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


P/T to FT in agreement

11 Mar 2018, 10:42

Have a number of individuals and managers in the office saying that because they/people do a lot of OT they will jump seniority to get made up to full time contracts with this new agreement.

Any truth in this or are they reading/interpreting it wrong?

Rep can't seem to get an answer from HQ.

If its true they'll be a lot of unhappy people if its a yes vote.

P/T to FT in agreement

11 Mar 2018, 12:22

Sugar wrote:Have a number of individuals and managers in the office saying that because they/people do a lot of OT they will jump seniority to get made up to full time contracts with this new agreement.

Any truth in this or are they reading/interpreting it wrong?

Rep can't seem to get an answer from HQ.

If its true they'll be a lot of unhappy people if its a yes vote.


I thought that by those individuals doing certain OT that it showed that said office had hours available to make people on PT contracts up to FT but these contracts would be offered to the most senior PT staff regardless of weather they performed any OT or not.

P/T to FT in agreement

11 Mar 2018, 12:25

The lads who have done the hours and showed therr willing to do th hours over the last years should get it. Iam full time why would the lads who havent done the hours get it. Doesnt make sense. And if this does happen its surley good for everyone as if people work the hours theyll get the contracts. Use ya common sense before moanng expecting to be given the hours when you havent even worked them...

P/T to FT in agreement

11 Mar 2018, 12:36

Having read the agreement and heard a RM manager on RMTV it certainly seems to suggest the individual performing the overtime will be in line for the improved contract.
A senior union official on here has stated he doesn't believe this agreement will supersede the standing agreement i.e seniority will still prevail.

It isn't clear.

P/T to FT in agreement

11 Mar 2018, 12:39

bigal383 wrote:The lads who have done the hours and showed therr willing to do th hours over the last years should get it. ..

What if you are willing to do the ours but the DOM doesn't give you the overtime because you take your break and use a trolley etc?
What if the DOM gives the overtime (and with it the improved contracts) to their favourites?

P/T to FT in agreement

11 Mar 2018, 13:01

Common sense tells you it has to be the duty.

You can't have a situation where someone who has been here a year and has been put on a s**t duty which needs hrs, and he then automatically gets made up to full-time screwing other part-timers who have been there for years.

That would be ridiculous!

It was also mentioned by Tony Bouch NEC in the London video that due to the SWW if needed extra hrs would be put into offices where needed.

Rep can't seem to get an answer from HQ.
:cuppa

P/T to FT in agreement

11 Mar 2018, 13:18

It actually doesn't make sense, if a part-timer does regular docket then he/she should be made up, end page 5 beginning page 6 of 'pre plain English' agreement

pt-ft.PNG

What does clearly defined if not on duty mean lol
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

P/T to FT in agreement

11 Mar 2018, 13:27

POSTMAN wrote:Common sense tells you it has to be the duty.


Common sense - Royal Mail.
Oxymoron.

P/T to FT in agreement

11 Mar 2018, 13:44

It has to be attached to a duty otherwise it wouldn't work, you would then have a full-time reserve with no seniority and somebody then picks that duty with the office having to then pay out the same amount of overtime out for that duty to be completed the budget and office would implode

P/T to FT in agreement

11 Mar 2018, 14:28

Doesn’t make things any clearer, seems by the wording in the agreement that if you're one of managements blue eyed boys and girls you will get a F/T contract, if you’re not, tough!

When you have a management who allocate O/T on the basis of if your face fits then those whose don’t get s**t on twice, first by not getting the O/T, then again by not getting a F/T job.

The other point is there is a difference of not doing O/T because you can’t or are not willing to adapt your life to ad hoc extra hours, but when you get a F/T contract with conditioned hours then you can make that change because it’s permanent.

It is wholly unfair and if it stands it will be the death knell for seniority for deciding anything and you will have seen the last repick that will be worth a damn as any subsequent repick would be done on suitability, i.e. who knows what duty, who is quickest on that duty, who has least complaints on that duty etc, and most likely who are managements blue eyed boys and girls.

This has been tried before and has always been knocked back because of the arguments above.

It’s a dangerous path we’re treading and people need to consider the wider picture if this part of the agreement is allowed to stand.

If an office is having P/T's doing above and beyond their regular hours routinely then surely those hours need putting into the office as a whole and those P/T's who are next in line should be offered a permanent increase in their contracted hours?

