CWU: PROPOSED HEADCOUNT REDUCTION OF OPGs IN DELIVERY AND PROCESSING-LTB 454/22 - ROYAL MAIL GROUP: UNAGREED PREFERENCE EXERCISE

[POSTMAN]

PROPOSED HEADCOUNT REDUCTION OF OPGs IN DELIVERY AND PROCESSING

Branches and Representatives are aware that Royal Mail (IDS) announced to the Markets on 14th October their intention to ‘right size’ the company by reducing frontline jobs across Delivery and Processing by up to 10,000 full-time equivalents. This serious issue, along with the unagreed reduction to the MTSF VR terms, have featured highly during recent negotiations.
Despite the union continuing to engage in good faith in these negotiations with the employer, we have now received formal notification from Royal Mail confirming their intention to proceed with headcount reduction under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act of 1992 in respect of redundancies amounting to at least 20 people in a number of workplaces.

The Royal Mail letter is completely outwith the MTSF agreement, as it contains a method of dealing with redundancies which may include compulsion, together with significantly reduced redundancy terms. Both of these positions are unacceptable and conflict with the Pathway to Change agreement, Section 2.4 “Job Security – Commitments and Assurances to Employees” which crucially states:

* “In line with our existing agreements and by utilising the flexible process within these, as change is deployed, RMG will avoid compulsory redundancies. This commitment will be joint reviewed in May 2023”

* “In line with our existing agreements, as change is deployed, the MTSF voluntary redundancy terms will continue to apply. This commitment will be jointly reviewed in May 2023.”

In essence Royal Mail has advised the union the 30-day legal consultation period on redundancies has now formally commenced. As a consequence, Branches and Representatives are instructed not to engage with management concerning job losses, redundancies and associated revision activity, or one to one meetings with members regarding these matters. In the event local managers attempt to proceed along these lines, this should immediately be progressed via the Dispute Resolution Procedure.

We know our Representatives and members will be concerned by this development; however, we must ensure the MTSF and Pathway to Change agreements are defended by this union and its members. We remain fully committed to bringing these disputes to a successful conclusion and in doing so, protect our members’ jobs and terms & conditions.
In the event that Royal Mail Group proceed unilaterally with an unagreed preference exercise further advice and guidance will be issued to Branches and Representatives.

Further developments will be reported.

[POSTMAN]

https://www.cwu.org/ltb/errata-ltb-454- ... -exercise/

ERRATA LTB 454/22 – ROYAL MAIL GROUP: UNAGREED PREFERENCE EXERCISE
No. 454/22 ERRATA

17th November 2022



TO: ALL POSTAL BRANCHES



Dear Colleague

ROYAL MAIL GROUP: UNAGREED PREFERENCE EXERCISE

Further to LTBs 452/22 and 450/22 dated 16th November, Royal Mail Group has today unilaterally commenced a preference exercise amongst our operational members, primarily in delivery and processing units via their People App. This activity contravenes the MTSF and Pathway to Change National Agreements and in particular the agreed Voluntary Redundancy terms.

Royal Mail are claiming our agreed terms are no longer affordable because of the financial position within the company, which they have created.

As explained in yesterday’s communication, RMG’s decision to go ahead with a unilateral preference exercise was deliberately timed to coincide with the presentation of their half yearly results announced to the markets today. This was because the CEO had told us that unless the company demonstrated that they were taking action to turn the financial position of the company around, they would not “remain a going concern”.

The issue of both Compulsory and Voluntary Redundancies has featured throughout our recent negotiations and the union had put forward the following requirements as being crucial to reaching an agreement.

There will be no compulsory redundancies, this guarantee will be subject to review at agreed milestones.
The full terms of the MTSF agreement will apply.
The overall reduction in headcount will be determined by agreed methodology, workload and revision activity.The implementation of the headcount reduction programme will be achieved through a prioritisation of removal of agency/casuals, natural attrition and voluntary redundancy.
The CEO’s response to our position was that he was fine with this, apart from the fact that the company would only be able to afford a 9 months maximum and 8 weeks minimum compensation. The union rejected this offer and have been pushing the company to increase this amount. Late last night the company confirmed that they would increase the amount with a £6,000 enhancement.

