Questions to the CWU Accounts

[Geezer]

Letter to Branches


No. 446/10 Ref: TK/PM/lm Date: 21 May 2010


To: All Branches

Dear Colleagues

Questions to the Accounts

LTB 393/10 sought questions to the CWU Accounts.

The LTB stated that responses to the questions would be circulated to Branches on the site of Annual Conference. Arrangements are being made for this to happen, however we are able to send these as a pdf attachment to this LTB in advance in case this assists any Branch.

Any enquiries regarding this Letter to Branches should be addressed to the Senior Deputy General Secretary Department on telephone number 020 8971 7237 or email address sdgs@cwu.org.

Yours sincerely

Tony Kearns
Senior Deputy General Secretary


==================================================================================================================================================================================================


QUESTIONS - Gloucester & District Amal.

1. What are the criteria for offering CWU Officers mortgages from the Unions Funds?

1.The have been a number of criteria applied arising out of the two former unions the
UCW and the NCU. In the former Union the UCW conference policy determined that
National Officers elected from outside of London for a 5 year period who had been
unable to get a mortgage on “the high-street” particularly as they currently lived in
rented council accommodation and had no means of raising a deposit were granted
this facility. The practice in the ex NCU also granted mortgages to new London based
officers. On merger the then Joint General Treasurers of the CWU implemented a
merger of both policies and that precedent is what has been in operation since the
formation of the CWU since 1995. Subsequently the CWU rule book records that all
officers are treated equally and thus on occasion the facility has been extended to
officers elected from the London Area.

2. Where does the money come from to fund CWU mortgages for officers?

2.The money is loaned from and paid back, with interest, to the CWU General Fund.

3. If all monies outstanding from these mortgages were to be repaid immediately, how
would this impact on the CWU’s finances

3.The impact upon the CWU formal accounts would be negative at best and slightly
damaging at worse. The CWU holds the deeds on all the properties and therefore
they show on the balance sheet as a secured investment. If all the monies were paid
back the investments would reduce by exactly the same amount as cash at hand
would increase thus producing a negative effect. However the CWU gains from the
interest paid on these loans as income to the CWU, if all mortgages are taken off the
books the CWU would lose the interest payments as income.

4. Are these mortgages subject to properties purchased in or around the London Area?

4.The CWU loaned the original mortgages for properties in and around the London
area. On occasion, for personal reasons, individuals may and have moved home out
of that area.

5. How many Elected Officers are in receipt of a CWU Mortgage?

5.Six

6. How many appointed Officers are in receipt of a CWU Mortgage?

6.Two

7. Are CWU mortgages available to all employees of the Union nationally?

7.No

8. Are these Mortgages available for CWU Branches who are looking at purchasing
their own premises?

8.Yes, through an agreement with Unity Bank however a charge is placed against the
CWU nationally until these mortgages are paid off.

9. What happens in the event of an employee of the union, who is in receipt of a CWU
mortgage and is subsequently voted out of office or leaves the employment of the
CWU?

9.Historically two things have happened. Either an individual has repaid the
outstanding balance thus clearing the mortgage or they carry on making payments
until the mortgage is cleared. Currently only one ex employee is repaying such a loan
with all others having cleared the balance.

10. Who makes the decision on whether to grant a CWU Mortgage or not and what is the
process?

10.Technically the decision is made de-facto. This was last debated at CWU (UCW)
Conference in 1994, at that Conference a number of motions were placed against an
annual report paragraph trying to change what was then reported as policy of the
Union in offering mortgages to officers. The amendments were defeated and the
policy carried. The answer to question 1 above shows how the policy was
implemented on merger. A legal charge is placed over any mortgage and this is
registered with the Land Registry and signed by the Senior Deputy General Secretary
and a Trustee. This is held as a deed as security over the property.

QUESTION - Western Counties Branch

Please can you advise which National Officers have received a mortgage from the CWU over the last
5 years and the rate of interest that has been applied to each?

The following National Officers of the CWU have had a mortgage from the CWU within the past 5 years

Sally Bridge – Assistant Secretary T&FS: Nigel Cotgrove – Assistant Secretary T&FS:
Andy Furey - Asst Secretary Clerical and Cash Handling: Billy Hayes - General
Secretary: Tony Kearns - Senior Deputy General Secretary: Kevin Slocombe - Head of
Communications: Tony Rupa - Legal Services Officer: Dave Ward - Deputy General
Sectary Postal.

