Re sign

[Sam43]

In our function, distribution, we have been asked to save hours.

This led to a resign for the 20 people involved.

So, the union rep and the duty review manager came up with about 10 perm night shifts, our office closes in 2 years, and 3 4 man rotations.

The senior men started signing for the perm nights and they would be stupid not to. When it came to my turn I thought wow 1 more perm night shift left.
I went to sign for the shift the next day only to find that another person in the re-sign, 3 down from me had been told to pick the night shift before me because of pay protection. Ive done 17 years and the other person 12. He was doing 2 night shifts and 1 back turn apposed to my 2 night shifts and 1 day shift. So he will get pay protection plus a pay rise and I will now get nothing. I thought after 17 years it might count for something. A re-sign should be either based on total seniority or pay protection not a mixture of both.

I don't understand how this can stand up. What about my chances of a pay rise. Why can't I have the chance to sign for a better payed duty and what ever the other person signes for he gets pay protection, if it warrents it. Why am I discriminated against. Im not the only one. One lad has been suspended after been told he had lost his slot to a person with less years than him. He got very upset about it shall we say.

This was agreed by the Union and Royal Mail and I will be leaving the Union because of it. The union did not take into account the likes of me and the poor lad who has been suspended.

[SexyLegs]

Put in a grievance and take it as high as you need to.

[Martin Walsh]

The system you refer to is MTSF2 , now that agreement was introduced in 2003 and provided the best pay protections solutions of many industries.

You will still recive pay protection as you have prevously done 2 nightshift duties and 1 day shift so they will average that payment and you will recieve pay protection. However the other indivdual had two night shifts and a late shift payment and under Royal Mails guidelines if they allowed you to sign for the new duty they would have to pay you more and then pay the other indivdual more due to pay protection.

I know this is differcult for most to either understand or agree with. But not many industries protect indivduals with pay protection on shift allowances. However Royal Mail of course know if seniority is used in terms of signing for duties then of course this may mean that Royal Mail pay the new person shift allowance and the person who has been knocked off his duty pay protection and in their eyes they are paying twice.

[bobbyden]

In our function, distribution, we have been asked to save hours.

This led to a resign for the 20 people involved.

So, the union rep and the duty review manager came up with about 10 perm night shifts, our office closes in 2 years, and 3 4 man rotations.

The senior men started signing for the perm nights and they would be stupid not to. When it came to my turn I thought wow 1 more perm night shift left.
I went to sign for the shift the next day only to find that another person in the re-sign, 3 down from me had been told to pick the night shift before me because of pay protection. Ive done 17 years and the other person 12. He was doing 2 night shifts and 1 back turn apposed to my 2 night shifts and 1 day shift. So he will get pay protection plus a pay rise and I will now get nothing. I thought after 17 years it might count for something. A re-sign should be either based on total seniority or pay protection not a mixture of both.

I don't understand how this can stand up. What about my chances of a pay rise. Why can't I have the chance to sign for a better payed duty and what ever the other person signes for he gets pay protection, if it warrents it. Why am I discriminated against. Im not the only one. One lad has been suspended after been told he had lost his slot to a person with less years than him. He got very upset about it shall we say.

This was agreed by the Union and Royal Mail and I will be leaving the Union because of it. The union did not take into account the likes of me and the poor lad who has been suspended.

In this instance, you have the years in whilst the other person does not and you should be the winner. I would not leave the union. Instead, take it up at a higher level than your office because the reps in your place are unable to intepret the rules and perhaps a second opinion will change things. As for the other lad being suspended, very typical of the Royal Mail in 2011, in so much as, they like giving it out but cannot take it back. The sooner he is back in the workplace with no further questions asked the better.

[Sam43]

Thanks for the info. I will just go with the flow. But we have to wait until the office union rep returns to deal with it as they have put the re sign on hold.

[bobbyden]

The system you refer to is MTSF2 , now that agreement was introduced in 2003 and provided the best pay protections solutions of many industries.

You will still recive pay protection as you have prevously done 2 nightshift duties and 1 day shift so they will average that payment and you will recieve pay protection. However the other indivdual had two night shifts and a late shift payment and under Royal Mails guidelines if they allowed you to sign for the new duty they would have to pay you more and then pay the other indivdual more due to pay protection.

