West of scotland delivery function BT 2010

[Tamsky]

Still guessing...........

[Tamsky]

Scotland & N Ireland Divisional meeting
18.10.11


************ in the Chair. The Chair reported on the recent illness of ********** and the meeting passed on best wishes to ******** and family.

Report from Divisional officers meeting with D Ward. All Divisional officers had reported on lack of progress by RM in meeting full terms of BT2010 Agreement. D Ward had reported on negotiations with the European Union over the pension fund transfer to Government. This would determine the financial health of RM. Talks with RM at senior level have commenced over members concerns on BT2010. The Postal Executive has received reports from the talks and it is likely that Divisional Reps will meet again next week. It is also likely that Branches will attend a national brief dependent on progress.

Privatisation – CWU in talks with Government and others over future of RM. National briefing for Branches on 10th November.

Pensions – Policy forum on 10th November.

Attendance procedure – National talks taking place. Still in conflict with RM over application of policy. 25% of RM staff are on some stage warning level under current practice. In particular CWU wants appeals at stage 1 and 2, mandatory discounting of accidents at work, fairer trigger points, OHS involvement at earliest level. It is also important that appeals at Stage 3 dismissal are heard by a manager of a higher grade than the Dismissal manager. Talks are continuing.

Network. BT2010 concluded and 2% paid. Still issues over 'dead leg' journeys. RM wish to proceed to Network 2012.
RDC mixed picture. RM wish to apply performance levels through World Class Mail initiative outside of BT2010.
Area Distribution Drivers – RM position is that they have 1/3rd too many Drivers. Wish to proceed with 'PARAGON' system despite no national agreement.

Mail Centres – Any workplan needs to be agreed locally. World Class Mail sucking up cash. CWU policy is clear, any WCM initiative post May 2011 is without CWU participation.

Qaudrant – Pursuing redundancies. Any reduction in service locally should be met by a Disagreement under the IR framework. Quadrant under some pressure from RM, contract up for renewal in 18 months.

Outdoor
RM Scotland failing to meet the terms of BT2010 has been referred to national officers. Likely that issues may go to ballot. Disagreements on principle points have been submitted. Outdoor Dept now pursuing these at national level. The Outdoor Department agrees with the CWU position in Scotland.
Similar position throughout UK.
Indoor workload Flow – these measures are not agreed with the CWU and should be disagreed under IR Framework. 'Hothouse' revisions proposals not under BT2010 and are not agreed. Target savings not agreed by CWU. Lump sum payments should have been triggered by walk sequenced mail being received. RM ignoring BT2010, happy to remove hours through lapsing while refusing pay outs.
N Ireland – revisions have been implemented and failures are widespread. RM blaming 'performance'.
West of Scotland – RM offered £400 to move start times where required. This is outside of BT2010 and will be considered by CWU Unit reps at a meeting tomorrow.

During discussion it was agreed to submit disagreements in the relevant units for referral to HQ. Particular mention was made of 'a lack of progress' in Cumbernauld DO where a request for a Rule 13 ballot has not yet been met.

In general it was agreed that the best way to get RM Scotland to abide by BT2010 and to secure benefits to members was by supporting the national line.

[clashcityrocker]

In general it was agreed that the best way to get RM Scotland to abide by BT2010 and to secure benefits to members was by supporting the national line.

If they walked into my DO tomorrow and asked the staff if they would like £400 for moving their start times back 45 minutes before xmas, I wouldn't bet which way the vote would go.
£400 now just before xmas for something that is probably going to happen at some point.
£400 for people who haven't received a single penny from the Transformation Lump Sums and in all honesty are beginning to doubt if they ever will (The TLSs could just go the way of Colleagueshares)
£400 when they know they hear rumours that the office down the road has just voted for it and received it.

And what does the rep do? Support the national line or try and get what the members want?

[fishtank]

And what does the rep do? Support the national line or try and get what the members want?

The rep makes sure the members have all the information,conveys the national position,gives his/her opinion if asked for but ultimately follows the position of the majority of his/her members.
It is they who ultimately put the rep in that position.

[clashcityrocker]

.... but ultimately follows the position of the majority of his/her members.