The General Secretary pays interest at 5% the other officers all pay 0.75% of whatever
the yearly bank rate is in any year. Additionally the tax office (HMRC) increases the
tax payments for these individuals in line with a formula that they determine
themselves year on year but is available from the HMRC website.

QUESTIONS - South East No5 Branch

1) On Page 2 of the SDGS Report he states: “Whilst 2009 could be considered an
exceptional year, due to the need to fund an Industrial Action campaign in Royal Mail
and the “Keep the Post Public campaign” can we have a detailed breakdown of the
expenditure for these campaigns?

1.The finance system at CWU HQ’s records thousands of entries against this spend.
These range from including all expense claims for travel and subsistence to small
meetings through to adverts taken out in national newspapers and letters to members
home addresses as well as DVD’s produced to secure a yes vote in the industrial
action ballot.

In general terms they can be grouped around the following headings.

Category 1:
Membership Communications (predominantly campaign materials and
publicity around securing a YES vote in the industrial action and then communicating
with our members through Letters, DVDS Postage, web-site visuals and so on) =
£876,490.46

Category 2:
External Publicity/Public Relations (predominantly national newspaper
advertising, public leaflets and handouts, billboard advertising, MP and House of
Lords publications etc) = £758,699.27

Category 3:
Administration Expenses (including Imprest accounts and expenses
claimed, travel, subsistence, room hire etc) = £27,529.55
Total = 1,662,719.28

2) On Page 3 of the SDGS Report he states: “NEC and National Organisation (NEC and
Industrial Executives, meeting & activities convened by National Officers inclusive of
campaigns) up by over £1.3 million — can we have a detailed breakdown of this expenditure
by Constituency, Department and by Authorising Officer along with last years figures for the purposes of comparison?

GS Department 235,797
SDGS department 35,179
Telecoms Department 220,538
Postal Department 614,802
International Affairs 213
Equal Opportunities 260
Health & Safety 43,566
Education 1,087
Legal 9,406
Postal department national campaigns 1,394,266
Grand Total Meetings/Activities convened by National Officers 2,555,114

It should be noted that Rule 8.1.6 states “The NEC shall be responsible for allocating
resources to sustain Industrial Action authorised in accordance with the rules”.
Accordingly the PEC then set up a campaign committee to run the campaign to
secure a yes vote and then to subsequently prosecute the dispute. This is why the
heading is “postal department national campaign” and not one specific officer.
Note: during 2009 the finance dept at CWU HQ migrated from the previous finance
system (JBA-GEAC) to SAGE. At this point a like-with-like comparison is not
available but can be provided in due course once the year-end consolidated (with
branches) accounts are produced.

QUESTIONS - Birmingham Branch

1.Central Services to Members (Schedule G) shows the Employment Tribunals increased
from £322,373 to £518,779. Can you supply a further analysis of the increase to breakdown
the figure to show the cause, number of cases, etc?

1.The Legal Services Dept dealt with 878 new requests for assistance with
Employment Tribunal applications. This represents a 34% increase on the previous
year. The two main areas of increased workload are set against unfair dismissal and
multiple cases. We believe that the increase in dismissal claims stems predominantly
from the industrial action disputes we experienced. As a lot of our ET panellists re
CWU activist the dispute with royal mail also had the knock on effect that many were
not available to represent us at ET Tribunals meaning we needed to rely upon panel
solicitors who cost more than lay ET panellists.

2.Branch Organisation and Recruitment (Schedule J) shows that expenditure on
Recruitment fell from £305,432 to £223,413. The CWU is trying to rebalance the equation of
“every member we recruit 3 leave” and therefore can you provide an explanation for the
significant change?

2.The difference between the two figures is explained as follows. The difference of
£82,019 is due to the fact that in 2008 TUC Academy Organisers expenditure was
shown as an expense against “Organising and Recruitment” as the individuals
concerned were not employees of the CWU. However you will see that the Salaries
line “S” page 32 has increased by £362,872, almost £250,000 of this is accounted for
by the fact that we progressively recruited a number of directly employed organisers,
thus actually increasing overall spend in this area by approximately £168,000.

