Looks like redundancies all round then

[ronnie6]

Now that the central function reorganisation is nearly completed I'm told that there are a number of people left who have no job and the business has, apparently, exhausted all avenues which, I believe, meets their legal obligation prior to redundancy.

[DGP1]

You could always take a transfer to delivery...............we're always short of people

[Thehair]

PT temp of course

[DGP1]

PT temp of course

Oh yes, 20 hours (but expecting you to work the full 40)

[arnold cheshire]

in royal mail they want everyone pt maybe will all get buy downs

[ronnie6]

You could always take a transfer to delivery...............we're always short of people

apparently that isn't an option. My source tells me that almost no-one (and there were a lot of them) was considered to be 'suitable' for any ops jobs.

[fishtank]

You could always take a transfer to delivery...............we're always short of people

apparently that isn't an option. My source tells me that almost no-one (and there were a lot of them) was considered to be 'suitable' for any ops jobs.

They must be a rough bunch judging by what is considered "suitable".

[Thehair]

You could always take a transfer to delivery...............we're always short of people

apparently that isn't an option. My source tells me that almost no-one (and there were a lot of them) was considered to be 'suitable' for any ops jobs.

Spend your redundancy money wisely

[POSTMAN]

When you go though spill the beans,we want gossip!

[Budfrog]

CMA House Tel : 0845 6052194
Ruscombe Business Park Fax: 0118 9070713
Twyford
Reading
Berks
RG10 9JD

CMA Sector

20 January 2010



Gillian Alford
Director of Group Industrial Relations
Royal Mail Group
3rd Floor
100 Victoria Embankment
LONDON
EC4Y 0DY



Dear Gillian

Central Functions review

Following our meeting yesterday I said I would set out some of our issues and concerns in writing. This I now do.

Suitable Alternative Employment Process

It is my opinion that had we not badgered you about this issue that the Suitable Alternative Employment (SAE) process would not have been adopted. Where vacancies existed and still exist within Royal Mail Group and there are individuals unplaced then there is the responsibility on the employer to do everything it can to make a match between the two. As I said yesterday I also believe that Royal Mail has a responsibility to place people in jobs where they have indicated they do not wish to take voluntary redundancy.

It is disappointing therefore to note that out of 203 individuals who entered into the SAE process only 13 were appointed to permanent roles. I note that 28 remain in transitional roles and that a further 2 have been appointed to a new transitions role. There is a net 160 individuals who remain unplaced. A success rate of 7% in placing people is hardly that.

Out of the 95 considered for operational roles 6 were appointed. More specifically there were 23 individuals who indicated a willingness to work in direct operations, as a Delivery Office Manager or a Work Area Manager, and only 2 out of those 6 have been placed in those roles.

Vacancies

You confirmed that there are now 64 vacancies in operations, the nomenclature for those outside the current job functions review, and that 6 people had been placed. There are also 50 vacant jobs in the Central Functions template that remain to be filled. There are therefore 114 “signed off” vacancies; with many more available but hidden within Royal Mail Group and further consideration must be given to placing those that remain unplaced into those vacancies.

I was also disappointed yesterday when Royal Mail made the point it had circumvented redeployment by doing the SAE Process. I should not have to remind you that the employer has a statutory responsibility to seek to mitigate the impact of any potential redundancies through redeployment.

Furthermore I asked for confirmation of the number of posts in “operations” that were being covered on temporary promotion. These are of course managerial posts where our members who are unplaced and have no desire to leave the company could be placed into on the basis that their skills would be generic and specific responsibilities could be delivered through training and development.

You have refused to provide the information on temporary promotions and I am astounded that this is seen as a difficult task as it must be fairly straightforward to identify this information on the payroll system.

I once again asked you what Royal Mail was going to do about this and the response was that it was far too difficult. This is not acceptable.

Notice Period

You apologised for the lack of clarity on the process being adopted where decisions are being given under SAE. My understanding was that when a decision is provided to individuals they have 5 days to consider the vr offer that remained on the table and then notice would be served if they elected to accept redundancy. You subsequently advised us that the notice would start from the date of the meeting. This is before the individual indicated a willingness to accept the vr. This is different from previous exercises.

Because of the way this is being handled there is additional pressure and arm twisting being put on individuals to accept vr on the basis that should they sign the Compromise Agreement up to 5 working days after the meeting then, in effect, their notice will be backdated.

Retrospective notice is highly unusual and I can find nothing that confirms this as good practice and acceptable. However I note it would be possible, though unusual, to give an employee notice to expire halfway through the contractual or statutory notice period and to make a payment in lieu of notice in respect of the remainder of the period. Where an employer makes a payment in lieu of notice they would nevertheless in theory be guilty of a breach of contract, unless the contract provides for this possibility, which I suggest it does not in this case.

Again I would ask you to review the situation with the intention to start the notice period from the date the individuals had accepted vr which in the current circumstances is a maximum of 5 working days after the decision meeting from the SAE process.

Conclusion

Unite has worked extremely hard to mitigate the impact of this exercise. As you are aware I feel that I and my colleagues have been hitting our heads of a brick wall for some weeks now and this is disappointing. Particularly as I consider there is an opportunity, through much more directed and focused redeployment, facilitated by bumping, to resolve this matter to both our satisfaction and to avoid the unnecessary and unacceptable step of resorting to redundancy by compulsion.

It is becoming clear that Royal Mail Group is extremely keen, despite its public protestations , to establish the compulsory redundancy precedent in order that it can adopt it in forthcoming re-organisations, the majority of which will be in the operational part of the company.
.
We remain willing and prepared to discuss solutions to these issues and would welcome any signal that the company is prepared to do so.


Yours sincerely




Brian Scott
Assistant National Secretary


Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley http://www.unitetheunion.org.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Joint General Secretaries http://www.tgwu.org.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Budfrog]

Testing the water with the support staff who have the least amount of influence after telling the front line managers not to consider any form of IA as this exercise 'does not affect them'.

Well it might not affect them now ... but it will, it will affect every grade apart from those at the very top. Once the 1st compulsory redundancy walks out the door that will be it and after privatisation you can whistle cheerio to your MTSF 2 terms.

[ronnie6]

Have you seen the reply to Brian Scott ? Ouch !

[ronnie6]

A colleague of mine tells me that at least two people have now been made compulsory redundant. Looks like the CMA weren't any help.

[andy2007]

The letter brings up the subject of Management roles in Ops. But what about OPG vacancies?
Surely an OPG Duty is better than compulsary redundancy. Unless of course, they think they're in some way better than us.....

Obviously, it'd mean a BIG pay cut. But you don't get much on the Dole these days. They could at least do OPG Duties, until they found something which pays better. Which means that the temporary nature of most OPG vacancies would suit them.

[blue1873]

The letter brings up the subject of Management roles in Ops. But what about OPG vacancies?
Surely an OPG Duty is better than compulsary redundancy. Unless of course, they think they're in some way better than us.....

Obviously, it'd mean a BIG pay cut. But you don't get much on the Dole these days. They could at least do OPG Duties, until they found something which pays better. Which means that the temporary nature of most OPG vacancies would suit them.

Most of these barstewards in GMC are doing OPG work and have done
for a very long time now despite being asked then told not to