'Safenet' Reintegration

[Geezer]

In the next few weeks ‘safenet’ will be reintegrated back into Royal Mail. This decision has been made for purely financial reasons by the business.
I attended a briefing in York on 8th January to explain the agreement that has been reached by Andy Furey and Carl Maden that ensure’s that no current ‘safenet’ members will be disadvantaged, financially or otherwise, by this move.

Andy Furey opened the briefing by summing up the reasons why the business felt this move made sense and the fact that he felt the agreement that he had reached was very good and the best that we could expect. Andy then went on to make the following comments on the overall situation and his agreement.

“the move is purely financial and difficult to oppose” “RM pay POL 9m a year to run safenet but the operation only costs 3m so RM were wasting 6m” “Safenet is RM work” “work can be absorbed into Network” “Phil Murphy (Network director) fully supports the reintegration of this work” “I believe the agreement is 1st class” “cast iron agreement that full terms of MTSF will apply” “VR guaranteed if members want it” “no night workers will be forced onto ‘days’” “class 1 training available if members want to move to Network” “pay protection applies” “I take no pleasure in this agreement but I am a realist and there is no argument to keep safenet” “RM head of security has said there is no increased security risk as 62% of priority items are already moved by Network” “RMs insurance company have risk assessed the move and are happy with the arrangements”

Although this agreement is out to ballot as I write this report, it was quite obvious from the reaction from those present that it will ‘sail through’. In the preference exercise, safenet members will be able to select Delivery, Distribution, Processing, CIT or Network. I believe there could be problems when a member wants to move to one of these businesses when they are currently undergoing another round of cuts due to the 2009 business plan, when I raised this issue I was told that they would be dealt with on an individual basis and that there may be a possibility of ‘bumping’ under the MTSF agreement. I believe this could also cause a problem as, in the current financial climate, members may not want to take EVR for fear of not being able to get future employment.

If you wish to see this agreement, in full, please do not hesitate to contact the branch or myself and I will arrange to send it to you either by email or in hard copy.

Area Distribution Rep
Western Counties Amal