Reserves/Floaters and DM26

[mr hil.]

I don't think the locker staff are in our repick their content and duty start times etc are not changing, nobody wants their jobs anyway that could also be the reason. They would be allowed to jump on a delivery though if they so chose.

[guardianangel]

Nope. Its a resign. End of.

‘Where DOs agree to complete a full repick post deployment…’

Quote from the agreement.

A highly selective quote. You need to put that into the context of the whole wording. I suspect you don't want a resign.

It’s there in the agreement as an option, NOT a must happen.

All the agreement favours Royal Mail its all if's but's and maybes's ,which union official actually signed this sketchy agreement off .

It’s written so that things are agreed at a local level rather than a dictat sent down from on high. As long as the brief of DM26/USO change is met, HOW an office achieves it is agreed locally because all offices are different.

Problems arise if you don’t have a rep or if the rep isn’t engaged in the process.

Exactly from up high ,nothing to do or see here its not our fault its your rep who works for free ,Dave ward and co absolute freeloaders.

[Barnacle]

Nope. Its a resign. End of.

‘Where DOs agree to complete a full repick post deployment…’

Quote from the agreement.

A highly selective quote. You need to put that into the context of the whole wording. I suspect you don't want a resign.

It’s there in the agreement as an option, NOT a must happen.

All the agreement favours Royal Mail its all if's but's and maybes's ,which union official actually signed this sketchy agreement off .

It’s written so that things are agreed at a local level rather than a dictat sent down from on high. As long as the brief of DM26/USO change is met, HOW an office achieves it is agreed locally because all offices are different.

Problems arise if you don’t have a rep or if the rep isn’t engaged in the process.

Exactly from up high ,nothing to do or see here its not our fault its your rep who works for free ,Dave ward and co absolute freeloaders.

At the same time though, would you really want some distant remote group, making all decisions for your office?

Bad enough that there’s a remote RM Assurance Team that can overrule local decisions.

[tramssirhc]

Just for clarity if the senior person wanted the duty I've been on for eight years they should get it.

Spot on. Seniority comes to us all

[tramssirhc]

Why somebody does not see why there needs to be a resignwhen a 1/4 of people have been booted off their duties is beyond me. If you have good seniority and you find yourself without a duty you should have the opportunity to apply for a duty in a resign.

There could be a new starter on a duty that has only been in the building for 2 month but finds himself on a duty wheras the a person that has done 30 years is now a reserve.

What you have stated is the doomsday scenario. It’s actually unlikely that someone 2 months in would remain on that pick while someone with 30yrs was booted out of the quad.

But that's exactly what the op said was happening.

[tramssirhc]

At the same time though, would you really want some distant remote group, making all decisions for your office?

Bad enough that there’s a remote RM Assurance Team that can overrule local decisions.

As long as the local solution meets all the national agreements then no remote body can prevent it's implementation. The real concern is the CWU leadership preventing the rank and file securing the agreement. Local reps are under extreme pressure to bend to the will of the bag avoiders.

[Barnacle]

Why somebody does not see why there needs to be a resignwhen a 1/4 of people have been booted off their duties is beyond me. If you have good seniority and you find yourself without a duty you should have the opportunity to apply for a duty in a resign.

There could be a new starter on a duty that has only been in the building for 2 month but finds himself on a duty wheras the a person that has done 30 years is now a reserve.

What you have stated is the doomsday scenario. It’s actually unlikely that someone 2 months in would remain on that pick while someone with 30yrs was booted out of the quad.

But that's exactly what the op said was happening.

They also stated that they are a non-driver so that probably was the deciding factor

[tramssirhc]

They also stated that they are a non-driver so that probably was the deciding factor
[/quote]

No such thing as non-drivers. The agreement is clear that workers with no contractual obligation to undertake driving duties should be engaged in the most cost efficient way possible. Putting them in the leave reserves is not efficient.

[Barnacle]

They also stated that they are a non-driver so that probably was the deciding factor

No such thing as non-drivers. The agreement is clear that workers with no contractual obligation to undertake driving duties should be engaged in the most cost efficient way possible. Putting them in the leave reserves is not efficient.
[/quote]

Yes there is such a thing as non-drivers because you can’t have a grouping with no drivers unless it is HCTs.

If they are only being given the option to be a reserve, why is that? We would need to know the make up of their office and the size of it to know some answers. Some offices have a large number of non-drivers and that will cause issues when setting up DM26

[guardianangel]

At the same time though, would you really want some distant remote group, making all decisions for your office?

Bad enough that there’s a remote RM Assurance Team that can overrule local decisions.

As long as the local solution meets all the national agreements then no remote body can prevent it's implementation. The real concern is the CWU leadership preventing the rank and file securing the agreement. Local reps are under extreme pressure to bend to the will of the bag avoiders.

The remote body preventing ours.

[Benson97]

They also stated that they are a non-driver so that probably was the deciding factor

No such thing as non-drivers. The agreement is clear that workers with no contractual obligation to undertake driving duties should be engaged in the most cost efficient way possible. Putting them in the leave reserves is not efficient.

Yes there is such a thing as non-drivers because you can’t have a grouping with no drivers unless it is HCTs.

If they are only being given the option to be a reserve, why is that? We would need to know the make up of their office and the size of it to know some answers. Some offices have a large number of non-drivers and that will cause issues when setting up DM26
[/quote]

Four pods of three posties each, only one non-driver in each pod. So thats four non-drivers, plus one rest day cover. No HCTs at all. The office is 5 miles from the delivery postcode. Before DM26, there were eight duties available for non drivers, now there are five.

[Barnacle]

They also stated that they are a non-driver so that probably was the deciding factor

No such thing as non-drivers. The agreement is clear that workers with no contractual obligation to undertake driving duties should be engaged in the most cost efficient way possible. Putting them in the leave reserves is not efficient.

Yes there is such a thing as non-drivers because you can’t have a grouping with no drivers unless it is HCTs.

If they are only being given the option to be a reserve, why is that? We would need to know the make up of their office and the size of it to know some answers. Some offices have a large number of non-drivers and that will cause issues when setting up DM26

Four pods of three posties each, only one non-driver in each pod. So thats four non-drivers, plus one rest day cover. No HCTs at all. The office is 5 miles from the delivery postcode. Before DM26, there were eight duties available for non drivers, now there are five.
[/quote]

__________

So they have reduced the number of positions available for non-drivers, even though the office has above that number?

You have grounds for a claim of discrimination. Contact your branch and ask for the equality rep.

Whoever is organising DM26 at your place, should have organised it based on the makeup of the office.

[clashcityrocker]

You have grounds for a claim of discrimination. Contact your branch and ask for the equality rep.

No you don't.

[Barnacle]

You have grounds for a claim of discrimination. Contact your branch and ask for the equality rep.

No you don't.

Under the terms of the USO Agreement, yes they do

[Smoothbackground]

You have grounds for a claim of discrimination. Contact your branch and ask for the equality rep.

No you don't.

Under the terms of the USO Agreement, yes they do

“Discrimination” arises when the Equality Act is engaged, ie, when someone is discriminated against because of a characteristic protected by the Act (age, sex, sexuality, disability, etc). Being a non-driver isn’t a protected characteristic. There is no claim!