seniority being overlooked?

[sore feet]

even though drivers are pay protected for 3 years in the new deal as regards park and loop,our union rep is trying to get current van duty holders to get 1st pick of the dutys in the revised park and loop walks pushing aside more senior postman who will be driving the smaller shared vans. Has anyone else had this ludicros idea been thrust upon them?

[POSTMAN]

Sounds naughty,is your rep a driver.

I would of thought a major change revision like this would put everything in the pot.

[sore feet]

Sounds naughty,is your rep a driver.

I would of thought a major change revision like this would put everything in the pot.

Yes the rep is a driver, thanks very much for your response, that is the answer I was looking for.

[roger]

even though drivers are pay protected for 3 years in the new deal as regards park and loop,our union rep is trying to get current van duty holders to get 1st pick of the dutys in the revised park and loop walks pushing aside more senior postman who will be driving the smaller shared vans. Has anyone else had this ludicros idea been thrust upon them?

The only thing i can think of,if as you say the drivers are pay protected ,then i think that the duties they are on when pay protected they have to stay on to receive the pay protection.As i work in a MC i am not to sure what park and loop is.But in a MC setting,if someone is getting pay protection eg TPM,then if a duty comes up paying TPM,those people receiving pay protection would be first in line no matter what their seniority is.

[POSTMAN]

Sounds naughty,is your rep a driver.

I would of thought a major change revision like this would put everything in the pot.

Yes the rep is a driver, thanks very much for your response, that is the answer I was looking for.

I did say that I would of thought so it's not gospel,a lot depends on what your office votes for i think.
It's obvious though that your rep is pulling a bit of a fast one,i've been there and got the t-shirt with this btw.

[roger]

Sounds naughty,is your rep a driver.

I would of thought a major change revision like this would put everything in the pot.

Yes the rep is a driver, thanks very much for your response, that is the answer I was looking for.

I did say that I would of thought so it's not gospel,a lot depends on what your office votes for i think.
It's obvious though that your rep is pulling a bit of a fast one,i've been there and got the t-shirt with this btw.

What i would say about major change revisions,is that the MTSF overides parts of The Way Forward,regarding revisions.

[POSTMAN]

Way forward and and update in here...

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 36&t=11941" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[not me]

even though drivers are pay protected for 3 years in the new deal as regards park and loop,our union rep is trying to get current van duty holders to get 1st pick of the dutys in the revised park and loop walks pushing aside more senior postman who will be driving the smaller shared vans. Has anyone else had this ludicros idea been thrust upon them?

you're not north of the border are you?
heard the very same thing being pushed through by a DIM the other day from a guy who used to work in my DO

[Martin Walsh]

I am a bit confused in your question. On one hand you say your drivers are in reciept of pay protection from mtsf is that because your office is no longer using the high top vechiles which got a £20 odd pound allowance ?

If its not then what is the allowance your drivers are getting protected for ? as only drivers in place prior to 2000 get the reserved rights payment of £6

The way forward in strict terms does not apply in a park and loop revison, as each CDV has to have a driver and the normal rule is that non drivers should only be in 50% of the CDV duties.

Now the rules on MTSF2 does state that people in reciept of pay protection should sign first if its a duty which attacts the same allowance as the one which they are recieving pay protection. The simple reason is that Royal Mail would end up paying twice if this did not happen. Once to the person who signed for the duty and once to the person in reciept of the pay protection.

However as no cdv attracts an allowance I do not understand why management are insisting on this.