National Agreement broken?

davo04 · Post by **davo04** » 17 May 2016, 23:17

This is with regards to the overrunning deliveries procedure.

A colleague had arranged prior to leaving the office that they (him and his duty partner) were likely to go over their time if they took all the mail in their frame that day. The line manager said they could leave a very small loop, which they agreed to but said they still might be over and weren't prepared to do overtime so said they would ring the line manager in question an hour before their finish time, if they were struggling. The line manager agreed to this and was in the company of another line manager who also heard them arrange/agree to do this.

Several hours later and unable to complete within their time, they rang the line manager.

The line manager's response was thus:

"Why would you need to bring back?"

"You're paid to deliver the mail"

"You're not bringing the mail back"

"I'm warning you, not to bring that mail back"

"There'll be consequences if you do"

"If you bring back you'll be in the office tomorrow morning for a fact-finding interview"

After feeling threatened, my colleagues decided to stay out and deliver the mail. Inevitably they went over their time and feel they were essentially bullied into working overtime.

Surely this is grievance worthy at the least?

Has the national agreement on the overrunning deliveries procedure also been contravened?

Cheers

Post by **POSTMAN** » 18 May 2016, 22:18

Yes grievance, rep anywhere in this?

One day I can see one of these scumbags getting a good hiding.

davo04 · Post by **davo04** » 18 May 2016, 22:37

Yeah the rep has been involved but I don't know his recommended course of action on it.

This lino has form and has MANY grievances against him. Thought if he had actually broken a national agreement then it might have been taken more seriously by the powers that be, but has he actually broken an agreement? Or am I just clutching at straws?

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 19 May 2016, 17:34

No, he has broken it, but then he probably knows that, and he probably didn't put it in writing like it says he should.

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... ng#p180740" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - is a link to the agreement. Follow it to the letter and you "should" be ok.

It's still worth a grievance if they were a witness to each other, though I doubt a manager would back you up.

Also, removal of goodwill by those affected might be worth considering as long as it's an individual choice and not organised or coerced.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 19 May 2016, 18:13

TrueBlueTerrier wrote:No, he has broken it, but then he probably knows that, and he probably didn't put it in writing like it says he should.

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... ng#p180740" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - is a link to the agreement. Follow it to the letter and you "should" be ok.

It's still worth a grievance if they were a witness to each other, though I doubt a manager would back you up.

Also, removal of goodwill by those affected might be worth considering as long as it's an individual choice and not organised or coerced.

I don't think anyone is coerced into the removal of goodwill ( basically working over your time ) paid or unpaid it is the attitude and actions of the management which dictates the course of actions by most of us. We come to work and be paid not treated like s**t and told we are lucky to be treated so and we don't deserve any overtime as we are overpaid for the job's we do!

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 19 May 2016, 18:17

You have inadvertently outed me

In plain English, it was more of a warning not to organise its withdrawal as that can be deemed as illegal Industrial Action, and of course, because of that, I can't recommend it. Hopefully, you get my meaning and intent.

steve1873 · Post by **steve1873** » 19 May 2016, 18:21

k979aaa wrote:
TrueBlueTerrier wrote:No, he has broken it, but then he probably knows that, and he probably didn't put it in writing like it says he should.

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... ng#p180740" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - is a link to the agreement. Follow it to the letter and you "should" be ok.

It's still worth a grievance if they were a witness to each other, though I doubt a manager would back you up.

Also, removal of goodwill by those affected might be worth considering as long as it's an individual choice and not organised or coerced.
I don't think anyone is coerced into the removal of goodwill ( basically working over your time ) paid or unpaid it is the attitude and actions of the management which dictates the course of actions by most of us. We come to work and be paid not treated like s**t and told we are lucky to be treated so and we don't deserve any overtime as we are overpaid for the job's we do!

I think basically that the "not organised or coerced" comment was absolving the CWU of trying to instigate unofficial industrial action. I obviously stand to be corrected, but that is how I read it.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 19 May 2016, 18:28

steve1873 wrote:
k979aaa wrote:
TrueBlueTerrier wrote:No, he has broken it, but then he probably knows that, and he probably didn't put it in writing like it says he should.

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... ng#p180740" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - is a link to the agreement. Follow it to the letter and you "should" be ok.

It's still worth a grievance if they were a witness to each other, though I doubt a manager would back you up.

Also, removal of goodwill by those affected might be worth considering as long as it's an individual choice and not organised or coerced.
I don't think anyone is coerced into the removal of goodwill ( basically working over your time ) paid or unpaid it is the attitude and actions of the management which dictates the course of actions by most of us. We come to work and be paid not treated like s**t and told we are lucky to be treated so and we don't deserve any overtime as we are overpaid for the job's we do!
I think basically that the "not organised or coerced" comment was absolving the CWU of trying to instigate unofficial industrial action. I obviously stand to be corrected, but that is how I read it.

When since has the CWU stopped any good will?

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 19 May 2016, 18:40

k979aaa wrote:When since has the CWU stopped any good will?

They haven't as it would be illegal. Please read my 2 replies above and it may all become clear. Though I can't be too clear on a personal basis. Read between the lines.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 19 May 2016, 18:53

TrueBlueTerrier wrote:
k979aaa wrote:When since has the CWU stopped any good will?
They haven't as it would be illegal. Please read my 2 replies above and it may all become clear. Though I can't be too clear on a personal basis. Read between the lines.

The CWU never have done what UNITE have done but all their action has done is heap more work upon the oppressed postal workers of this country as I have found out. When will the leaders of our union stop this madness of our workers bearing the brunt of the UNITE UNION's actions? And if so will their strategy backfire on them if we adopt those same actions with a ballot of course!

davo04 · Post by **davo04** » 19 May 2016, 22:26

Cheers for the replies. Much appreciated. A grievance is underway according to those involved.

Just out of interest, is there a time limit regarding submitting a grievance? As in, does it have to be instant (say, a couple of days) or can one be submitted weeks later?