PRIVATE CARS ON DELIVERY - ADR/ASR MEETINGS WITH DSMs

[Geezer]

Please take the time to read this email from an ASR in South Yorkshire..

Yet again it is quite clear that members are putting themselves in potentially serious difficulty and Royal Mail are not telling people of the consequences.

Please try and take this matter up in the way described, especially if you have an area where people are regularly using thier own cars.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TO ALL BRANCH SECs / ADRs SW/SW

Please find below report from Darren Bennet ASR - South Yorkshire

Could all branches make sure that the content of the report is passed onto ASRs and ask that a similar approach is adopted in all areas. This is further evidence of how ASRs have a critical role to play in the forthcoming dispute.

................................................................................................................................

Quick summary of where we are with the above and of course, what our work has lead to.
I now meet on a weekly basis with both the CWU ADR's and RM DSM's.
At this mornings meeting the issue of PCOD was discussed. DSM's were announcing that they viewed our members, declaring on Friday's they were not using there private cars, as a form of un-official industrial action, as well as refusing to perform overtime.
From a legal perspective, the following was made very clear to the DSM's of which they fully supported and agreed with.
If any offices did not have the correct risk assessment and authorisation for using PCOD then the manager would not allow the individuals to take mail out in there cars and I expected this to be fully adhered to.
As a consequence, both Steve and myself visited Halfway DO. After reviewing the PCOD materials, Risk assessments, Authorisation forms, they were found to be out of date by 2 years.
I asked the manager to announce to his staff that they could not use there vehicles, for acceleration, with immediate effect and that he should also check with his DSM before doing this. Two minutes later this was agreed and he briefed all of the staff that they could not take there mail out. Chaos!!!!
In addition to this, he gathered them in the room to discuss and invited me to speak with the staff. I used the opportunity to explain to people there insurance arrangements and the consequences of using PCOD. Most did not realise that they were covered only for third party by the business and that they ran the risk of having there own insurance being made null and void for failing to disclose that they use there cars for business purposes.. Shock Horror!!!!!
The following comments began to echo around the room " that's it, im not using my car anymore", "why did they not tell us this before", "I've been using my car for 10 years, as of now that stops"......
Both the ASR's and the ADR's should do the following:
Meet with the DSM's and gain there support and agreement in ensuring ALL legal requirements are completed (they have no choice but to agree to this).
If compliance is not performed or assessments are out of date, the use of the PCOD is stopped with immediate effect. (get the ASR's and ADR's to site the effect this will have on a manager by allowing employees to go out without the correct authorisation, Corporate Manslaughter etc, etc)
Jointly visit every office within the next 7 days and check for compliance. Any irregularities advise the manager, ask him/her to halt PCOD with immediate effect and that this has been agreed with his/her DSM.
The CWU are not instructing anyone. Royal Mail are doing it for us due to the fear of Corporate Manslaughter.
We also get the unique opportunity to outline the insurance elements of PCOD with the full support and thanks of RM.
So to recap:-

* Meet with the DSM's
* Get them to agree that vehicles can only be used if they have full authorisation, have been assessed, with insurance, licence and MOT
* Go to the offices check compliance and where they fail inform the manager that he/she must pull the plug with immediate effect
* Use the WTLL's to highlight the Insurance anomalies

This mornings action has caused chaos and vehicles have had to be drafted in from the mail centre.
Tomorrow morning will be even better...and it's RM that have taken the action.

Thanks

[brothermagrew]

Excellent work by the CWU safety reps, but you will recall that in the case of the unfortunate death of Carole Paulson by a Royal Mail employee who used his private vehicle on delivery the following:

"The facts following an investigation by the CWU Area Safety Representative Paul Rew is that the Delivery Office Manager has failed to discharge Royal Mail's health and safety duty of care to staff employed by Royal Mail and to members of the public who may be affected by Royal mail operations. The Manager has failed to ensure there is no risk to the health and safety of the staff.

The DOM hasn't undertaken documentary checks as required in Royal Mail's policy and checked drivers licences, insurance and MOT certificates. There has been no Safety Checks undertake on staff's cars being used on delivery. None of the Brentwood DO staff (at the time of the accident) had been 'authorised' to use their cars and none had been instructed by the DOM to sign the Royal Mail private car user's declaration for authorisation and business use insurance cover."

Apart from the employee concerned appearing before the Basildon Court recently, what action if any was taken by Royal Mail against the delivery office manager for his omissions in failing to discharge his duties as a manager in not carrying out any of the basic documentary checks as required in RM Policy.

