Ring fencing?

[TheStrangler]

In what circumstances does the term "ring fenced" apply?
When there is a re-sign shoud all duties be up for grabs?
In our office there are cases of junior people holding on to duties that senior people cannot pick due to them being "ring fenced".
Jobs such as bay marshal , production control , etc
Also , do you have to train for a duty before you can pick it or can you pick it and then be trained?
Clarification on the above would be appreciated.

[TheBushBaby]

A duty has to change by 33% according to the way forward, so the easiest way of addressing this is change all the duties by 33%.

Sadly, the few will stir up and use the MTSF if their duty is not changed and 'flow through.' And again sadly HR will support them and they will undermine the greater good.

Who says We have our seniority ? We don't sold away under MTSF.

[rehabron]

In what circumstances does the term "ring fenced" apply?
When there is a re-sign shoud all duties be up for grabs?
In our office there are cases of junior people holding on to duties that senior people cannot pick due to them being "ring fenced".
Jobs such as bay marshal , production control , etc
Also , do you have to train for a duty before you can pick it or can you pick it and then be trained?
Clarification on the above would be appreciated.

A " ring fenced" duty has been designed and reasonable adjustments made to that duty to accommodate an employee who has a medical condition that is covered within the Equality Act in terme of disability.
In a resign where that particular duty has not been effected by change can be reatined by the duty holder and not obliged to be available in the resign unless the duty holder volunteers to put the duty into the resign pot.
Spevialist posts that require a certain criteria would be in the first instance be available to employees who have the necessary qualifications or training that the post requires in order to save additional expenditure by the business but training would be given if unable to fill the post at the first attempt.
In relatiom to junior people holding on to " ring fenced " duties to disadvanatge seniority further clarification is required on this matter.

[rehabron]

In what circumstances does the term "ring fenced" apply?
When there is a re-sign shoud all duties be up for grabs?
In our office there are cases of junior people holding on to duties that senior people cannot pick due to them being "ring fenced".
Jobs such as bay marshal , production control , etc
Also , do you have to train for a duty before you can pick it or can you pick it and then be trained?
Clarification on the above would be appreciated.

A " ring fenced" duty has been designed and reasonable adjustments made to that duty to accommodate an employee who has a medical condition that is covered within the Equality Act in terme of disability.
In a resign where that particular duty has not been effected by change can be reatined by the duty holder and not obliged to be available in the resign unless the duty holder volunteers to put the duty into the resign pot.
Spevialist posts that require a certain criteria would be in the first instance be available to employees who have the necessary qualifications or training that the post requires in order to save additional expenditure by the business but training would be given if unable to fill the post at the first attempt.
In relatiom to junior people holding on to " ring fenced " duties to disadvanatge seniority further clarification is required on this matter.

Further to my post your " junior" people could possibly be reserves or P/T who do not hold a signed duty but presently occupying a " ring fenced " duty as currently there are no employees who meet the criteria for a " ring fenced " duty and remain vacant.

[rehabron]

A duty has to change by 33% according to the way forward, so the easiest way of addressing this is change all the duties by 33%.

Sadly, the few will stir up and use the MTSF if their duty is not changed and 'flow through.' And again sadly HR will support them and they will undermine the greater good.

Who says We have our seniority ? We don't sold away under MTSF.

A mqjor change is when 33 1/3 % of the overall duties in the resourcing area have been impacted by significant change constituting a full resign as per the Way forward agreement.
Duties not effected by change will remain with the duty holder unless volunteered to be put into the resign having completed a duration of 12 months on the duty.
MTSF ( Managing the Surplus Framework ) is designed to meet employees who have become surplus to the available duties by pay protection in relation to a financial loss eg assigned allowances no longer available, buy down or voluntary redundancy.
Senioity still exists foremost but allowances hold the field in displaced colleagues.

[Jamie162]

Ring fence in our office was all to do with shift allowance

[Celgar]

At one time in the past we had a walk 'ring fenced' because it was on permanent absorption. Anyone could sign for it but they would never get to deliver it.
You get training for a walk after a resign has been completed and you have signed for said walk. No point otherwise as training usually costs the office more to do.

[postslippete]

In what circumstances does the term "ring fenced" apply?
When there is a re-sign shoud all duties be up for grabs?
In our office there are cases of junior people holding on to duties that senior people cannot pick due to them being "ring fenced".
Jobs such as bay marshal , production control , etc
Also , do you have to train for a duty before you can pick it or can you pick it and then be trained?
Clarification on the above would be appreciated.

In relatiom to junior people holding on to " ring fenced " duties to disadvanatge seniority further clarification is required on this matter.

I'm intrigued. We have a load of part-time duties that are "ring-fenced" in our office. So we have a scenario whereby you get full timers who have worked there for over 10 years working as reserves and spares (and not by their choice - its just what was available) yet there are part-timers who have been there only a few years and yet they work on a fixed duty??