P/T to FT in agreement

11 Mar 2018, 15:02

I can't see how it could work for the person doing the regular overtime to be definitely the one to be made up because:

Scenario 1, part timer doing part of an extra walk/working day off due to lack of staff.

Scenario 2, part timer doing ips/in early to prep duties due to there actually being a full time vacancy.

So the way I see it is scenario 1 shouldn't result in someone doing loads of overtime ever being given extra hours as it's due to not being enough staff because of vacancies/sickness etc.

However scenario 2 should result in duties being advertised as full time due to there not being enough full time staff, in which case as previously pointed out it will cause bother if the full time duties are just awarded to the person who's done the overtime and not advertised to be picked using seniority, this needs clarifying.

P/T to FT in agreement

12 Mar 2018, 13:40

It's the union reps' job to (a) ensure that P/T to F/T contracts possibilites are reviewed every six months with management and (b) that they are kept within a seniority framework. Otherwise a lot of the P/T early starters and runners who give time away to make themselves look good will be favourite with the screws, and they will be able to drop in very nicely onto duties they are already doing plenty of hours on because of favouritism. These duties are normally F/T guys who are off work for whatever reason, but the issue lies with the original selection of that P/T cover, who ends up on it for long period.

There are other ways for managers to monitor performance, but so often they choose this reward- punishment system for perceived good- bad employees.

There will be uproar otherwise. It already happens, but that does not make it right.

P/T to FT in agreement

12 Mar 2018, 18:51

POSTMAN wrote:It actually doesn't make sense, if a part-timer does regular docket then he/she should be made up, end page 5 beginning page 6 of 'pre plain English' agreement

[png]https://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/community/download/file.php?id=11232&mode=view[/png]

What does clearly defined if not on duty mean lol


It specifies not linked to duty, it then goes on to say “Again this hourage does not have to be linked to their part-time duty”, so what about someone who finishes their duty and regularly does a couple hours clearing parcels? This would result in pt to ft without the hours being put into the duty. But instead being given to the person putting in the hours.

P/T to FT in agreement

12 Mar 2018, 19:43

The Postman wrote:
POSTMAN wrote:It actually doesn't make sense, if a part-timer does regular docket then he/she should be made up, end page 5 beginning page 6 of 'pre plain English' agreement

[png]https://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/community/download/file.php?id=11232&mode=view[/png]

What does clearly defined if not on duty mean lol


It specifies not linked to duty, it then goes on to say “Again this hourage does not have to be linked to their part-time duty”, so what about someone who finishes their duty and regularly does a couple hours clearing parcels? This would result in pt to ft without the hours being put into the duty. But instead being given to the person putting in the hours.


Part time staff are never going to bypass seniority to get full time regardless of hours worked it's just not going to happen. If seniority was ignored with regards to hours and duty picks,I would imagine there would be more wildcat strikes than rm could ever handle

P/T to FT in agreement

18 Mar 2018, 13:21

Sugar wrote:Have a number of individuals and managers in the office saying that because they/people do a lot of OT they will jump seniority to get made up to full time contracts with this new agreement.

Any truth in this or are they reading/interpreting it wrong?

Rep can't seem to get an answer from HQ.


If its true they'll be a lot of unhappy people if its a yes vote.


Am I missing something here? Seniority has ALWAYS worked on the basis of what date you joined Royal Mail (the only exception being IF you had a break in service, then your Seniority starts from when you "Rejoined"). The Vacant duty should be advertised Internally, within your Delivery Office, and then you put your name down for it. The Most Senior Posties gets it! :thumbup

I know where you're coming from as a lot of DOMs work on the principle of giving all the cushy duties to the "Chosen Few". That's because they're Twats (and half the time don't even know the correct procedures themselves) but it doesn't make it correct. :no no Are these "Individuals" within your DO part of the "Chosen Few"? If they are it's in there interest to feed you B.S and they're Twats as well! :mad

If your Rep can't get an answer I suggest you get the phone number of the Area CWU Office and give them a ring (you'll often find it on a CWU Notice somewhere in the coffee room). If he's feeding you a load of B.S for whatever reason then I'm sure you can guess what I think he is.

Stick to your guns and fight this, IF you really want that duty. We had exactly the same problem and several duties had to advertised properly and the "Chosen Few" were kicked off them. DOMs cannot allocate Duties on the basis of Favouritism! :cuppa

Previous page Next page


Page 1 of 2   1, 2