LTB 198/23 - Royal Mail Group: BRT&G Agreement Paragraph 6.4

[POSTMAN]

https://www.cwu.org/ltb/ltb-198-23-roya ... graph-6-4/

LTB 198/23 – Royal Mail Group: BRT&G Agreement Paragraph 6.4
No: 198/23

24th July 2023

Dear Colleague

Royal Mail Group: BRT&G Agreement Paragraph 6.4

Further to LTB 187/23 dated 17th July. Branches and Representatives are advised that on Friday 21st July we met with RMG to discuss a number of areas relating directly to Section 6.4 of the BRT&G Agreement. Specifically, these discussions focused on a problem solving approach around the issues of “migration” or the transition from the former standards to the new standards which are due to be introduced from 1st August, along with the urgent establishment of the Joint Working Group which featured highly on our agenda. To help make for a constructive meeting, the business presented a comprehensive slide deck of information and data that requires further consideration.

Both parties were clear in their respective positions regarding these matters and it is indeed disappointing that RMG has chosen to unilaterally send letters to our members who currently have been issued with an AR1 or AR2 warning about sick absence. We have now been provided with these letters formally and these are being examined.

We need to be clear, these letters haven’t been agreed by the union. In fact, we were not advised or made aware of the issuing of these letters prior to them being received by our members. This is extremely disappointing, especially when all parties should be focused on jointly delivering our agreement. These concerns have been expressed in the strongest possible terms.

On a positive note, the meeting was focused on seeking to arrive at an agreed position and overall it was relatively constructive and we have agreed that the talks have been adjourned and we will continue our dialogue with Adrian Porter, Reward & Performance Director. Essentially, both parties have agreed this area needs to be treated as a priority and therefore we expect to meet again in the coming days. We will also give a full report back to the Postal Executive so that next steps can be determined

Any enquiries to this LTB please contact: The PTCS Department reference 312, email

address: khay@cwu.org

Yours sincerely

Andy Furey

Acting Deputy General Secretary (Postal)

Carl Maden

Assistant Secretary

[POSTMAN]

Too lazy now to actually call it 'BUSINESS RECOVERY, TRANSFORMATION AND GROWTH AGREEMENT'

[TopperGas]

So reading between the lines the CWU said "we're not happy" the RM said "tough that's what we're doing anyway". Meeting ended.

[funkflex55]

So reading between the lines the CWU said "we're not happy" the RM said "tough that's what we're doing anyway". Meeting ended.

This sums up pretty much everything that's happened in the last 15 months. RM do as they please. CWU powerless. Staff pissed off. This agreement isn't going as the 75% expected is it. Should never have given up the fight so easily.

[worktotime]

there should be no talks over this as the company have just done what they wanted again with this agreement but yet the cwwho ? have told them strongly , its simple there should be NO agreement to transfer any stages before the 1st August , as this is just another way of getting rid of staff

[Nickvilla20]

So reading between the lines the CWU said "we're not happy" the RM said "tough that's what we're doing anyway". Meeting ended.

This sums up pretty much everything that's happened in the last 15 months. RM do as they please. CWU powerless. Staff pissed off. This agreement isn't going as the 75% expected is it. Should never have given up the fight so easily.

What Arsenal did we have to fight on with? All we had was more strikes and with the current workloads it wouldn’t have made a dent.

[CRIBMAD]

bend over - pull those cheeks apart - you are reaping what you sowed lol - and you are not even going to get the lump sum

[Postie123469753]

All these “no” voters, do you really think, that if the vote was any different, Royal Mail wouldn’t push ahead with the changes?.The CWU were out manoeuvred, the only thing we could have done was to go on strike, with people struggling with the cost of living, there’s no way a long protracted strike would have been supported.
The days of this job being any good are gone, just come in on time, do your hours and go home.If you don’t like it, find another job

[hazzeem025]

bend over - pull those cheeks apart - you are reaping what you sowed lol - and you are not even going to get the lump sum

Okay. Right let's hear your plan B. More strikes? Didn't work last time, won't work this time because people realise that R.M are doing exactly as they please. Why would people go out on strike when they know how ineffectual it's going to be? What do you want? Out for a week/weeks on strike? How do you expect people to afford a week/weeks on strike? That'll show them and bring them to their knees! Meanwhile giving them the perfect excuse to go insolvent and blame the CWU. Right wing Tory press will love that, won't they? How do you want the CWU to deal with a business that is hellbent on doing what it wants? R.M just don't care, they've broken the CWU. You know it and I know it. It was all over at Xmas.

