Update on Delivery Issues 12th August 2011

[Geezer]

Update on Delivery Issues 12th August 2011 – Advice for Local CWU Reps.


Welfare



The agreement states unequivocally that welfare forms part of the delivery span.

“The Delivery Span is defined as the time between the first and last letter inclusive of all related tasks such as replenishment, welfare etc.”


Royal Mail is reporting to CWU representatives that the inclusion of welfare on delivery has been resolved. This is not true.
A disagreement was raised in an area in the Sth East Division and it was agreed to take the disagreement away from the locality and deal with it at national level through the JWG’s dealing with measurement & performance. The intention was to build the welfare element into the outdoor part of delivery duties by including a relaxation/contingency allowance into Pegasus/Georoute thus removing any potential disagreements locally. However despite some assurances this proved not to be the case and it could not be moved on due to the intransigence of Royal mail managers. The welfare issue therefore remains unresolved.
We were previously led to believe that the outdoor element of all delivery duties was set at 100BSI which instigated our approach to deal with welfare through a relaxation/contingency allowance. Royal Mail then changed tack and stated that the outdoor element was based on actual observation so welfare was catered for. We disputed this and requested the dates and venues for when this was carried out – without our involvement – and all the study data associated with the observations. This has not been forthcoming. In our opinion they are attempting to mislead us.
In our opinion the statement contained in the BT 2010 agreement cannot be clearer and it is our intention to raise this nationally again and at the NDG to seek a resolution. In the interim any statement that this matter has been resolved is untrue.

BSI 100

The BSI issue is not as clear cut as it may seem. For one we are not able to quote anything from the BT 2010 agreement simply because there is no reference to BSI anywhere in that agreement. The reason for this is because during the national negotiations we were told that Royal Mail no longer used BSI as a measure of performance. The absence of any reference to BSI is clear proof that we have not agreed BSI 100 if we had it would be in the agreement.
However it is not BSI that is the real problem it is the level of performance or EP as it is referred to that creates the problems.

All Planning Values used by Royal Mail are set at 100BSI. In certain circumstances they are then down dialled in terms of performance which was the case in the RRP agreement, which was about 1986/7. This was down dialled to a performance level of 85 and remained in place until the PBS agreement reset the performance figure in Mail Centres to 75 and to the best of our knowledge this figure has remained in MC's for determining workload.

The PBS agreement set a performance figure of 90 for delivery offices rising to 95 over a period of time. This was determined by the Delivery Productivity Measurement System (DPMS). When Royal Mail scrapped DPMS delivery did not have a measurement system until the Indoor Workload Tool (IWT). DPMS gave an overall performance figure for indoor and outdoor. An overall performance figure for indoor and outdoor cannot now be established because IWT determines indoor workload and Pegasus now determines the outdoor workload. Also Pegasus is based on observations and not BSI. In the first instance the difference between MC’s and Delivery Offices was mainly due to the fact that there was not work available all the time in MC’s to maintain a performance level of 100; at times people slowed down whilst waiting for work to be put in front of them. In delivery they maintain that this is not the case and that there is no reason why people should not be gainfully employed all the time, in other words have work available all the time. This is the main reason for the difference as stated by Royal Mail; it was also their position that delivery employees made time on the street and as a consequence gained their relaxation allowance in this way. Meaning that if the performance was levelled out over the full duty, including the inactive time (which would depend on when you finished your delivery) then the performance level would have been reduced to similar levels as a MC. However this argument does not hold water any longer as the delivery routes are now optimised removing the likelihood of making time on the street.

It should also be noted that we have never said that 100 BSI cannot be achieved as quite clearly it can. The argument centres around can it be maintained for a full shift or consistently over the period of the duty. Most people achieve levels of 100BSI everyday; it all depends on how long.

We have consistently made the point that MC employees are being treated differently to DO employees, especially now that delivery routes are optimised, and we are continuing to make that point and try and address them through the tools used in delivery. We still contend the principle that they will not accept, that working at 100 BSI is normally associated with a bonus scheme.

In essence the level of BSI is the same everywhere it is the level of performance that differs. If you are not comfortable or satisfied that the levels of improvement being proposed are too high or not achievable in your revision then go to disagreement.

See Annex A and read in conjunction with this document.

ANNEX A IS HERE................................ http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 15&t=38262" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;