The maximum compensation being offered by the company for those seeking VR who qualify, based on age and length of service, is 9 month’s pay coupled with an enhanced one-off payment of £6k (pro-rata for part-timers). These terms are on offer for anyone who indicates they want VR by 27th November. The threat-based approach by Royal Mail states that after this date, the £6k won’t be available.

Following a Postal Executive meeting this morning the position adopted by the union is as follows:-

The union cannot support an unagreed VR process on compensation terms that are significantly inferior to our agreements.
It will always be the case that individual members are entitled to make their choice based on their own personal circumstances as to whether or not they are prepared to accept RMG’s redundancy terms.
As a consequence of this managerial action Branches and Representatives are instructed not to engage with management concerning any associated revision activity.
The union’s priority must be no compulsory redundancies and to ensure that such a commitment is included in any final agreement.

As we said yesterday, we would give our field officials, branches, reps and members a fuller update on negotiations later this week. We can now confirm that this will take place in a live Facebook session at 7 p.m. this evening.

Yours sincerely



Dave Ward Andy Furey
General Secretary Acting Deputy General Secretary (Postal)
The issue of both Compulsory and Voluntary Redundancies has featured throughout our recent negotiations and the union had put forward the following requirements as being crucial to reaching an agreement.

There will be no compulsory redundancies, this guarantee will be subject to review at agreed milestones.
The full terms of the MTSF agreement will apply.
The overall reduction in headcount will be determined by agreed methodology, workload and revision activity
The implementation of the headcount reduction programme will be achieved through a prioritisation of removal of agency/casuals, natural attrition and voluntary redundancy.
The CEO’s response to our position was that he was fine with this, apart from the fact that the company would only be able to afford a 9 months maximum and 8 weeks minimum compensation. The union rejected this offer and have been pushing the company to increase this amount. Late last night the company confirmed that they would increase the amount with a £6,000 enhancement.

The maximum compensation being offered by the company for those seeking VR who qualify, based on age and length of service, is 9 month’s pay coupled with an enhanced one-off payment of £6k (pro-rata for part-timers). These terms are on offer for anyone who indicates they want VR by 27th November. The threat-based approach by Royal Mail states that after this date, the £6k won’t be available.

Following a Postal Executive meeting this morning the position adopted by the union is as follows:-

The union cannot support an unagreed VR process on compensation terms that are significantly inferior to our agreements.
It will always be the case that individual members are entitled to make their choice based on their own personal circumstances as to whether or not they are prepared to accept RMG’s redundancy terms.
As a consequence of this managerial action Branches and Representatives are instructed not to engage with management concerning any associated revision activity.
The union’s priority must be to avoid no compulsory redundancies and to ensure that such a commitment is included in any final agreement.

As we said yesterday, we would give our field officials, branches, reps and members a fuller update on negotiations later this week. We can now confirm that this will take place in a live Facebook session at 7 p.m. this evening.

Yours sincerely



Dave Ward Andy Furey
General Secretary Acting Deputy General Secretary (Postal)

[clashcityrocker]

The union’s priority must be to avoid no compulsory redundancies and to ensure that such a commitment is included in any final agreement.

It is a small point I know but the detail is in the words.
Do they mean the priority must be to avoid compulsory redundancies? Or any compulsory redundancies?
The union's priority must be no compulsory redundancies?

What is written is surely the complete opposite of what they mean.
Is it any wonder none of our agreements appear to be worth the paper they are written on?

[Acca Dacca]

The union’s priority must be to avoid no compulsory redundancies and to ensure that such a commitment is included in any final agreement.

It is a small point I know but the detail is in the words.
Do they mean the priority must be to avoid compulsory redundancies? Or any compulsory redundancies?
The union's priority must be no compulsory redundancies?