[eian687]

our union rep and safety rep both use there cars on delivery at my office as well as 2 other members of staff

[michris]

Please take the time to read this email from an ASR in South Yorkshire..

Yet again it is quite clear that members are putting themselves in potentially serious difficulty and Royal Mail are not telling people of the consequences.

Please try and take this matter up in the way described, especially if you have an area where people are regularly using thier own cars.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TO ALL BRANCH SECs / ADRs SW/SW

Please find below report from Darren Bennet ASR - South Yorkshire

Could all branches make sure that the content of the report is passed onto ASRs and ask that a similar approach is adopted in all areas. This is further evidence of how ASRs have a critical role to play in the forthcoming dispute.

................................................................................................................................

Quick summary of where we are with the above and of course, what our work has lead to.
I now meet on a weekly basis with both the CWU ADR's and RM DSM's.
At this mornings meeting the issue of PCOD was discussed. DSM's were announcing that they viewed our members, declaring on Friday's they were not using there private cars, as a form of un-official industrial action, as well as refusing to perform overtime.
From a legal perspective, the following was made very clear to the DSM's of which they fully supported and agreed with.
If any offices did not have the correct risk assessment and authorisation for using PCOD then the manager would not allow the individuals to take mail out in there cars and I expected this to be fully adhered to.
As a consequence, both Steve and myself visited Halfway DO. After reviewing the PCOD materials, Risk assessments, Authorisation forms, they were found to be out of date by 2 years.
I asked the manager to announce to his staff that they could not use there vehicles, for acceleration, with immediate effect and that he should also check with his DSM before doing this. Two minutes later this was agreed and he briefed all of the staff that they could not take there mail out. Chaos!!!!
In addition to this, he gathered them in the room to discuss and invited me to speak with the staff. I used the opportunity to explain to people there insurance arrangements and the consequences of using PCOD. Most did not realise that they were covered only for third party by the business and that they ran the risk of having there own insurance being made null and void for failing to disclose that they use there cars for business purposes.. Shock Horror!!!!!
The following comments began to echo around the room " that's it, im not using my car anymore", "why did they not tell us this before", "I've been using my car for 10 years, as of now that stops"......
Both the ASR's and the ADR's should do the following:
Meet with the DSM's and gain there support and agreement in ensuring ALL legal requirements are completed (they have no choice but to agree to this).
If compliance is not performed or assessments are out of date, the use of the PCOD is stopped with immediate effect. (get the ASR's and ADR's to site the effect this will have on a manager by allowing employees to go out without the correct authorisation, Corporate Manslaughter etc, etc)
Jointly visit every office within the next 7 days and check for compliance. Any irregularities advise the manager, ask him/her to halt PCOD with immediate effect and that this has been agreed with his/her DSM.
The CWU are not instructing anyone. Royal Mail are doing it for us due to the fear of Corporate Manslaughter.
We also get the unique opportunity to outline the insurance elements of PCOD with the full support and thanks of RM.
So to recap:-

* Meet with the DSM's
* Get them to agree that vehicles can only be used if they have full authorisation, have been assessed, with insurance, licence and MOT
* Go to the offices check compliance and where they fail inform the manager that he/she must pull the plug with immediate effect
* Use the WTLL's to highlight the Insurance anomalies

This mornings action has caused chaos and vehicles have had to be drafted in from the mail centre.
Tomorrow morning will be even better...and it's RM that have taken the action.

Thanks

Darrell Bennett
CWU ASR
South Yorkshire

Chris Webb
Divisional Representative
South Wales / South West

help!!!!! what r ASR,S ADR,S and DSM,S?????

[brothermagrew]

Area Safety Rep, Area Delivery Rep and Delivery Sector Manager

There again ADR may mean Area Divisional Rep others will know and point you in the right direction.

[johnnyp]

Please take the time to read this email from an ASR in South Yorkshire..

Yet again it is quite clear that members are putting themselves in potentially serious difficulty and Royal Mail are not telling people of the consequences.

Please try and take this matter up in the way described, especially if you have an area where people are regularly using thier own cars.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TO ALL BRANCH SECs / ADRs SW/SW

Please find below report from Darren Bennet ASR - South Yorkshire

Could all branches make sure that the content of the report is passed onto ASRs and ask that a similar approach is adopted in all areas. This is further evidence of how ASRs have a critical role to play in the forthcoming dispute.