And there we have the "local agreement" undermining the national agreement.
Every office that votes to accept £400 (and apparently some have and some wanted to accept the original offer of £200) weakens the position of those that want to hold the national position.
We shouldn't even be having this debate at a local level. The Area reps/Divisional reps/National officers should have made sure these offers were never on the table.
It is no use a local rep telling his members to reject the offer when those members have got mortgages to pay, kids to feed and xmas coming up, on the off chance the CWU might get RM Scotland to adhere to BT2010.

[fishtank]

We shouldn't even be having this debate at a local level. The Area reps/Divisional reps/National officers should have made sure these offers were never on the table.

Exactly...but they didn't because it's far easier to wash their hands of it and blame the local reps and members.
I don't blame members for wanting to see some of the lump sum money after almost 18 months,with no revision in sight and privatisation and the uncertainty that will bring just around the corner.
I certainly don't blame reps for following the wishes of the majority of members...that's what they are supposed to do.
I do blame those who could have stopped this issue arising in the first place.
I'm in the lucky position that this offer does not affect my members but i offer support to any rep placed in this predicament.

[RTP]

Lump sum payments should have been triggered by walk sequenced mail being received

I don't get this. Isn't phase 1 and 2 of the revision supposed to be completed before the first £200 is paid? And yet according to that quote they're saying payment should have been triggered just for recieving WS, or am I missing something here?

[clashcityrocker]

A walk sequenced revision is not the same as a 6 step delivery methods revision.
We are being asked to change our attendance patterns without the full £800 that accompanies a WS revision (it is in the agreement), or the option of more Saturdays off to compensate for longer Saturdays, or the 39hr week.(a 2.5% payrise for p/t staff)

[RTP]

Oh I totally agree with you about the attendance patterns. They tried the same thing with us.

[POSTMAN]

Dingo said the lump sum thing was sorted...

Now a mate of mine went a delivery meeting in Scotland last Wednesday to speak to the reps , and at first some reps did argue that they should be allowed to accept the £400 which management were offering due to the fact that they were not going in. However the vast majority accepted that if they did this it was the road to nowhere

[fishtank]

Dingo said the lump sum thing was sorted...

Now a mate of mine went a delivery meeting in Scotland last Wednesday to speak to the reps , and at first some reps did argue that they should be allowed to accept the £400 which management were offering due to the fact that they were not going in. However the vast majority accepted that if they did this it was the road to nowhere

Do you think that will stop RM Scotland putting it out there hoping for a bite?
It's only sorted when we stop them putting it on the table.

[Martin Walsh]

Of course it won't , the union nationally has taken this up but if reps and members decide to take the money and support the unagreed process than we all know that this approach will be offered elsewhere.

For Royal Mail its a tried and tested policy maverick managers use they did it under SDD where offices agreed to introduce revisions even thou the union was saying no and most offices that went in undermine the ability for the union to get a yes vote in the ballot and undermine the union.

It happens but the reality is that the union has said do not agree the revison, most offices will hold the line but the test will be how many break the national union line and how many follow.

As was said it's a policy to nowhere, we either want a national agreement or we all say let's all go and do our own deals on the lump sums.

Parts of Scotland along with London and the other areas fought initially on their own in 2009 to get a national agreement and at that stage Royal Mail"s mantra is that they no longer paid for change and their would be no benefits on offer for introducing revisions. The 2010 agreement proved that wrong. Yes the agreement needs changing and changing but you do not force change nationally by doing breakaway deals.

No matter where that offer is it has to be rejected. At the moment it's bring proposed in Scotland but if offices break the line than it will open the floodgates

[fishtank]

You have to say dingo that part of the reason this is even being considered is because these members have seen the 3 year plan become a 5 year plan and the lump sums disappear into the distance.
The lump sums should be paid out by the end of the original BT2010 timeframe...revision or no revision.

[Martin Walsh]

Agreed fish tank and the life span of the agreement is April 2013 , Royal Mail have said that they believe they are still on course for all offices to have their lump sums paid out. The national talks will confirm this.

[fishtank]

Royal Mail have said that they believe they are still on course for all offices to have their lump sums paid out. The national talks will confirm this.

That's only 18 months away dingo...considering we are already 18 months in and nowhere near half way i would say that the pace of change will have to increase dramatically or someone is telling porkies.
I assume that's what's behind their wish to slim down the revision process?