QUESTION - Northern Ireland West Branch

The schedules to the general fund (K) shows an increase for the Regional Officers
expenditure in 2009 could you provide a break down by region and what that expenditure
is against eg wages, flights, expenses etc

Regional Secretaries East

Rail warrants 901
Accommodation 5,004
Telephones/Mobiles 824
Printing 370
Imprest Claims 7,746 14,845

Regional Secretaries London

Printing 1,480
Rent 12,524
Central Billing 27,609
Agency Staff 1,217
Telephone/Mobiles 1,310
Imprest Claims 3,487
London Divisional Cttee 40,159 87,786

Regional Secretaries Midland

Rail Warrants 542
Accommodation 9,000
Central Billing 20,194
Telephones/mobiles 2,863
Imprest Claims 14,958 47,556

Regional Secretaries North East

Rail Warrants 4,373
Central Billing 21,599
Imprest Claims 20,250
Telephones/Mobiles 1,587
Accommodation 16,508 64,317

Regional Secretaries Northern Ireland

Printing 2,813
Ballot 3,653
Telephone/Mobile 2,642
Imprest Claims 14,923 24,031

Regional Secretaries North West

Imprest Claims 16,167
Central Billing 28,011
Telephone/Mobile 2,192
Equipment 1,268
Accommodation 10,008 57,646

Regional Secretaries South East

Central Billing 21,436
Imprest Claims 8,487
Telephone/Mobile 1,039
Accommodation 6,000 36,962

Regional Secretaries South West

Central Billing 25,977
Telephones/Mobiles 2,939
Imprest Claims 17,761
Accommodation 8,004 54,681

Regional Secretaries Scotland

Imprest Claims 14,258
Central Billing 23,064
Telephone/Mobiles 330
Accommodation 8,004 45,656

Regional Secretaries Wales

Imprest Claims 5,572
Printing 94
Central Billing 19,500
Telephones/Mobiles 1,173
Equipment 492
Accommodation 4,824 31,656
Honoraria 10,328

NOTE: when rail warrants are used for travel these show up in the rail warrant account and
are readily identifiable within the system. Air travel is booked by Imprest account holders
and claimed back as an Imprest payment; therefore air travel is not always listed separately
but included in the “Imprest claims” line. This will now change with the use of the Flight
Centre Facility.

QUESTIONS - Shropshire & Mid Wales Branch

1.Could you please explain the increase of £362,872 on salary costs, and why the item is
shown within the I & E accounts as ‘Salaries & Payroll Costs’ but in executive note S is
shown as Salaries and Substitution Costs.

1. Salary increases – please see the answer to question 2 from the Birmingham
Branch above. The difference is predominantly made up by the cost of settling the
GMB represented grades pay review 2010. The difference in language is explained
on the basis that the former is for the accounts as presented publicly whilst the
latter is for internal identification processes.

2.Could this item be broken down to show what the actual costs of the substitution are?

2.Salaries and Payroll Costs = £6,806,296: this is broken down as follows: Salaries
= £6,488,077 Agency Staff = £279,378 Substitution = £38,841 (NOTE substitution
and agency costs reduced from 2008 – salary increases as detailed
below/elsewhere)

3.The accounts clearly show that recruitment and training costs are reducing albeit by
only £12,095, which suggest that budgets are being reigned in marginally, yet the costs
of covering the remaining work clearly shows an increase Why?

3.Firstly the reduction of £12,095 shows only that this particular item of
expenditure is being reduced. It does not, as has been suggested, give an
indication of trends in any other area of expenditure. The cost of “covering work”
is taken as a reference to salary increases. Please see the answer to question 2
from the Birmingham Branch above that partly explains the increases in salaries.
The difference is predominantly made up by the cost of settling the GMB
represented grades pay review 2010.

4.The accounts do show that reductions in staff costs are evident in that superannuation
costs have reduced accordingly, with the liability transferred to the pension fund, could
you update us on the progress made in the consolidation of the current CWU pension
schemes?

4.This matter is the subject of ongoing discussion with the 3 schemes concerned
and is due to be the subject of debate by way of two motions submitted to general
conference 2010. Following these debates further action will be taken to
implementing either the existing or updated policy.

QUESTION - Birmingham, Black Country and Worcester Branch.

1.What is the cost of access to Sky at CWU HQ, how many televisions in the building
have access to it, and via which service provider?

1.£9277.79: Number of Departments with access = 4: Service Provider = Sky.

2.What is the cost of CWUTV and how many “hits” does it get per month?

2.In 2009 we record a spend of £63,706.55. Recent figures show a monthly average of
around 67000 videos watched. This grew during the postal strike to over 100,000 for
strike related videos. Polling conducted on our behalf to assess the impact
demonstrated around 60% of members watched the CWUTV DVD circulated direct to
members compared to 55000 who read the associated letter.