I know this is differcult for most to either understand or agree with. But not many industries protect indivduals with pay protection on shift allowances. However Royal Mail of course know if seniority is used in terms of signing for duties then of course this may mean that Royal Mail pay the new person shift allowance and the person who has been knocked off his duty pay protection and in their eyes they are paying twice.

Are you saying Dingo, the days of seniority are drawing to a close, because it might as well do if situations like this arise. Of course though, events like this would never have happened if it wasnt for the Royal Mails' obsession with cutting everything and anything. All they are doing is seriously weakening the company as an effective competitor whilst the Union sit back and allow it.

[bobbyden]

Thanks for the info. I will just go with the flow. But we have to wait until the office union rep returns to deal with it as they have put the re sign on hold.

Good luck to you. I sincerely hope it works out well because 17 years is a pretty large chunk of exhistence and I think you deserve better.

[Martin Walsh]

Bobbyden in many instances especially in delivery offices full office resigns can take place and simply based on senioirity as now the early shift 1 &2 have been included in the delivery supplement then it means there is no pay protection involved.

sadly in mail centres and RDCs the issue of pay protection is involved if you have a full office resign based on senioirity. The union succussfully got Royal Mail to agree pay protection to indivduals who lost pensionable pay if they lost a duty with that allowance. However of course Royal Mail insisted if they were going to pay for the protection of indivduals pay for up to 3 years and then for the duration of someone aged 50 to 60 then they wanted to ensure that they limited the cost for this.

The is why they introduced MTSF 2 which meant that indivduals who have the shift allowance for the duties available would sign first. This again would be based on how long you have done this shft not pure senioity. However they can only trace this back to 2000 when the way forward came in. Those in reciept of the higher allowance would get first choice hence why the other indivdual who received 2 nights and 1 late shift would come first even thou he had 12 years in as opposed to this indivdual who was on 2 nights and 1 early and had 17 years. Now I realise that is not what people want to hear but that is what the membersip voted for. Personally on mail centre closures I believe that MTSF 2 should be changed.

Now of course if you open further negotations on MTSF then we already know that Royal Mail want to reduce the costs associated with pay protection. In this case the indivdual who has had 17 years service will get up to 3 years pay protection. Of course that if vacancies become available on that shift they will be expected to go and do this postion.

Now tell me another industry has got the levels of pay protection Royal Mail has even thou the business is effectivly a basket case. Now in terms of why is the union allowing the business to cut and cut. Well the union is not standing there doing nothing. Itt is gruing for the company to get european state aid so the pension defcit is removed allowing Royal Mail to have another 300 million to invest in the business and for the union to try and get better condtions for the staff. Also the union is still campaining for the amendments to DSA and of course it is discussing the new business plan and the existing BTA agreement.

[JaneM]

Dingo i believe you are correct as regards mtsf2 being unsuitable for the mail centre closure programme,i can forsee a situation at my new mail centre appertaining to the night shift whereby as a result of a further revision all applicants for the night shift will qualify for the full 3 years pay protection,surely seniority should then hold sway.

[Cut Off King]

Dingo =

Also the union is still campaining for the amendments to DSA and of course it is discussing the new business plan and the existing BTA agreement.

Has RM now shared the new business plan with the CWU then ?

If so , are they going to tell us the details too ?

[bobbyden]

Dingo: Thankyou for taking the time and trouble to reply to my original posting in this particular thread.

When MTSF 2 was introduced, the climate of change was not as evident to the naked eye, unlike now. The present situation is extremely worrying to me personally, given the precarious state of the company finances and a workforce growing all the more smaller, leaving the Royal Mail seriously weakened. This company has not a clue in which direction it wants to go. Basically, it is drifting from one extreme to another.

This company is a rich pool of talented people with tremendous ideas, bags of enthusiasm and a determination to work hard and make things happen not only for themselves but for those around them. The CWU and for that matter the CMA does not represent these people. Instead, it clings on to old fashioned ideology which has no place in what should be a forward thinking company with an agenda to match. We are a laughing stock in the eyes of the competition and quite honestly over the last few years, we have have made it too easy for our rivals to steal a real march on us through the guise of DSA. The CWU and the CMA have not been active enough in this sphere and future negotiations should revolve around that subject and nothing else. Our revenue streams are staring the knackers yard in the face and unless we do something quickly, the only re-sign going on will be signing on at the dole office.