NETWORK 12 REVISION ACTIVITY:Update

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Letter to Branches




No. 346/2012
Ref: 233.08
Date: 11th May 2012

FOR THE URGENT ATTENTION OF:

All Postal Branches with Network Members
All Divisional Representatives
All Regional Organisers
All Area Distribution Representatives
All LGV Representatives



Dear Colleague

NETWORK 12 REVISION ACTIVITY

Further to LTB 233/12 it is with great regret that the department has had to produce this LTB and report to you that we believe Royal Mail Logistics have broken the agreement made on the Network 12 process and therefore all discussions should be suspended both locally and Nationally until such time as the disagreement is resolved Nationally.

By way of a reminder you will recall that Royal Mail Logistics and the CWU Nationally had agreed that there could be collective interest in reaching a successful deployment of Network 12 between late June and early July 2012, prior to the start of the Olympics.

Both parties recognised that this deployment target was earlier than had been done previously and would therefore require a positive and pragmatic approach at all levels if the deployment target was to be met. It was also agreed that the review would be based on the current RDC and VOC network.

We are at Stage Two of the process and the National Working Group met on Thursday 10th May 2012, only to be presented with first cut proposals, which clearly were not based on the current RDC and VOC network, as the Paragon outputs excluded the two RDC/VOC’s involved in a consultation process over their future. In addition all road services including ‘Empty Legs’ had been removed on the basis that the business intend to use external resource on these runs.

Nationally we have gone to great lengths to reassure those CWU members whose RDC/VOC is going through a consultation process that no final decisions have been made and that the process is genuine. Equally we have agreed to enter genuine discussion on the ‘Progressive Agenda’ with no pre-determined positions and the matter of ‘Empty Legs’ is part of that process.

However the managerial team involved in the National Working Group for Network 12 have made it quite clear, via their proposed first cut network requirements, that they consider both the RDC consultations and the progressive agenda discussions ‘fait accompli’ in their eyes and that is totally at odds with the approach we agreed.

Therefore we are now in a disagreement process at National level and the Network 12 discussions, RDC consultations and Progressive Agenda discussions are all suspended at this point. If management decide to still pursue these issues locally without resolving this National disagreement then the CWU will have to decide how we respond Nationally.

In the meantime we advise that there should be no local negotiations on these matters until a resolution to this national disagreement is found. If any attempt is made by local managers to progress revision activity then the matter should be the subject of a disagreement via the provisions of the IR Framework and my department at CWU HQ notified immediately.

It would appear that the ‘dash for cash’ mentality has once again seized the management of the business to the extent that it is overriding any desire on their part to demonstrate integrity and honour in the agreements we have made.

Please remember those agreements are designed to protect the concept of mutual interest and protect our Network members and it is essential that you verbally explain in detail to every member involved the seriousness of this development because we believe it is essential that those agreements are defended and honoured.

Any enquiries in relation to this LTB should be addressed to Terry Pullinger, Assistant Secretary, e-mail: dwyatt@cwu.org quoting reference number: 233.08

Yours sincerely



Terry Pullinger
Assistant Secretary

[daveyeff]

ha, when have they EVER demonstrated integrity and honour on ANY agreement?

[heathrow86]

It was the same last year during the Network 11 review. When will the CWU learn that RM are not interested in working together. Most of frontline rank and file have realised this. Just look at the mail centre closures, the alternative proposals put to management, to save the mail centres were rejected. Anyway how can the business justify "empty legs"?, they have just bought yet more 98 double deck trailers, and are introducing the 110 york trailers.

As a network driver i am getting racked off with the situation. Every year there is delay.

[POSTMAN]

LTB 380/12 Network 12/RDC Consultations/Driving Issues


Dear Colleague



NETWORK 12 / RDC CONSULTATIONS / DRIVING ISSUES


Further to LTB 346/2012 regarding the breakdown in National talks this LTB has been produced in response to the many enquiries into the department and to update representatives and members on the current position.



There can be no question that we are at an extremely serious crossroad in our relationship with the Network management team (who now also have responsibility for Area Distribution).



We the CWU have a crisis of confidence in the integrity of the Network managerial negotiators in respect of existing National Agreements and in the talks currently taking place on other issues, such as the future of Area Distribution and Road Accident procedures etc.



Their decision to exclude 'empty legs' and the RDC's in consultation from 1st cut Network 12 proposals was a blatant breach of our National Agreement and unfortunately an indication of what I consider to be a growing trend in behaviours that are at odds with the BT Agreement commitments.



Our need to question the integrity and trust in the relationship have been further compounded by evidence we have received that management have also been covertly planning the deployment of issues such as 'Mailsort into Yorks' and Mailsort Feeders as business as usual, despite those issues being included in our continuing discussions on 2012 lump sum triggers.



Despite these actions rendering the commitments to shared vision and new relationships, no more than empty words, we have offered to engage in talks to try and recover the situation by building a framework of renewed assurances and tangible progress which will hopefully restore confidence and trust that our agreements will be honoured and our processes sincere.







Until these talks have concluded the position remains the same i.e.



'In the meantime we advise that there should be no local negotiations on these matters until a resolution to this National disagreement is found. If any attempt is made by local managers to progress revision activity then the matter should be the subject of a disagreement via the provisions of the IR Framework and my department at CWU HQ notified immediately'.



Please remember and advise our members we are taking this action to protect the commitments made in National Agreements and to protect their interests, and it is essential that you verbally explain in detail to every member involved the seriousness of this situation.



Any enquiries in relation to this LTB should be addressed to Terry Pullinger, Assistant Secretary, e-mail: dwyatt@cwu.org quoting reference number: 233.08





Yours sincerely







Terry Pullinger
Assistant Secretary

[tb35]

DO these "driving issues " and " accidents " also apply to van share opgs? if it is the case then perhaps we should be looking further afeild than the network

[heathrow86]

Leopard never changes their spots come to mind. Well i don't think many network drivers are surprised by the management attitude.