious offence, but it is used against people in circumstances in which "serious" is perhaps not precisely the word to use. What are we to do if hard-working postmen with otherwise good records return from shifts having been unable to complete their deliveries in time, in extraordinary and atypical circumstances, sometimes having been given additional work by management, and are charged with wilful delay of the mail? Is that bad management direction or a sackable offence? It appears to be the latter in Southport, and postmen do it at their peril because disciplinary hearings will inevitably, it seems, result.

Staff are constantly warned of the consequences of wilful delay of mail-so they should be-but they are not told how to protect themselves if for any reason they are unable to complete their duty. There will be good reasons for that at times.

[fishtank]

Patrick McFadden(Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills; Wolverhampton South East, Labour)
"They are being mediated by Mr. Roger Poole, I have kept in close touch with him in recent weeks. I do not want to go into the detail of those talks"


It would seem there are 3 sides involved in these negotiations.


"under the reforms put in place in the Postal Services Act 2000, we gave Royal Mail greater commercial freedom and established a clear distinction between ownership of the company and the day-to-day running of the company."


Then why Paddy McFaddy are you sticking your (Lord Mandleson led) nose into our negotiations.

[Big Daz]

The question has to be asked who makes sure the mangement are doing their job properley?

If I owned a company and appointed somebody to run it I would want to make sure they were doing a good job.

[La Poste]

If I owned a company and appointed somebody to run it I would want to make sure they were doing a good job.

They are doing a good job, they are harassing and sacking people.
I would love to get hold of some figures of the true amount of suspensions, dismissals, appeals etc for last year and compare those figures to years gone by, I bet the comparison would be shocking but it's just so hard to get any figures, Royal mail sure won't release them so the question has to be asked, why don't the Union get hold of them and release them?
It would be a great addition to the union website, a special section along the lines of "Our prize for the most trumped up charge this week goes to ....."

[fmrPOSTIE]

So who is this manager who has sacked all these staff?

Well done to this MP though, he should keep pressing RM on this and get the figures on suspensions/dismissals within RM across the UK.

[POSTMAN]

I've emailed the MP

[La Poste]

This can't just be one office this is a nationwide attack. The trouble is we only get bits and pieces of information.
HWDC is another one. There must be a lot more.
My point is why do we not hear about this from the union? Everything is so bloody secretive.
It's a fair question, why can't the union give us information like this?
It may be the union who supplied this MP with these facts and figures but why not just be up front about it or am I missing something?
Is there some sort of code of silence that is encouraged amongst the union top brass?
The only thing I can think of is most of the reps are employed and paid for by Royal mail, they still receive a wage packet from Royal mail so releasing confidential information about internal disciplinary proceedures could end with them getting sacked themselves.

[Big Daz]

1 CC case at my D.O for non wearing of cycle hat a few years ago, 2 year warning was outcome.

No CC cases since

[brothermagrew]

1 CC case at my D.O for non wearing of cycle hat a few years ago, 2 year warning was outcome.

No CC cases since

Assuming brother Big Daz that CC is a referal to Conduct Code

[Big Daz]

That is correct young man.