What is written is surely the complete opposite of what they mean.
Is it any wonder none of our agreements appear to be worth the paper they are written on?

No surprise when Chris Webb is the head of communications.

[BigSacks]

The union’s priority must be to avoid no compulsory redundancies and to ensure that such a commitment is included in any final agreement.

It is a small point I know but the detail is in the words.
Do they mean the priority must be to avoid compulsory redundancies? Or any compulsory redundancies?
The union's priority must be no compulsory redundancies?

What is written is surely the complete opposite of what they mean.
Is it any wonder none of our agreements appear to be worth the paper they are written on?

That is always a trade unions objective.
When all is said and done it is pretty much their sole objective and the rest of their work is “a bonus”

Although I do wish someone would tell them clinging to this chat of “agreements” and “pathway to change” is about as useful as someone using “you told me you loved me” as a valid argument in a divorce hearing.

[Tickson]

Has anyone got a copy of the current and in force MTSF agreement? Including payout vs length of service figures?

[BenacreNick]

Please can I just clarify.

Is the Union's position this :-

We are not to engage with RM regarding today's Voluntary Redundancies letter from Zareena because its an unagreed VR process on compensation terms that are significantly inferior to our agreements.

Many thanks for your help.

[TopperGas]

The union’s priority must be to avoid no compulsory redundancies and to ensure that such a commitment is included in any final agreement.

It is a small point I know but the detail is in the words.
Do they mean the priority must be to avoid compulsory redundancies? Or any compulsory redundancies?
The union's priority must be no compulsory redundancies?

What is written is surely the complete opposite of what they mean.
Is it any wonder none of our agreements appear to be worth the paper they are written on?

If they now intend closing MC's how can they avoid compulsory redundancies if the staff concern can't transfer to parcel hubs etc?

[midegarelu]

The union’s priority must be to avoid no compulsory redundancies and to ensure that such a commitment is included in any final agreement.

It is a small point I know but the detail is in the words.
Do they mean the priority must be to avoid compulsory redundancies? Or any compulsory redundancies?
The union's priority must be no compulsory redundancies?

What is written is surely the complete opposite of what they mean.
Is it any wonder none of our agreements appear to be worth the paper they are written on?

If they now intend closing MC's how can they avoid compulsory redundancies if the staff concern can't transfer to parcel hubs etc?

We intend to close MC "X", there is now a vacancy for you at DO "Z".
There you go no compulsory redundancies at a stroke of a keyboard.

[SpacePhoenix]

The union’s priority must be to avoid no compulsory redundancies and to ensure that such a commitment is included in any final agreement.

It is a small point I know but the detail is in the words.
Do they mean the priority must be to avoid compulsory redundancies? Or any compulsory redundancies?
The union's priority must be no compulsory redundancies?

What is written is surely the complete opposite of what they mean.
Is it any wonder none of our agreements appear to be worth the paper they are written on?

If they now intend closing MC's how can they avoid compulsory redundancies if the staff concern can't transfer to parcel hubs etc?

The only way that they can close MCs is by stopping letter deliveries completely, or having everything go as manual as you'd have no machines to sort the letters, so no walk sort letters either

[POSTMAN]

The union’s priority must be to avoid no compulsory redundancies and to ensure that such a commitment is included in any final agreement.

It is a small point I know but the detail is in the words.
Do they mean the priority must be to avoid compulsory redundancies? Or any compulsory redundancies?
The union's priority must be no compulsory redundancies?

What is written is surely the complete opposite of what they mean.
Is it any wonder none of our agreements appear to be worth the paper they are written on?

If they now intend closing MC's how can they avoid compulsory redundancies if the staff concern can't transfer to parcel hubs etc?

The only way that they can close MCs is by stopping letter deliveries completely, or having everything go as manual as you'd have no machines to sort the letters, so no walk sort letters either

Simey has said there will be fewer MC's.
Q Will we get later arrivals?

Sits back for the 747 flying over.