3.How much did it cost the Union to put CWU TV on Sky and how many people
watched it?

3.The cost in 2009 was £56,250. Due to the Industrial Action dispute and the KTPP
campaign we did not have enough time to measure robust viewing figures. However
the Communications Department and the FOS/NEC has now determined that we will
not be using the SKY TV platform for CWU TV as part of the 2010 budget allocation
thus ensuring an ongoing saving.

4.What budgets were overspent in 2009, by how much and why?

4.As can be seen on page 26 of the accounts “Expenditure” 10 out of 15 area of spend
are overspent. These are distributed across a number of budget lines at CWU
Headquarters. As has been reported in the commentary to the accounts there are a
wide variety or reasons for these overspends. 2009 saw increased activity,
particularly as explained elsewhere, increased campaigning, increased legal cases
against the CWU, increased charges by external companies, this list is not exhaustive
and a comprehensive analysis of 2009 expenditure is currently taking place as part of
the budget review process set up by the NEC to reduce costs for 2010 and beyond.

5.What was the budget for all of the Advisory Committees individually, including the
YAC and RMAC, for 2009 and what was their actual spend?

Advisory Cttee's 2009
Actual Budget Variance up to 31/12/09

Retired Members Advisory Cttee 5,323 12,500 7,177
Race Advisory Committee 4,639 8,000 3,361
LGBT Advisory Committee 4,752 8,000 3,248
Women's Advisory Committee 15,662 12,000 -3,662
Youth Advisory Committee 10,038 Note ** Note **

Note ** The FOS only allocates the YAC budget into very broad headings, which
allows the Committee discretion in how it allocates it’s funds to specific work areas.
There is, however, a constitutional and/or policy requirement to do certain things -
specifically:

• 4 YAC meetings a year, on the basis of 12 YAC members, 4 NEC members
and the officer attending
• 2 RYC meetings a year in each region, with the costs of the chair and
secretary attending being met from central funds
• The education event
• The youth conference, with central funding for RYC secretaries

6.What was the cost for of the YAC Conference and Education event?

6.YAC Conference £4,146 Education Event £6,403.15

7.Why do we own and what is the purpose of 66, Tavistock Avenue Perivale, 31
Edgecombe House Whitlock, and 75 Garstang Road Preston?

7.66 Tavistock Avenue belonged to the former NCU. This property was the living
accommodation for the former caretaker at Greystoke House. The agreement made at
the time was that the caretaker and upon his death his spouse could remain living in
the accommodation. The former caretaker passed away and the accommodation is
now occupied by his spouse. 31 Edgecombe House was a property purchased by a
former officer of the CWU. The officer died whilst in service and the property reverted
to the assets of the CWU as we held the mortgage and the deeds. The property has
subsequently been let on a commercial basis and provides income to the CWU. 75
Garstang Road Preston is a branch premises, previously accounted for within the
consolidated accounts of the CWU as a Branch asset that has now been transferred
as a tangible fixed asset within the CWU HQ account.

8.What is the breakdown of Salaries and Substitution which are listed together?

8.Please see the answers to question 2 from Shropshire and Mid Wales branch above
as this is the same question.

9.Can you explain the increase in staffing expenditure in 2009? Was this due to an
increase in staff and if so what departments and in what grades were the new positions
created?

9.Please see the answers to question 2 from the Birmingham Branch and the answer
to question 1 from the Shropshire and Mid Wales Branch above as this is the same
question.

QUESTIONS - Northern Ireland Clerical Branch

1. What were the total legal costs incurred by the CWU in the accounting period 1st
January to 31st December 2009 for defending the FET/IT applications numbered
134/07FET and 1694/07IT; David Bell v CWU; Billy Hayes; John Baldwin & Lawrence
Huston?

3. What was the total legal cost incurred by CWU in defending the IT application
numbered 1975/07IT ; David Bell v CWU in the financial year 2009?

5. What was the total legal cost to CWU for defending the complaints to the Certification
Officer from David Bell in the 2009 financial year?

1:3:5: The 3 cases saw the CWU represented by the same firm of solicitors.
Accordingly time spent and work undertaken has not been invoiced to the CWU as
separate cases. The total legal bills invoiced and paid during 2009 for the three cases
listed at questions 1, 3 and 5 is £119,569.65p

2. What were the Travelling and Subsistence costs incurred by CWU in relation to Officers
and Members attending as witnesses and/or support in defending the above FET and IT
applications?

