2010 and Beyond - Delivery Revisions UPDATE

[lovejoy]

I did say I would post info if I got it so..........

Dear Colleague

BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION 2010 AND BEYOND – IMPORTANT INFORMATION

A key part of the proposed national agreement is that both parties have commitment to a completely fresh approach to how we manage local change and all local revision activity.

This issue featured in some of our recent local representatives’ briefings, where the question was raised over the implication of managerial budgets on future local revision activity.

As a result, we have exchanged correspondence with Royal Mail and a copy of that correspondence is attached to this LTB.

It is important that branches ensure all local representatives receive a copy of the attached correspondence. This will ensure that the terms of the national agreement are not misrepresented at local level.

Yours sincerely



Dave Ward
Deputy General Secretary (P)

Our Ref : DW/JDD 24209

7th April 2010

Dale Haddon
Royal Mail Letters
HR Director
35 Rathbone Place
London
W1P 1HQ

















Dear Dale

Business Transformation 2010 and Beyond

As discussed at our meeting last week we said we would clarify some issues relating to the National Agreement and our new approach to local revision activity.

Firstly, you confirmed that whilst Royal Mail managers naturally have their local budgets – these budgets do not determine the overall number of duties/jobs in any local office.

In line with the National Agreement the overall number of duties/jobs will be determined by both parties working to our agreed revision procedures, using transparent and objective work measurement/performance standards. Whilst CWU recognise that the agreement is designed to improve efficiency and performance, both parties need to be clear that this is not dictated by managerial budgets.

Secondly, we agreed that to support the fresh approach to local revisions a clear deployment plan was essential. We agreed this should be jointly developed by our respective national teams over the next couple of weeks.

I would be grateful if you can confirm that we have a shared understanding of these issues in advance of the national ballot.

Once confirmation is received the intention would be for me to convey this exchange of correspondence to all CWU representatives and for you to do likewise to all Royal Mail local managers. This will ensure that our agreement is not misrepresented and that a fresh approach to local revision activity is delivered in practice, something which I know both you and Mark Higson are committed to.

I look forward to your response

Yours sincerely

Dave Ward
Deputy General Secretary (P)


Dave Ward
Deputy General Secretary
Communication Workers Union
150 The Broadway
Wimbledon
London
SW19 1RX
Royal Mail Centre
35 Rathbone Place
London
W1T 1HQ
Tel: 020 7016 2801
Fax: 020 7016 2955
dale.haddon@royalmail.com
http://www.royalmail.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Dear Dave

Thanks for your letter of yesterday. I’m happy to confirm we have the same understanding on both the issues raised.

When building revisions managers will work with their unit representative in line with our agreed process. Local duty sets and numbers of jobs will emerge from the application of our agreement and not predetermined by office budgets. As discussed, the standards, revision tools and best methods we have agreed will improve efficiency and help managers meet targets, but the budget will not dictate the duty structure.

This will be confirmed at the front of the new revisions process in the local workshop for DOMs and local representatives. The plan for rolling out the fresh approach to revisions is being discussed by our teams and will be confirmed soon.

I will copy this correspondence to Delivery Office Managers to support them in getting the new approach embedded in practice.



Yours sincerely

Dale Haddon
HR Director

[fishtank]

Dave Ward
Whilst CWU recognise that the agreement is designed to improve efficiency and performance.

Dale Haddon
As discussed, the standards, revision tools and best methods we have agreed will improve efficiency and help managers meet targets

It's nice to see it in black and white at last.

[Steviea34]

YOU ARE KIDDING RIGHT - ANY DOM WORTH HIS SALT KNOWS HOURS ARE WHAT DRIVES BUDGETS NOT DUTIES. THIS IS AT BEST A
MISUNDERSTANDING AT WORST A BLATANT DISTORTION OF THE FACTS. Ask your DOM when he gets his budget set for him if it is in
duties or hours, i can tell you now it is hours, whether it be in F/T or P/T the split is irelevant its the hours that drive the budgets
SIMPLES " The Budget will not dictate the duty structure" true, but the hours the office has to spend have already been
set, I can hear the DSM telling our DOM now, but the Budget is the Budget.

[POSTMAN]

When your DOM acts the arse show him a copy of this.

[dvbuk55]

"In line with the National Agreement the overall number of duties/jobs will be determined by both parties working to our agreed revision procedures, using transparent and objective work measurement/performance standards. Whilst CWU recognise that the agreement is designed to improve efficiency and performance, both parties need to be clear that this is not dictated by managerial budgets.

Secondly, we agreed that to support the fresh approach to local revisions a clear deployment plan was essential. We agreed this should be jointly developed by our respective national teams over the next couple of weeks."

AND

As discussed, the standards, revision tools and best methods we have agreed will improve efficiency and help managers meet targets, but the budget will not dictate the duty structure.

Have I missed the publication of these revision procedures that have been agreed or are they not out there yet?

[Big Daz]

When your DOM acts the arse show him a copy of this.

[realmichael]

smoke and mirrors

[Steviea34]

I really am trying not to be cynical but, why on earth does everyone have faith in "LOCAL LEVEL REVISIONS" the misinterpretations
in the 2007 agreement caused enough problems, or is it a case of get it in & let the "little people" clear up the mess

[fishtank]

I really am trying not to be cynical but, why on earth does everyone have faith in "LOCAL LEVEL REVISIONS" the misinterpretations
in the 2007 agreement caused enough problems, or is it a case of get it in & let the "little people" clear up the mess

Well i'm trying to be a realist...Does anybody seriously believe in a company that is supposed to be skint,that budgets will somehow no longer matter.

[Steviea34]

That is a relief - The Election Uncovered and still Hot Tub Time Machine. Last night MUFC -

Take it they aint tears of joy, sorry got to put some bread out for the birds, love to feed the ROBBENS

Sorry mate , couldn't resist

[HootyMacBoob]

Im disapointed to see one of the most important posts on RMC has been hijacked with banal posts that are total of topic. I believe Dave Ward's letter and Dale Haddon's reply adresses some of the trust issues that have been brought up and to quote POSTMAN "When your DOM acts the arse show him a copy of this"

[fishtank]

Im disapointed to see one of the most important posts on RMC has been hijacked with banal posts that are total of topic. I believe Dave Ward's letter and Dale Haddon's reply adresses some of the trust issues that have been brought up and to quote POSTMAN "When your DOM acts the arse show him a copy of this"

No offence Hooty but what would you think Dale Haddon's reply would be on the eve of the ballot?
Feck off Dave we're going to crush you all?
It is a letter that simply confirms the words of the agreement but it doesn't rule out budget savings it just says the duties won't be planned around them.

I'm more worried about statements like this.

"Whilst CWU recognise that the agreement is designed to improve efficiency and performance."

I don't remember going on strike for those aims.

[Steviea34]

Sorry To dissapoint Hooty , but I have commented on
this thread, please feel free to reply after you have
read it. I know how this business operates, and again
too much faith in 'local agreements' for my liking
this is why 2007 was such a cock up & open to
interpretation on both sides, or is it a case of let's
get the deal accepted & let the little people
sort the problems out later

[HootyMacBoob]

No offence taken FT, in all my years in RM I can’t remember ever being crushed by RM, Consignia or the GPO in fact I believe the strength of the union has always prevailed and will in the future.
Ever year RM have a business savings plan, the local rep is involved to make their local office more efficient and productive it is always driven by RM's budget. This is the first time were an office revision will not be driven by a set % of savings.

[Big Daz]

Aye, Ill second that

I remember very clearly trying to do SDD revision (my 1st ever revision) using the managers budget. It got voted out by the membership