How does that work in relation to having a seniority list?

I could be wrong but it just seems to me that the business is trying to push out full-timers and/or force people to work part-time hours

[hothothot]

The same thing is going on my office , part timers who have only been in our office 6 months with fixed duties and full times who have been here for 12 years , reserves . This is just to suit the Dom and ignoring seniority. And he calls it ring fenced duties. How can this be right.

[rehabron]

These duties are being structured to contracted hours which DOM classifies as ring fencing but my opinion is he/she wants to ring fence a duty to a specified amount of hours per day or week then it is exactly that and there should be no additional hours available to the duty holder.
If unable to complete delivery within the allotted time mail is brought back to the office.

[postslippete]

These duties are being structured to contracted hours which DOM classifies as ring fencing but my opinion is he/she wants to ring fence a duty to a specified amount of hours per day or week then it is exactly that and there should be no additional hours available to the duty holder.
If unable to complete delivery within the allotted time mail is brought back to the office.

Your opinion is noted but it is not exactly clear what it is that you mean.

What I believe it to be is a very crafty way of doing things in a re-pick to encourage some posties to go part-time so that they can at least get a fixed duty. And I've seen it cause all sorts of problems in delivery offices and whats that got to do with the overrunning procedure which we all know??

In my opinion there should be a clear policy and they should stick to it - not allow the Royal Mail to bend and shape the rules to suit themselves, which they so often do. On a personal level, I can understand ring-fencing for those covered by the Equality Act and thats that. Ring fencing all sorts of part-time duties just p*sses off posties who have built up some sort of seniority for themselves and as I used to work as a reserve, I often questioned why I was ever in a Union because it was simply allowing Royal Mail to bend and shape the rules whenever and wherever they liked instead of looking after its members that it is paid to do.

[rehabron]

These duties are being structured to contracted hours which DOM classifies as ring fencing but my opinion is he/she wants to ring fence a duty to a specified amount of hours per day or week then it is exactly that and there should be no additional hours available to the duty holder.
If unable to complete delivery within the allotted time mail is brought back to the office.

Your opinion is noted but it is not exactly clear what it is that you mean.

What I believe it to be is a very crafty way of doing things in a re-pick to encourage some posties to go part-time so that they can at least get a fixed duty. And I've seen it cause all sorts of problems in delivery offices and whats that got to do with the overrunning procedure which we all know??

In my opinion there should be a clear policy and they should stick to it - not allow the Royal Mail to bend and shape the rules to suit themselves, which they so often do. On a personal level, I can understand ring-fencing for those covered by the Equality Act and thats that. Ring fencing all sorts of part-time duties just p*sses off posties who have built up some sort of seniority for themselves and as I used to work as a reserve, I often questioned why I was ever in a Union because it was simply allowing Royal Mail to bend and shape the rules whenever and wherever they liked instead of looking after its members that it is paid to do.

Firstly the duties are the property of RM not the CWU.
How the duties are adminstered is through National Agreements and kept in check by the CWU or it would be a totally one sided business run by RM without a union backing.
The previous agreement Agenda for Growth % Stability clearly defined the proportion of full time duties to part time duties to be a 75%/25% ratio and I would have put this to be a clearly defined policy although we know that this has not transpired. The industrial framework has been revamped in the AFG%S agreement and strengthened again in the 4 pillars.
If management wish to ring fence duties aligned to contracted hours in a cost saving exercise to the detriment of long serving f/t staff still being reserves then that should surely be highlighted by your union rep or area rep through the IR Framework and a disagreement lodged to level3.
The point I made in my previous post about ring fencing duties to contracted hours my opinion was nothing to do with involving the over running procedure but to ensure that the duty was kept to the contracted hours and no additional hours allowed. Past experience has shown that as time progresses due to management miscalculation the duty suddenly grows arms and legs and ends up being a duty that a F/T reserve might have an interest in thats why I stated that no additional hours being applied to the duty after being signed for in the repick.
Hope this clears up your questions.

[clashcityrocker]

The previous agreement Agenda for Growth & Stability clearly defined the proportion of full time duties to part time duties to be a 75%/25% ratio and I would have put this to be a clearly defined policy

No it didn't.
The 75/25 split was to be a national average and not a template for each DO.
That then became an overarching objective to remain a predominantly full time employer - which means next to nothing.

[rehabron]

The previous agreement Agenda for Growth & Stability clearly defined the proportion of full time duties to part time duties to be a 75%/25% ratio and I would have put this to be a clearly defined policy

No it didn't.
The 75/25 split was to be a national average and not a template for each DO.
That then became an overarching objective to remain a predominantly full time employer - which means next to nothing.

If every DO, mail centre across the country is constructing duties to contracted hours and we have across the country employees still reserves who have 20 years service and upwards then the 75/25 national average split quoted isn't worth diddly s**t and the overarching objective of a predominately full time employer is a figment of someones imagination.