4. What were the Travelling and Subsistence costs incurred by the CWU in relation to
Officers and Members attending as witnesses and/or support in defending the IT application
1975/07IT?

6. What was the cost in Travel and Subsistence to CWU of the Officers and Members
attending meetings arising from the complaints from David Bell to the Certification Officer?

2:4:6: Witnesses and support in defending the IT case came predominantly from CWU
Officers and staff. As such most of the work is undertaken as part of normal duty –
i.e. it incurs no extra charge. Obviously attendance and travel at a tribunal hearing
would incur costs. These are either identified directly or are simply put down to
officer expenses incorporated into individual departmental budgets and thus not
identified separately. Accordingly the cost directly identified within the accounts as
attributed to the questions at 2:4:6 is £2,096.05p

7. What Section(s) of the Annual Report are the legal costs in relation to a) the FET and IT
legal expenses b) The Complaints to the Certification Officer c) the Travelling expenses at a)
and b) shown?

7 a) page 31 schedule P Headquarters Legal Costs. b) part page 31 schedule P
Headquarters Legal Cost and as detailed in answers to questions 2:4:6 admin costs
are absorbed into day to day workload and as such although unquantifiable would fall
into page 32 schedule S salaries and payroll costs. c) page 30 schedule L
Meetings/Activities convened by National Officers.

8. What Committee authorised the expenditure?

8. The FOS and then the NEC allocate annual budgets and a line for HQ Legal Costs is
agreed as part of that process.

QUESTIONS - CENTRAL LONDON BRANCH

1. In your introduction you highlight 5 areas for concern over high expenditure, we have
queries under each.

a. Central Services to members £250,000. You describe these as death benefits/legal
services. The records show that death benefit costs have decreased year on year, and that
the increase is under the heading of Employment Tribunals, couple with a reduction in legal
income. Can you give a breakdown of this increase in ET costs?

a) please see the answer to question 1 from the Birmingham Branch above as this is
the same question.

b. NEC and National Organisation £1.3million. Records show this is not the cost of the NEC,
but an increase of £1.4 million (over 100%) in 'meetings and activities convened by National
Officers'. Could we have a breakdown of this amount and an explanation of how it was
authorised?

b) please see the answer to questions 1 and 2 from the South East No 5 Branch above
as this is the same question.

c. Elections and ballots £140,000. Records show the cost of NEC elections has decreased,
and this increase is a rise of over 200% in 'pay and conditions ballots'. Could you break this
down please?

c) this increase reflects the extremely high level of ballots around the postal dispute
during 2009.

d. HQ Legal expenses and financial charges £140,000. Records show this includes a 25%
increase in Superannuation administration costs, a 50% increase in HO legal costs, and a
20% increase in audit/accountancy/taxation costs. Can you give an explanation for these
and what is being done to contain them.

d) two of the pension schemes that we sponsor as employer had tri-ennial actuarial
valuations thus the admin charges for the year increased, there was also an increase
in legal costs surrounding a set of tribunal claims lodged directly against the CWU
see the answers to question 1:3 and 5, Northern Ireland Clerical Branch above that
covers this point in more detail, the increases in audit and accountancy reflects
training required around the introduction of a new finance software package as well
as increasing costs around seeking accountancy advice. All budget allocations for
the first 6 months of 2010 have been pegged at the 2009 allocation level or the actual
spend for that period, whichever is the lesser. All budget holders are now also
required to place against any document they present to the NEC or NEC committee
the cost of the activity contained within the document, the budget it is to go against
and the amount remaining in the budget, this is to identify that the action is affordable
and remains within budget.

e. HQ staff costs £300,000. Records show the salaries and payroll costs item have gone up
by £360,000. Can you give a breakdown of staff numbers and anticipated numbers for end
2010 and 2011?

e) please see the answers to questions 2 from the Birmingham Branch and the answer
to question 2 from the Shropshire and Mid Wales Branch above that deal with this
question. Current staff numbers have already been circulated to Branches and are
contained on page 15 of the Annual Report. As part of a continuous review at CWU
HQ’s all posts are reviewed as and when they become vacant. Additionally with
regard to the pressures on CWU finances the FOS is due to reconsider, following the
closure of conference, all aspects of HQ spend including administration, until such a
review is complete and until the appropriate consultation with the staff unions no
definitive figure has yet been identified.

