New local rep seeking advice

Fairnessforall · Post by **Fairnessforall** » 18 Mar 2016, 22:52

Hi, I have recently completed my training course and am 2 weeks into my new role as local rep. I had my first meeting today with my area rep, his first statement to me was that he doesnt believe in 39 hour contracts equating to a full time job but rather they should be 34-35 hour contracts. I find this a completely staggering attitude when its surely our job to protect these jobs at all costs. If this is my area reps attitude I feel I may as well quit now. Does anyone else have experience of area reps with a horrible attitude? I was also asked by him and my dom to persuade my colleagues to accept a certain choice, out of two options, as this suits Royal Mail and to apply pressure so they accept and make the doms life easier. How can my area rep ask me to corrupt myself? My training course was excellent and after many years of doubt they rekindled my passion and belief that what we have is worth fighting for, yet only 2 weeks later I find it's been beaten out of me. I am at a crossroads of whether to give it up as a bad job or fight for what i believe we all deserve, a fare chance of a decent living.

Post by **yorkmover123** » 19 Mar 2016, 09:50

Hi don't pack in if you have the passion and drive and really what to make a changes in your workplace for the benefit of the members you carry on brother. If the Area saying we should have 34-35 hr contract let him have his say doesn't mean it will happen its got to be voted in by the members the people you now represent and at National level . The ace card in your hands because you can now agree with your members and Dom any changes by local agreement, if you go to disagreement that the only time the Area gets involved with you.

Dozen · Post by **Dozen** » 19 Mar 2016, 10:02

Hi, also a new rep here

Regarding the comment from your area rep about what constitutes a full-time job, why not ask him to clarify what exactly he meant? Consider that we used to be on 40 hours and are now on 39. Historically, Trade Unions have always fought for a shorter working week to allow more time for leisure and family, so that is nothing new. Shorter hours doesn't necessarily equate to less pay. If you gave me the choice right now between taking either a shorter working week on the same pay as now (less hours worked but hourly rate increased to match current package), or an increase in pay on the same hours as now (bigger take-home pay but no improvement on work-life balance), I would personally opt for the shorter week. That is just my preference, others may differ and if it went to ballot and the majority preferred more pay for the same hours then of course I would respect that decision.

What I would suggest is if you are really having doubts about your area rep, then first consult some of the other local reps in your area and get their take. If you're right about the guy then obviously something needs to be done, but don't rush to action before making sure you're absolutely right, as remember that a divided union is a broken union. In any case, best of luck (and definitely do NOT give up the fight!).

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 19 Mar 2016, 11:51

is he not just on about our actual working hours, which if you take off our paid breaks is about 35 hrs 40mins. he may be of the opinion that we should be on a 35 hr week then have paid breaks taken off that.....I know i'm all for that. who wouldn't be.

Fairnessforall · Post by **Fairnessforall** » 19 Mar 2016, 12:08

Hi all, thanks for your replies, he didn't say it in the context of it being to our benefit, more it's just the Royal Mail way and everyone will end up on reduced hours. I have no problem with his opinions it's more how can I expect to count on his support when he clearly doesn't care. He allowed me to be threatened numerous times and inferred threats himself. He then implied I should change my members minds to accept something they don't want and that is too their detriment. I'm more concerned if this is a common theme, I can fight him and my manager, I just don't want to fight the union as well.

Fairnessforall · Post by **Fairnessforall** » 19 Mar 2016, 12:29

Just to give you some context, we have been under going a re-alignment due to attrition and data usage slippage for a lengthy period of time, they have now used this to further evaporate full time jobs. After 8 months and it still to be completed I challenged how they worked out their figures. In the meeting I was told they'd worked it out using dds, as far as I'm aware this is no longer accepted by the union. They have produced no agreements at all and I have received no paperwork regarding it. They have pressured me to accept the way they've done it and was warned that my members on 24 hour contracts would be left stranded on them. My office has recently started recruiting 26.20 hour contracts p/t staff, this is despite not putting up the long serving 24 hour contracts to match the new starters. Is this breaking equality laws? I was threatened that the planner would walk away and we could stay as we are, or await a full revision at an untold date, were still waiting on our revision as part of the BT2010 agreement. In my training course I was told that if no paperwork existed it didn't exist, and new agreements should be made. The words are the words are the words is the quote used over and over in my training...

motherhubbard · Post by **motherhubbard** » 19 Mar 2016, 15:03

What is data usage slippage?
And what is dds?

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 19 Mar 2016, 15:59

No. 061/16
Ref: 230.03
Date:1st February 2016

To: Branches with POSTAL Members

Dear Colleague

Unagreed Introduction of Delivery Duty Sets Tool (DDS)............

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 15&t=73183" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 19 Mar 2016, 16:09

Love to be a fly on the wall when you plonk that LTB in front of the ADR.

My office has recently started recruiting 26.20 hour contracts p/t staff, this is despite not putting up the long serving 24 hour contracts to match the new starters. Is this breaking equality laws?

No. The Equality Acts was basically a merging of previous laws on discrimination, the acts that were merged are:

The nine main pieces of legislation that have merged are:

the Equal Pay Act 1970
the Sex Discrimination Act 1975
the Race Relations Act 1976
the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003
the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003
the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006
the Equality Act 2006, Part 2
the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007

But they should have at least given a chance for the Union to put a case for upgrading current contracts rather than bringing in new starters on better ones.

Fairnessforall · Post by **Fairnessforall** » 19 Mar 2016, 21:04

Date slippage and attrition were words used by the DSM. The Old union rep didn't know they were planning on starting the new starters on 26.20, they put our hours up to match the new starters at Christmas after I had complained (I wasn't rep at this point) then told us on Christmas Eve, thanks for all your hard work, you're going back to 24 hours whilst the new starters remain on 26.20. 5 stage 2 grievances were raised at the end of December about this and are still awaiting a repsonse... Thanks so much for your time and your responses, the LTB is great and I couldn't thank you more. I hope one day I can return the help you have given me, much appreciated

Post by **patrickstar14** » 20 Mar 2016, 08:52

If you have a conflict between your area rep and yourself , then you have you branch secretary to intervene and take advice from.
You branch secretary will mediate and make a decision if you cant agree on some issues