................................................................................................................................

Quick summary of where we are with the above and of course, what our work has lead to.
I now meet on a weekly basis with both the CWU ADR's and RM DSM's.
At this mornings meeting the issue of PCOD was discussed. DSM's were announcing that they viewed our members, declaring on Friday's they were not using there private cars, as a form of un-official industrial action, as well as refusing to perform overtime.
From a legal perspective, the following was made very clear to the DSM's of which they fully supported and agreed with.
If any offices did not have the correct risk assessment and authorisation for using PCOD then the manager would not allow the individuals to take mail out in there cars and I expected this to be fully adhered to.
As a consequence, both Steve and myself visited Halfway DO. After reviewing the PCOD materials, Risk assessments, Authorisation forms, they were found to be out of date by 2 years.
I asked the manager to announce to his staff that they could not use there vehicles, for acceleration, with immediate effect and that he should also check with his DSM before doing this. Two minutes later this was agreed and he briefed all of the staff that they could not take there mail out. Chaos!!!!
In addition to this, he gathered them in the room to discuss and invited me to speak with the staff. I used the opportunity to explain to people there insurance arrangements and the consequences of using PCOD. Most did not realise that they were covered only for third party by the business and that they ran the risk of having there own insurance being made null and void for failing to disclose that they use there cars for business purposes.. Shock Horror!!!!!
The following comments began to echo around the room " that's it, im not using my car anymore", "why did they not tell us this before", "I've been using my car for 10 years, as of now that stops"......
Both the ASR's and the ADR's should do the following:
Meet with the DSM's and gain there support and agreement in ensuring ALL legal requirements are completed (they have no choice but to agree to this).
If compliance is not performed or assessments are out of date, the use of the PCOD is stopped with immediate effect. (get the ASR's and ADR's to site the effect this will have on a manager by allowing employees to go out without the correct authorisation, Corporate Manslaughter etc, etc)
Jointly visit every office within the next 7 days and check for compliance. Any irregularities advise the manager, ask him/her to halt PCOD with immediate effect and that this has been agreed with his/her DSM.
The CWU are not instructing anyone. Royal Mail are doing it for us due to the fear of Corporate Manslaughter.
We also get the unique opportunity to outline the insurance elements of PCOD with the full support and thanks of RM.
So to recap:-

* Meet with the DSM's
* Get them to agree that vehicles can only be used if they have full authorisation, have been assessed, with insurance, licence and MOT
* Go to the offices check compliance and where they fail inform the manager that he/she must pull the plug with immediate effect
* Use the WTLL's to highlight the Insurance anomalies

This mornings action has caused chaos and vehicles have had to be drafted in from the mail centre.
Tomorrow morning will be even better...and it's RM that have taken the action.

Thanks

Darrell Bennett
CWU ASR
South Yorkshire

Chris Webb
Divisional Representative
South Wales / South West

help!!!!! what r ASR,S ADR,S and DSM,S?????

Heres a few more for you

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 36&t=12657" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[brothermagrew]

our union rep and safety rep both use there cars on delivery at my office as well as 2 other members of staff

Maybe you should take it upon yourself to remind both of these reps on just what is the CWU policy on private cars on delivery.

[eian687]

our union rep and safety rep both use there cars on delivery at my office as well as 2 other members of staff

Maybe you should take it upon yourself to remind both of these reps on just what is the CWU policy on private cars on delivery.

have done but it falls on deaf ears
they moan if anyone starts early then when we say you are using your cars they walk away quietly

[Geezer]

our union rep and safety rep both use there cars on delivery at my office as well as 2 other members of staff

If this is the case, then what hope is there to putting a stop to this practice.In my opinion this is where some Reps really do let themselves down,
Because if they can't follow the rules, what right do they have to expect others too so.

[brothermagrew]

our union rep and safety rep both use there cars on delivery at my office as well as 2 other members of staff

Maybe you should take it upon yourself to remind both of these reps on just what is the CWU policy on private cars on delivery.

have done but it falls on deaf ears
they moan if anyone starts early then when we say you are using your cars they walk away quietly

respect to you and double standards from them as quite frankly as they are both in a position of trust they should be leading from the front.

