FACTUAL POSITION ON STATUS OF TALKS

[TrueBlueTerrier]

TO: ALL BRANCHES WITH POSTAL MEMBERS



Dear Colleague


ROYAL MAIL DISPUTE: FACTUAL POSITION ON STATUS OF TALKS

Branches will be aware that in media interviews today Royal Mail Director of Operations Paul Tolhurst has been inviting the Union to “sign the agreement” he claims was reached by the negotiating teams late on Tuesday night. We have received reports that managers have been briefing staff in similar terms and Royal Mail have released a press statement which quotes Royal Mail Managing Director Mark Higson claiming “we have an agreement that was reached on Tuesday night…… but the Union Leaders who were in the negotiations could not get the support of their own Executive”.

Sadly, this is a further demonstration of the deliberate dishonesty of Senior Royal Mail managers.

We attach a letter received from Mr Higson on Wednesday morning together with the Union’s reply. The factual position is this – progress was made in talks, as reported in Letter to Branches 927/09 yesterday. Talks had not concluded and needed to continue – that was the position of both parties. Mr Higson repeated this fact in his letter. Later on the same day, he reversed his own position again by offering the negotiators draft form of words to be signed as an agreement.

There was no negotiators’ agreement – there is a set of draft words, some accepted by both sets of negotiators, some not. The EC did not reject an agreement – as Royal Mail is well aware there wasn’t one to consider. The EC had to take a decision based on whether sufficient progress had been made to postpone the planned strike action to allow talks to continue in a calm environment with the intent of reaching a full and final agreement. Mr Higson’s letter wiped out key areas of progress, particularly where the draft read “In offices where change has been implemented without agreement the local parties will engage in genuine negotiations to reach local agreement” as compared to the words in Mr Higson’s letter “there is no going back on change”.




The EC was faced with a form of words from Royal Mail’s negotiators versus a formal letter from the company’s Managing Director which diametrically opposed his negotiating team’s position. In these circumstances there was only one decision that could be taken – that the strikes had to go ahead. This latest development further highlights why it is virtually impossible to build confidence in Royal Mail’s Senior Management Team and explains why the Postal Executive has agreed to reinforce our offer for third party mediation through ACAS.

Contrary to further misinformation put out by Royal Mail, Mr Higson – the Managing Director – has not attended a single one of our negotiating meetings. His letter, which was clearly intended to be widely circulated, is carefully constructed to imply that he has been meeting the Union, as have repeated statements by the Chief Executive Adam Crozier, as part of a deliberate attempt to mislead the media, the government and his own employees.

Its time Royal Mail concentrated on resolving the dispute instead of spinning lies about it. What it takes is simple – a real willingness to negotiate seriously – endorsed by the Managing Director and Chief Executive – in offices where changes have been imposed on our members without agreement, coupled with a willingness to reach agreement going forward which safeguards jobs and earnings through the period of massive change which the business will undergo in the next few years by completing the new agreements both parties committed to in the 2007 Pay and Modernisation Agreement.

Yours sincerely


Dave Ward Martin Collins
Deputy General Secretary (P) Assistant Secretary


Ray Ellis Bob Gibson Terry Pullinger
Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary

[postghost]

Any chance of getting a punchy thing ( :cfo :mfo :lfo )for this warmer as well?

[ldsposti]

HI just one question if crozier & higson was not at any of the meetings why the hell have the union not got this to the media and show them up for what they are a bunch of tossers :cfo :cfo :cfo

[concerned]

HI just one question if crozier & higson was not at any of the meetings why the hell have the union not got this to the media and show them up for what they are a bunch of tossers :cfo :cfo :cfo

where have you been? the media have been all over it!!! Sky last night asked a manager from RM outright where was Adam Crozier and isnt this what he is paid to do, why hasnt he gone to any of the meetings....

[BELIAL]

Given the fact the senior RM management seem incapable of speaking the truth ,surely a precondition for further talks should be the dismissal of the entire RM Board, clearly there can be no basis for trust.

I think our negotiators are not setting a very good example with their 14 hr. talks.
Go in on time take your meal relief ,and at the end of 8 hrs inform them times up and no OT.
Who is at their best after 14 hrs of slog? Take charge

[spilie]

here we go again words like "genuine negotiations" you can shove agreements based on this kind of language, i want firm agreements no fuc**ng about, plain english and no room for "interpretation"

[belle smith]

here we go again words like "genuine negotiations" you can shove agreements based on this kind of language, i want firm agreements no fuc**ng about, plain english and no room for "interpretation"

agreed........

[Big Daz]

here we go again words like "genuine negotiations" you can shove agreements based on this kind of language, i want firm agreements no fuc**ng about, plain english and no room for "interpretation"

If only we had that in 2007, then again a vote on the nitty gritty of phase 3 would have been nice!!!

I recall voting on utlise all paid work hours, but the nitty gritty if it had been put to a vote may have well have been chucked out especially by delivery mbrs as it contains no mention of delivery span when it comes to absorbing work.

[Pat Ostman]

Sorry if this has been posted before but would love to get my eyes on the agreement that the Union agreed upon but was alleged to have been altered or vetoed by Mark Higson.

Anyone know anything about what was in it?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Sorry if this has been posted before but would love to get my eyes on the agreement that the Union agreed upon but was alleged to have been altered or vetoed by Mark Higson.

Anyone know anything about what was in it?

Moved into the thread that has the letter

[Pat Ostman]

Not the letter, the actual 'form of words' that the Union agreed upon.

[POSTMAN]

Not the letter, the actual 'form of words' that the Union agreed upon.

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 18&t=20668" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[spilie]

if that was all agreed then we are fu**ed all wind and piss, all left to local agreements again, all wide open to RM and thier stretching an agreement, they should be in there telling them to shove flex and shove absorbtion, then we can start talking because i see nothing in that so called agreement that address`s why i am on strike.We need firm agreements before we give up our mandate to strike because they better not come back to me for a yes in the future if this is what they are agreeing to and dont get me started on phase 4 thats a lot of sh*t too

[Godric]

here we go again words like "genuine negotiations" you can shove agreements based on this kind of language, i want firm agreements no fuc**ng about, plain english and no room for "interpretation"

nail in the head