[Woody Guthrie]

This agreement isn't going as the 75% expected is it

Are we supposed to believe that a business that isn't even prepared to play straight with this agreement would have been prepared to pull a better agreement out of the drawer and stick to that?

That's completely illogical thinking.

It's time for the no voters to get a grip on reality and realise it was a straight choice between this deal and no deal with imposed change on Royal Mail's terms not some fantasy "better" agreement.

[worktotime]

so everything is ok because they have given them a copy of the letter and what the f**k is there to examine ? , the letter is simple so when my ar1 runs out in October they are going to stick another 6 months on it so how is that right when the agreement doesnt start till the 1st August , so if i get a date for my op before April 24 im f****d .

[deadbox]

It's time for the no voters to get a grip on reality and realise it was a straight choice between this deal and no deal with imposed change on Royal Mail's terms not some fantasy "better" agreement.

So what you are saying is that the CWU will have to accept everything & anything that Royal Mail want to do to us as there is no other alternative. If that is the case, then why would anyone pay subs to a union if it can’t oppose the employers imposed terms ?

Royal Mail ARE imposing non agreed term upon CWU members outside the agreement only days after it was voted on. Do you think accepting RM’s imposition and saying there’s nothing we can do about it will strengthen our position ? Or do you think it weakens it ?

[Woody Guthrie]

What I'm saying is that it is illogical given all the evidence that a no vote would have improved our position and would more than likely have made it much worse so the constant whining about it is pointless.

Where the union goes from here, how it becomes relevant at national level again and whether it is value for money are all different questions and not what I was commenting on.

[LouBarlow]

It's time for the no voters to get a grip on reality and realise it was a straight choice between this deal and no deal with imposed change on Royal Mail's terms not some fantasy "better" agreement.

So what you are saying is that the CWU will have to accept everything & anything that Royal Mail want to do to us as there is no other alternative. If that is the case, then why would anyone pay subs to a union if it can’t oppose the employers imposed terms ?

Royal Mail ARE imposing non agreed term upon CWU members outside the agreement only days after it was voted on. Do you think accepting RM’s imposition and saying there’s nothing we can do about it will strengthen our position ? Or do you think it weakens it ?

If you are referring to the minutiae of the details involved in changes to sick pay and extension of stage warnings, then the union are actively involved in resolving this, as has been mentioned. They may well bend over and accept them eventually, and it is perhaps fair to claim they were negligent in not locking down the transition period in the agreement, but at least give them a chance to rectify the situation. I’d rather have them offering some resistance than none, as would have been the case with a no vote.

[Basildon Bond]

Translating it...

"the business presented a comprehensive slide deck of information and data that requires further consideration"
is actually...
>> "RM's masterful use of PowerPoint, charts, graphs, clipart, and text on numerous slides confused us - it was information overload and rather bamboozling for us"

"Both parties were clear in their respective positions regarding these matters"
is actually...
>> "We know the members won't be happy so we have appear to be unhappy (though the we are not personally affected in anyway so it'll probably go through)"

"[CWU] were not advised or made aware of the issuing of these letters prior to them being received by our members"
is actually...
>> "RM allowed us to dodge a bullet for now as we can claim to be all shocked and hurt but that will hold you for now"

"the meeting was ... relatively constructive"
is actually...
>> "we didn't get much done but there were a few chuckles; the nibbles and drinks served while there were good though - so was the hotel we stayed at"

"we expect to meet again in the coming days"
is actually...
>> "can we get some more of those lovely salmon vol au vents served at the last meeting?"