[spilie]

what must be done to meet the standards to allow the use of PCOD? would like to know so i could challenge the d**k sorry pr**k sorry dom

[brothermagrew]

what must be done to meet the standards to allow the use of PCOD? would like to know so i could challenge the d**k sorry pr**k sorry dom

Sure you will find your answer in the original post. Something like risk assessments, documentation checks, manual handling checks but you may be missing the point the CWU position is clear an immediate ban and to ultimately end the use of private cars on delivery.

Small articles from CWU Voice (Postal) Jan/Feb 09 & Nov/Dec 08:
Car is our only option:
I read with interest Bob Gibson's
reply to the employee who voiced
his concerns about the use of private
cars on delivery (Voice letters
Nov/Dec 2008). Many of my
colleagues and me use our cars on
delivery because it wouldn't be
logical to use the vans.

Postmen and postwomen travel as
far as 20 miles to get to work and
there is no form of public transport
before our shift starts at 6am. We
have to then travel four or five miles
across the city to do our rounds. If
we didn't use our own cars then we
would have to travel on two buses to
get back to the office and then travel
home, many of us having to pick our
children up from school.
So the fact is that many of us use
our cars because we have little
choice not to, not because we want to.
Name and address supplied

Assistant secretary Bob Gibson replies:
Firstly, neither I nor anyone else is saying
that you should not use your car to get to
work. I was explaining CWU policy, which is
to end the use of private cars on delivery.
Secondly, if you have to travel back to the
office after your delivery then this should be
included in your duty as would travel time
out to your delivery.

Royal Mail Taking Advantage of Own-Car Drivers:
Working out of a West Country sorting office, I and around 20 other delivery
workers use our cars on a daily basis. Royal Mail’s policy states that we do this
voluntarily and do not consider the vast savings that they gain from this,
including acquisition and running costs of extra vehicles to distribute delivery
persons and the employment of extra personnel to drive these vehicles. Also, a
longer working day would have to be attributed to delivery workers so as to
include take out, pick up and mail supply as numerous walks do not have
pouch boxes of safe drops. Further savings are made on the planning
application costs to local councils for the sighting of pouch boxes and on their
upkeep and replacement. My fuel costs have risen considerably recently and it is
about time that Royal Mail changed its "voluntary car use" policy.
Name and address supplied

Assistant secretary Bob Gibson replies:
Royal Mail will not do anything about this while our
members continue to use their own cars, saving the business both time and money. In an
increasing number of cases, our members are driving around uninsured which can have serious
and far reaching consequences. There is really only one answer – don’t do it!

2006 Article
After years of campaigning against the use of private cars on delivery, the Communication Workers Union took a pragmatic stance and tried to negotiate with Royal Mail (Postal deliveries by car increasing risk of thefts, March 11). Our objective was an agreement that contained risk assessments, safe systems of working, maintenance of vehicles carried out by trained Royal Mail mechanics, regular roadworthiness checks, the provision of comprehensive insurance and the appropriate remuneration for our members. The agreement would also have ensured that customers' mail was safeguarded at all times. Unfortunately, Royal Mail broke off negotiations to pursue its own strategy over the heads of the union. Its strategy ignores many of the safeguards that we attempted to negotiate and is primarily based on reducing costs. The answer is either to negotiate an agreement, or ban the use of private cars on delivery. Personally, I would prefer the latter.
Bob Gibson
National assistant secretary, CWU

CWU Conference 2006 Voice Magazine Article
Ban private cars!
The CWU is to launch a national campaign
against the use of private cars on delivery
duties.
Annual Conference backed a motion
calling for more information about the
hidden costs – and dangers – of using
private vehicles to be made available to
members.
Those who use their cars to make
deliveries risk not being covered if they
do not have a ‘business use’ clause in
their insurance policies and get only
‘third party’ coverage through the Royal
Mail Bond.
This means members themselves
may have to bear the cost if their car is
stolen or damaged on duty. They also risk
disciplinary action if mail is stolen from
the vehicle.
Currently the cost of petrol, insurance
and wear and tear are all borne by the
private car user — this means low paid
workers are saving Royal Mail thousands.
Assistant secretary Bob Gibson told
the Voice: “The use of private cars is
fraught with legal implications and health
and safety issues. The only safe and
sensible solution is to stop using them.”

Legal Aspects from Factual Account

Background

The Royal Mail pleaded guilty to three offences arising from the death of a 16 year old Stroud delivery office postal worker. He died after being knocked off his motorbike just seconds into his early morning round. Although the prosecution agreed that the death was the responsibility of the driver of the car which knocked him off his motorbike, they argued that he would never have been riding it in that place or at that time if health and safety procedures had been followed. "The accident showed up specific shortcomings in procedure. It was symptomatic of the general failure to devise and maintain safety checking systems".

