Annex C
Transformation Lump Sum Payments and Shorter Working Week
Delivery
Applicable to all Delivery Units including SPDO’s.
Lump Sums
The payment of £1,000 (pro rata for part time employees) consisting of 3 lump sums will be paid as follows. £200 will be paid to everyone in the delivery unit on deployment of their first non walk sequencing revision.
£600 will be paid to everyone in the delivery unit on deployment of the walk sequencing revision.
£200 will be paid to everyone in the delivery unit when the Walk Sequencing revision has been implemented, and objectives achieved in line with the local agreement and no later than the end of the 6 week bedding in period.
SPDOs
All SPDOs will receive the £600 and £200 payments in line with their parent delivery unit.
Shorter Working Week
To be implemented in all Delivery Units in line with the Walk Sequencing revision.
We`ve been told we`re getting £600 in 4 weeks when our walk sequence revision comes in and £200 approx six weeks after. However, the first £200 in the quote above (which I`ve highlighted) we`ve been told we will get in approx twelve months.
Can anyone quote me any document that says we get the first £200 with the £600 if we`ve gone straight to a walk sequencing revision?
Thanks in advance for any help.
There is no document (unless its a local agreement) that states you get the full £1K payment as the result of one revision. The 2010 agreement is quoted above and that is a 3 year agreement and covers the whole period. If you read the 2010 agreement and Dingos and Truths posts it becomes clear that during the life of the agreement there won't be just one revision but more all designed to bring units to the upper 10% of DOs.
Hold onto your hats DO Posties unless your very lucky revisions will be coming at you a bit more regular than they have in the previous years.
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts. Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility. If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
Annex C
Transformation Lump Sum Payments and Shorter Working Week
Delivery
Applicable to all Delivery Units including SPDO’s.
Lump Sums
The payment of £1,000 (pro rata for part time employees) consisting of 3 lump sums will be paid as follows. £200 will be paid to everyone in the delivery unit on deployment of their first non walk sequencing revision.
£600 will be paid to everyone in the delivery unit on deployment of the walk sequencing revision.
£200 will be paid to everyone in the delivery unit when the Walk Sequencing revision has been implemented, and objectives achieved in line with the local agreement and no later than the end of the 6 week bedding in period.
SPDOs
All SPDOs will receive the £600 and £200 payments in line with their parent delivery unit.
Shorter Working Week
To be implemented in all Delivery Units in line with the Walk Sequencing revision.
We`ve been told we`re getting £600 in 4 weeks when our walk sequence revision comes in and £200 approx six weeks after. However, the first £200 in the quote above (which I`ve highlighted) we`ve been told we will get in approx twelve months.
Can anyone quote me any document that says we get the first £200 with the £600 if we`ve gone straight to a walk sequencing revision?
Thanks in advance for any help.
You know what i don't think it's actually in the agreement as such but i would go with what Belle says and flag it to your ADR as well...
Their pulling a fast one. The 200 for a non sequenced revision you get paid in conjuction with the 6oo for a sequenced one if you go straight to a sequenced revision. The other 200 you get a minimum of 6 weeks after that.
Tbf i do think we need clarification on it.
I Wrote-During Covid-Which is still relevant now
It's good to get these types of threads, the ridiculous my manager said bollox, so we can reassure ourselves that while the world is falling apart, Royal Mail managers are still being the low-life C***S they have always been. My BFF Clash The daily grind of having to argue your case with an intellectual pigmy of a line manager is physically and emotionally draining.
TrueBlueTerrier wrote:
There is no document (unless its a local agreement) that states you get the full £1K payment as the result of one revision. The 2010 agreement is quoted above and that is a 3 year agreement and covers the whole period. If you read the 2010 agreement and Dingos and Truths posts it becomes clear that during the life of the agreement there won't be just one revision but more all designed to bring units to the upper 10% of DOs.
Hold onto your hats DO Posties unless your very lucky revisions will be coming at you a bit more regular than they have in the previous years.
I understand your point TBT but i disagree.....
I think the spirit of the agreement was that the non-sequenced revision would be a pre-cursor to the sequenced revision in offices where sequenced mail was not imminent to allow those offices scope to move towards new delivery methods and innovative attendance patterns.
I don't think the £200 was ever meant to be held back if a full integrated revision was implemented on the "off-chance" that another revision may be needed within the 3 year time-scale.
When exactly would members receive this payment if another revision was not needed....revision is after all major change and causes a great deal of upheaval in an office...not something you should go through every time you want to increase BSI.
fishtank wrote:I think the spirit of the agreement was that the non-sequenced revision would be a pre-cursor to the sequenced revision in offices where sequenced mail was not imminent to allow those offices scope to move towards new delivery methods and innovative attendance patterns.
I don't think the £200 was ever meant to be held back if a full integrated revision was implemented on the "off-chance" that another revision may be needed within the 3 year time-scale.
When exactly would members receive this payment if another revision was not needed....revision is after all major change and causes a great deal of upheaval in an office...not something you should go through every time you want to increase BSI.
Relying on RM keeping to 'the spirit of the agreement' isn't really what I was hoping for tbh.
fishtank wrote:I think the spirit of the agreement was that the non-sequenced revision would be a pre-cursor to the sequenced revision in offices where sequenced mail was not imminent to allow those offices scope to move towards new delivery methods and innovative attendance patterns.
I don't think the £200 was ever meant to be held back if a full integrated revision was implemented on the "off-chance" that another revision may be needed within the 3 year time-scale.
When exactly would members receive this payment if another revision was not needed....revision is after all major change and causes a great deal of upheaval in an office...not something you should go through every time you want to increase BSI.
Relying on RM keeping to 'the spirit of the agreement' isn't really what I was hoping for tbh.
I think i'll forget about the £200
I never thought we could rely on RM.
I said at the time the words in the agreement were vague and not strong enough and never bought into this "trust" crap..
I was just discussing my opinion of what was meant by Annex C.
Thanks for the replies, will flag it up with my DOM/SOM/rep on monday and see if we can get any clarification. I`ve printed off the details and will give it to my DOM to look over.
Thanks again.
fishtank wrote:I never thought we could rely on RM.
I said at the time the words in the agreement were vague and not strong enough and never bought into this "trust" crap..
I was just discussing my opinion of what was meant by Annex C.
I know mate. The problem is, what me and you think it should mean is probably a million miles away from what RM think it means. Any excuse to get out of paying they'll take, and the wording in the agreement says to me they've got a nailed down get out clause for situations like my office.
