Think i am gettin shafted by Dom and cwu

trouble · Post by **trouble** » 25 Jan 2018, 18:52

A couple of duties in our office are changing due to a new duty structure been implemented. The dutys in question will take on extra indoor work they will stay out later and change the number of days worked each week which appeals to some of us due to the changes how ever the Dom and rep are claiming that the dutys don't need to go up for a resign despite the above changes.
Is this correct or am I getting shafted?
They are saying that over a third of the office has to be effected for a resign - is this not just for a full office resign?
Anyone able to help or give some advice before its too late.
Seniority seems to mean nothing now

twoloops · Post by **twoloops** » 25 Jan 2018, 19:04

trouble wrote:Seniority seems to mean nothing now

RM know they would get shafted in court using seniority, its gone thing of the past

attendance & performance & appraisal meeting with a manager that's the future

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 25 Jan 2018, 19:20

You can't force the duty holder off the duty just because the duty has been changed.
The guys on them have the right to vacate them then they would have to go up on the board.

Destiny · Post by **Destiny** » 25 Jan 2018, 19:24

Yeah, they are correct.
Way of working agreement, major change etc....

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 25 Jan 2018, 19:32

mattycash wrote:
trouble wrote:Seniority seems to mean nothing now
RM know they would get shafted in court using seniority, its gone thing of the past attendance & performance & appraisal meeting with a manager that's the future

Do you have a test case that proves this or is it just your professional legal opinion?
In order to prove discrimination (in this case it would have to be age) you would have to show a material gain or detriment from picking duties through seniority, that would need to be financial to stand any chance of getting anywhere. Turning up at an ET and whining about another postie having an "easier" duty isn't going to cut it especially as royal mail consider all duties to be equal. Another point you would have to fight is that seniority is based on length of service not age so a 30 year old can have more seniority than a 60 year old again undermining any age discrimination case.

Where it gets iffy is where allowances are involved but that really doesn't affect delivery offices.

hans solo · Post by **hans solo** » 25 Jan 2018, 19:38

mattycash wrote:
trouble wrote:Seniority seems to mean nothing now
RM know they would get shafted in court using seniority, its gone thing of the past attendance & performance & appraisal meeting with a manager that's the future

talking shite my man seniority still holds the field

seaside · Post by **seaside** » 26 Jan 2018, 09:31

mattycash wrote:
trouble wrote:Seniority seems to mean nothing now
RM know they would get shafted in court using seniority, its gone thing of the past attendance & performance & appraisal meeting with a manager that's the future

Don't think so, its the fairest way of doing it.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 26 Jan 2018, 14:11

mattycash wrote:
trouble wrote:Seniority seems to mean nothing now
RM know they would get shafted in court using seniority, its gone thing of the past attendance & performance & appraisal meeting with a manager that's the future

Using attendance and performance could also land RM in court. But as its your suggestion I'll let you explain how they wouldn't.

PS as a HR trained Person I already know the answer, and I know RM would struggle with the implementation of such a system, and would certainly fail in the fairness, dignity and respect fields.

trouble · Post by **trouble** » 27 Jan 2018, 18:18

I take it that the number of days havin to be worked ,taking on extra indoor workload and different duty times are not enough for these dutys to be readvertised as it would suit some of the others

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 27 Jan 2018, 19:14

trouble wrote:I take it that the number of days havin to be worked ,taking on extra indoor workload and different duty times are not enough for these dutys to be readvertised as it would suit some of the others

Correct.

Duties only have to be advertised if they have been vacant for 6 months or there are more than 5% of duties that need filling. Duties are not officially signed for without them being advertised and selected first. But managers can identify people to fill them on a temporary basis.

Duties that have been changed as far as I know the incumbent can remain on them or elect for it to be advertised unless there is a major revision for the whole office they are not automatically required to be advertised.

I may be wrong though, but that's my thoughts.

trouble · Post by **trouble** » 29 Jan 2018, 13:02

There have been dutys in our office put back on the board for less in the past. Now it suits the DOM and the rep just to let this go just because 1 of the ball lickars r on it and some staff r not happy ; its causing a split in the office. Atmosphere is terrible.
What things need to change with a duty in order for it to be put back on the board for resign as all the things mentioned in earlier posts make this duty very appealing ie.going to a 4 day week, 5 day brake every 3rd week etc.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 29 Jan 2018, 13:40

trouble wrote:There have been dutys in our office put back on the board for less in the past. Now it suits the DOM and the rep just to let this go just because 1 of the ball lickars r on it and some staff r not happy ; its causing a split in the office. Atmosphere is terrible.
What things need to change with a duty in order for it to be put back on the board for resign as all the things mentioned in earlier posts make this duty very appealing ie.going to a 4 day week, 5 day brake every 3rd week etc.

Individual rounds, there is no requirement as far as I am aware. For all full resign it has to be declared as A major Change. That is usually between 25 - 30% of walks changed in some way.