not on facebook
ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (UPDATED 2017)... HERE




Some future changes

11 Apr 2019, 10:23

Kocur and Roberts Ave done us all a favour, whatever you May think.

In the long-term, this has opened the floodgates to (nearly) full equality.

Christmas Bonus and perks,
Door Keys etc

In the long run, I think we will all be better off.

There are other cases at The a Employment Tribunals awaiting hearings.

Angard don’t want to ‘engage’ with ACAS and RM are unhappy - particularly as at least one of the cases quoted the Kocur and Roberts judgements. RM know they are on a loser and are having difficulty comping to terms with that.

Angard are now recruiting their second batch of 100 Casuals this year.
Presumably they are hoping to save costs by only calling in staff with less than 12 weeks.

That went well on Monday and Wednesday Lates - the two newbies could not tell the difference between Cirst and Se ind clas parcel sacks and routed everything randomly.

Some future changes

11 Apr 2019, 10:27

2chorizon wrote:Hi
Is that Gatwick MC pdf soreadsheet london specific or are those rates the same for the rest of the country?


To protect my identity, I don’t really want to post my rate card but all the rates are about £1 less than Gatwick’s at the Northern Mail Centre I work at.

Some future changes

11 Apr 2019, 10:34

tabact wrote:The worse shift is what I normally do 4 hours where we always got paid in full. I'll see my money drop £4.88 per shift and I usually managed to take an unofficial 20 minute break anyway.


To be fair to Royal Mail now I get an official 20 minute break, technically I'm earning 17p more for a 4 hour shift. If you take the Gatwick late rate which was 15.28 it would have gone up to 15.59 with the 2% rise instead it's 14.06 so an actual drop of £1.53 per hour.

Some future changes

11 Apr 2019, 11:36

NW11851 wrote:Kocur and Roberts Ave done us all a favour, whatever you May think.

In the long-term, this has opened the floodgates to (nearly) full equality.

Christmas Bonus and perks,
Door Keys etc

In the long run, I think we will all be better off.

There are other cases at The a Employment Tribunals awaiting hearings.

Angard don’t want to ‘engage’ with ACAS and RM are unhappy - particularly as at least one of the cases quoted the Kocur and Roberts judgements. RM know they are on a loser and are having difficulty comping to terms with that.

Angard are now recruiting their second batch of 100 Casuals this year.
Presumably they are hoping to save costs by only calling in staff with less than 12 weeks.

That went well on Monday and Wednesday Lates - the two newbies could not tell the difference between Cirst and Se ind clas parcel sacks and routed everything randomly.


Yep I think you are right

In my mail centre, Angard are being replaced by RM staff (part time contracts) and this process will accelerate shortly
They are however still recruiting new Angard so I'm assuming they want to save costs that way

Some future changes

20 Apr 2019, 07:20

I don't know if you know about it but Irwin Mitchell are taking Angard and Royal Mail to Leeds court for not adhering to the 12 week working regulations which states equal pay, overtime etc, as the RM Employees. My husband works for Pertemps who are trying the same thing. It's illegal not to pay the same so I would give Irwin Mitchell a ring, the more people that give them information the better. And just where did they get the overtime rate from (I think their calculator is broken lol', its lower than the normal rate) who is going to work overtime for that!

Some future changes

20 Apr 2019, 07:41

Ljhowie100 wrote:I don't know if you know about it but Irwin Mitchell are taking Angard and Royal Mail to Leeds court for not adhering to the 12 week working regulations which states equal pay, overtime etc, as the RM Employees. My husband works for Pertemps who are trying the same thing. It's illegal not to pay the same so I would give Irwin Mitchell a ring, the more people that give them information the better. And just where did they get the overtime rate from (I think their calculator is broken lol', its lower than the normal rate) who is going to work overtime for that!


You've missed the thread here https://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/community/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=90717

The O/T rate being lower is something to do with the various shift allowances on the basic rate not being included in the O/T rate. It's rare to get enough hours to worry about it.

Some future changes

20 Apr 2019, 15:17

Same problem in Cardiff mail centre

Some future changes

15 Jun 2019, 15:28

I can't get over how these agencies are saying it's because of paid breaks etc. It's all crap agency workers are entitled to paid breaks if the RM employee gets them. They are not doing us any favours. Parity pay us parity pay, the exact same as the equivalent RM worker paid breaks, holidays, shift allowances etc. My husband is not on for Angard but he's on for Pertemps. I don't see how they can reduce the hourly rate plus are you getting less money per hour overtime than you get for normal hourly rate?

Some future changes

16 Jun 2019, 15:05

Ljhowie100 wrote:I can't get over how these agencies are saying it's because of paid breaks etc. It's all crap agency workers are entitled to paid breaks if the RM employee gets them. They are not doing us any favours. Parity pay us parity pay, the exact same as the equivalent RM worker paid breaks, holidays, shift allowances etc. My husband is not on for Angard but he's on for Pertemps. I don't see how they can reduce the hourly rate plus are you getting less money per hour overtime than you get for normal hourly rate?

Think you would need to Read the full judgment ((Includes Appeal Decision) in Mr D Kocur v 1) Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd 2) Royal Mail Group Ltd: UKEAT/0181/17BA.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _17_BA.pdf
{EDIT} The Tribunal described the payment arrangements for breaks as follows:
“11. The equivalent comparator employee of the second respondent was paid at an hourly rate of £9.60. The claimant was paid at an hourly rate of £10.50. For an
afternoon eight hour shift that would mean that a first respondent employee would receive £78.75 (7.5 x £10.50) and the second respondent’s employee would receive
£76.80 (eight hours x £9.60). That would mean, therefore, that a first respondent employee, an agency worker, would be paid £1.95 more than a second respondent
employee for the same shift. The came about by reason an [sic] unexplained allocation of 30 minutes of a paid break to the first respondent employee, as
confirmed by their wage slips. The intention had been that by rounding up an amount into the hourly rate there would be equivalence of pay; that was because the second respondent employee was paid for the entire shift (such as eight hours) which would include all breaks, whereas the first respondent’s employee was only to be paid for the hours worked. It was never clear to the Tribunal why in the calculation of payment for an eight hour shift 30 minutes was deducted from the pay as opposed to the entire hour, or alternatively 40 minutes, if relaxation breaks were to be ignored due to them being subject to local practice.

Page 26 states;

f. Compliance with Regulation 5 does not mean that the Claimant’s pay must be reduced. Compliance could be achieved by paying him for the whole hour of the rest break at his hourly rate, or at least at the rate that applied to employees;
g. Payment for the whole rest break could be rolled-up into hourly pay, but only if this is done in a transparent way and so that such payment amounts to at least £9.60 for the rest break. On the facts found by the Tribunal, it is far from clear that that was the case. Indeed, on the face of it, the Claimant only received £5.25 for 30 minutes of the break and nothing for the remaining 30 minutes. His wage slip, rather than setting out any precise figures showing how the enhanced rate included an amount for the rest break, appears merely to have confirmed that there would be 30 minutes of paid rest break (Reasons, paragraph 11).

39. Ground 3 is therefore upheld. There was a breach of Regulation 5(1) AWR in that the Claimant did not receive at least the same pay for the rest break as employees.

Previous page Next page


Page 3 of 3   1, 2, 3