The Closed Pay Offer

[fishtank]

LTB 445/13 ROYAL MAIL PAY AND CONDITIONS OFFER - REJECTED



No. 445/13
Ref: 21003
Date: 1st July 2013

To: All Branches with Postal Members
Dear Colleague
ROYAL MAIL PAY AND CONDITIONS OFFER - REJECTED
It was reported previously that as the Consultative Ballot concluded, the Union received a three year closed pay and conditions offer from the company. The purpose of this LTB is to confirm the detail of the offer and explain why it has been rejected.

THE ROYAL MAIL PAY AND CONDITIONS OFFER
1. Pay

Year One (April 1st 2013 to March 31st 2014) - 2.6% basic pay increase + £300 lump sum payable December 2013 (subject to Industrial Action clause) *

Year Two (April 1st 2014 to March 31st 2015) - 3% basic pay increase (subject to review if inflation is below 2.3% or above 3.3%) *

Year Three (April 1st 2015 to March 31st 2016) - 2.8% basic pay increase (subject to the same review of inflation) *

* All basic pay increases to flow through to Overtime/Scheduled Attendance rates, all allowances including Shift, London Weighting and Scottish Distant Island Allowance.

2. The pay offer is conditional on acceptance of the following:
Acceptance of the previously rejected pension proposals currently out to consultation.
Three year protection of existing contracts of employment and some other terms and conditions, alongside a commitment to no outsourcing for the three year duration of the deal.
The development of an agenda for growth and stability with a commitment to a workplan to take this forward.



CWU Reasons for Rejection

In considering the offer the Executive recognise that in today's climate the pay element will be seen as significant, but the offer must also be viewed as an overall package and in the context of our major concerns over the company's future strategy, pensions, privatisation and end to end competition.

Further reasons for rejecting the offer are as follows:
The pay element in isolation does not meet with the terms of CWU policy and we will be seeking a higher, more straightforward settlement.
Neither does the pay element address our claim for significantly improved overtime rates and new bonus arrangements.

As well as a higher basic pay award, the Union will be seeking more certainty in any long-term deal, rather than inflation reopener clauses.
The linkage to the previously rejected pension proposals is unacceptable.
The protection of some terms and conditions included in the offer is a key Union agenda item. However, the protections attached to this offer are neither extensive enough, explicit enough nor adequate in their longevity. Neither are they legally enforceable and would not offer CWU members any protection in the event of a change in ownership.

An agenda for growth and stability is something the Union has wanted and will support if the conditions are right. However, this offer lacks clarity over the future and is not a substitute for a proper agreement over the company's future parcels strategy.

Next Steps
All in all, although this offer has been rejected, it does demonstrate that the company now appear to be serious about resolving issues that have been on the Union's agenda for some time.
The Union is committed to further negotiations and a meeting has been arranged with the company later this week. Please ensure the content of this LTB is distributed to all local workplaces.
A further LTB will be issued this week confirming arrangements for a Conference/Policy Forum, alongside a Special Report setting out our next steps. Any enquiries on the above LTB should be addressed to the DGS (P) Department.
Yours sincerely


Dave Ward
Deputy General Secretary (P)

[pants123]

every pay offer always has conditions attached to it.... what about a straight forward pay rise, for all the bulls..t.. abuse and exploits the company have put on it's posties...

and still owed money from the bt 2010... what a joke..... they can shove it up their ar.e

[demon]

Well said come on union you can do it

[mandelsons_toenail]

What a load of bollocks

[glenfiddich]

oooh a lump sum thats a deal breaker

[Judgee]

Why are these deals always for 3 years? Why can't they take one year at a time. No one knows what will happen in 2 or 3 years time. We might be privatised which I guess will invalidate any agreement or inflation may go through the roof!?!?

As for a lump sum well ok that's fine but I would like mine based on Moyas please... 100% of my salary as a bonus at Christmas and I think I could accept it!

[Judgee]

Of course any bonus would need to include the £1000 we are already owed for the phantom share scam!

[mandelsons_toenail]

Of course any bonus would need to include the £1000 we are already owed for the phantom share scam!

Of course

[britwrit]

Sorry. I might have missed it. What's the "industrial action clause?"

[mandelsons_toenail]

If an office strikes they don't get the £300 lump sum

It's not a bribe honest guv

[fishtank]

Sorry. I might have missed it. What's the "industrial action clause?"

It's not in the CWU version.
You have to go hunting through the RM version of the deal to find it.

*In 2013-14, in addition to a 2.6% base pay increase there would be a non-consolidated lump sum of £300 (pro-rata for part-timer employees).It will be paid in December 2013. This is subject to a successful transaction before the end of the year. This payment will be forfeited in offices where industrial action takes place between now and the date of payment. The base pay and lumpsum combined equal an average pay increase of 3.7%.

[eastie]

oooh a lump sum thats a deal breaker

Were still waiting for our final Revision lump sum of £200 from months ago .
Wouldnt mind having that first

[cloherty1976]

If they got 3% in year one and same in year 2 &3 without inflation clause would this be acceptable do you think or are you thinking a lot higher when the private sector are only getting 1% and also they might not get a pay rise every year on top of this. Pensions can be closed at any time and only a mention in parliament might help and for privatisation that will be decided by parliament as well. If they battle on for say another 3 months how much more can be achieved as they say if a new owner comes in they can change everything

[TrueBlueTerrier]

If they got 3% in year one and same in year 2 &3 without inflation clause would this be acceptable do you think or are you thinking a lot higher when the private sector are only getting 1% and also they might not get a pay rise every year on top of this. Pensions can be closed at any time and only a mention in parliament might help and for privatisation that will be decided by parliament as well. If they battle on for say another 3 months how much more can be achieved as they say if a new owner comes in they can change everything

No. Simple pay rise no clauses, and more clarity as a minimum. No 3 year deals or lump sums either.

[cloherty1976]

So if they offered 4% this year no lump and no ties , on all allowances is this what we are looking for?