2. Can you advise why you have been unable to control expenditure last year, given the
success in earlier years?

2. As can be seen from the accounts and the commentary to it 2009 was in some
areas an exceptional year, income was down, albeit in percentage terms marginally
whilst the need to fund and resource a major industrial action campaign in the postal
industry whilst at the same time fighting a Keep The Post Public anti-privatisation
campaign contributed to the increase in expenditure. The CWU rule book states Rule
“8.6 The NEC shall be responsible for allocating resources to sustain industrial action
authorised in accordance with the rules.” Quite correctly then, complying with this
rule means that the collective decisions incurred such a loss. Other areas of
overspend have been dealt with in other questions.

3. Can you advise exactly which 'real changes proposed to conference' will make a major
difference to expenditure, and by how much?

3. Whilst clearly this is not a question to the 2009 Accounts but rather deals with
matters of potential policy going forward. To assist however I can highlight the
following. Motion 44 would save at 2009 rates £460,000 every other year. Proposition
60 would at 2009 rates save £452,869 every other year. Motion 61 would save
approximately +£20,000 per year. Motion would save approximately £125,000 every
other year. Motion 124 would allow us to source cheaper out of season venues for
conference – unquantifiable until actioned. Ballots being conducted at Conference
and Independent Scrutineers if changed as proposed (Motions 123, 125, 126, 127, 128,
129, 132 and 133) would save approximately £20,000 per year. In addition the NEC
intends to support other motions from Branches that will reduce expenditure further.
The total therefore of the items identified above equals, on an annual basis of
approximately £558,000.

4. Can you advise what consultation will be carried out on a range of items which could
reduce expenditure?

4. Once General Conference has ended the FOS Committee and the NEC will consider
the motions carried or not and determine how best to secure the financial future of
the CWU. They will determine how they wish to consult throughout the CWU.

QUESTION - LONDON DIVISIONAL REPS

1.Tony the question is the operating deficit for 2009 of £742,393 ( that you mention on page 1 of
your report a mistake/error or a typo ? ) The only operating deficit that i can find is on page 9 of
the accounts and is £913,954 ?

1. The correct figure is as you have pointed out on page 9

1. Why was £1,474,081 transferred from the General Fund to the Property Reserve Fund ?
What did we buy?[/b]

1. This is an accounting procedure that shows the actual monies paid out to
refurbish Alvescot lodge and the accounting procedure required to account for 75
Garstang Road (please see the answer to question 7 from the Birmingham, Black
Country and Worcester Branch above) .

2. Why have the costs of international Activities increased from £270,190 in 2008 to
£372,375, in 2009 increase of £102,185.

2. International Activities shows an increased spend mainly for accounting
reasons. Firstly as a result of an ongoing external third party discussion dating
back to 2004 the International Activities account received a credit in 2008 of
£34,000 thus making the difference approximately £68,000. This figure is made up
of outgoing delegation costs accumulated over a number of years only being
allocated to the account in total in 2009.

3. What is the new property 75 Garstang Road, Preston Lancashire that shown on Page
15.

3. Please see the answer to question 7 from the Birmingham, Black Country and
Worcester Branch above, as this is the same question.

4. We note that Meetings/ Activities convened by National Officers increased
from£1,228,224 in 2008 to £2,555,114 in 2009 an increase of £1,448,114?

4. The observation is correct; please see the answer to the 2 questions raised by
the South East No5 Branch above as this point is dealt with in those questions.

5. Tony on page 3 of your report you state that Central services to Members is up Death
Benefits / Legal services but the actual death benefit for retired members fell by £13,551
2009 vs. 2008 and the total death benefit paid out 20o9 vs. 2008 was £12,577 less.

5. The observation is correct; please see the answer to question 4 and reference to
Motion 44 from Central London Branch that deals with this issue going forward.

6. When you said on page 3 of your report HQ Staff costs up by £300,000.Did you mean
Salaries & Payroll cost up £362,872 (page 32 of the accounts)

6. This observation is correct; please see the answers to questions 2 from the
Birmingham Branch and the answer to question 2 from the Shropshire and Mid
Wales Branch above that deal with this question.

Tony Kearns
Senior Deputy General Secretary

[marky]

gravy train costing alot these days.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

gravy train costing alot these days.

I know £81.45 for a vinyl from 1972 http://www.vtmusic.co.uk/shop/item/498473824584793.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[chunk]

Id be interested to know more about honoraria £10.000
as(i think) it can cover almost anything ! eg a present for someone whos retiring
or an award dinner /function .
I don't like to single out Wales for scrutiny especially since they claimed the lowest amount nationally for hotel
expenses.