Although no-one had given the young person express permission to ride the motorbike at work, its use was condoned by management. "It was plain as a pikestaff. He walked around with a crash helmet and if it was obvious to everyone else, how could management not be aware of it?"

Apparently the motorbike did not have an adequate rack or mail pouches and a safe system of work drafted by Royal Mail in 1988 had not been implemented. Additionally, there was no written policy in force governing the use of private vehicles and no formal regulation of their use was made by management even though it was aware of the practice. In fact the police brought the incident to the attention of Stroud District Council's environmental health department, who took the prosecution, after being told by a Royal Mail manager that "it turned a blind eye to the use of private vehicles for work". According to John Pullin, environmental services manager, "if it had not been for the police officer taking it on his own initiative to contact us we would have been none the wiser".

Following the fatality the environmental health department expected Royal Mail management to take steps to rectify the situation. When it failed to do so, they served an improvement notice requiring the introduction of a safe system of work for the use of private vehicles. Royal Mail was required to carry out risk assessments on the use of private vehicles at work and to maintain lists of authorised vehicles and their registration numbers. This forced Royal Mail to address the problem in the 350 delivery sorting offices in the South West. When it became apparent that improvements would be limited to that region, the environmental health department decided to prosecute in order to send a clear message elsewhere.

Court Decision

The following information is taken from the memorandum of a conviction or other proceedings entered in the Register of the Magistrates' Court, South Glos. Magistrates' Court, No 2 Court sitting on 25th March 1997 at 2pm.

o Between the 1st June 1995 and the 31st

December 1995 being an employer, did

contravene Section 2(1) and 2(2)(a) of

the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act

1974, in that you failed to operate a

safe system of work in the Royal Mail Stroud

delivery office in that there was no

proper system operating for authorising or

permitting the use of private motor

vehicles by your employees in the course

of the discharge of their duties thus

ensuring that any vehicle that was so used

was roadworthy, that the driver was a

competent person who was qualified to

drive and that the said vehicle was insured

for the purpose of delivering the mail,

whereby you are guilty of an offence as

provided by Section 33(1)(a) of the Health

and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 and liable

to a penalty as provided by Section 33 (1)(a)

of the said Act as amended.

Fined £7,000 and £14514.23 costs.

o Between the 1st June 1995 and the 31st December

1995, being an employer, did contravene Section

2(1) and 2(2)(b) of the Health and Safety at

Work Etc Act 1974, in that you failed to ensure

that the arrangements for transporting the mail

were safe and without risk to health in that

you permitted the mail to be carried in unregulated

and unauthorised private vehicles in relation

to which there were no checks in respect of

their roadworthiness or to ensure that the

driver of the same was a competent person or

that the said vehicle was insured whereby you

are guilty of an offence as provided by Section

33(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work

Etc Act 1974 and liable to a penalty as provided

by Section 33(1)(a) of the said Act as amended.

Fined £7,000.

o Between the 1st January 1993 and the 31st

December 1995, being an employer, did contravene

Regulation 4(1)(b)(i) of the Manual Handling

Operations Regulations 1992 in that you failed

to make a suitable and sufficient assessment

of the manual handling risks involved in the

loading and unloading of private vehicles with

the mail, whereby you are guilty of an offence

as provided by Section 33(1)(c) of the Health

and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 and liable to

a penalty as provided by Section 33(3) of the

said Act as amended.

Fined £1,300.

Royal Mail pleaded guilty to all three charges. The following two additional charges being withdrawn:

o Failure to instruct, train or supervise

employees in any or any safety policy

as regards the use of private vehicles

during the course of delivering the

mail in contravention of Section 2(1)

and 2(2)(c) of the Health and Safety

at Work Act.

o Failure to carry out a suitable and

sufficient risk assessment of the risks

to the health and safety of employees

undertaking to make deliveries of mail

using private vehicles and the suitability

of each vehicle for carrying loads in

contravention of Regulation 3 of the

Management of Health and Safety at Work

Regulations.

[POSTMAN]

This is the bollox,making it a stickie.

[spilie]

so your saying i must be transported back to D.O after delivery or use public transport and that must be figured into my delivery span?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

so your saying i must be transported back to D.O after delivery or use public transport and that must be figured into my delivery span?

Yes