CWU - Point of Principle:100BSI

[POSTMAN]

CWU - Point of Principle.
Following on from a meeting at Cotten House held on Thursday 1st December between the Thames Valley Transformation Director and the CWU Divisions covering the Thames Valley Management Region, it was agreed that both parties would raise as a point of principle to our respective Headquarters the issue which was preventing further progress on revisions being agreed and that is the issue over whether 100BSI has been agreed and whether Royal Mail`s belief that it has is a serious breach of the National Agreement.

For ease of reference this point of principle has been jointly raised by Anglia, London and South Central CWU Divisional Reps.
The clarification which is needed is based on the following.

CWU Position

On one hand the Business Transformation 2010 Agreement does not mention revisions having to hit 100BSI. Neither does the criteria for Royal Mail paying the lump sum monies mention an office having to start on the journey on the first revision to a 100BSI and finish at a minimum of 100BSI on the second revision.

CWU HQs have consistently stated that the CWU have not agreed to 100BSI and that revisions do not have to be agreed on the basis of having to reach 100BSI and that lump sums are not in any way linked to reaching 100BSI.

There is no reference in the Business Transformation to the issue of 100 BSI being the target for delivery revisions. There is mention of the use of the Upper Decile but there is no agreement in place as yet to understand what upper decile actually means.

In addition it is clear that while adjustments can be made to the tools, often the default position is 100BSI and in any case on Geo Route it is automatically 100BSI. In terms of walk sequencing mail the default position is that it is expected to save 19 minutes per thousand items.

Management confirmed at the meeting in Cotten House the following:

1. That Delivery methods equipment including HCTs and CDVs will not be authorised from the Centre unless the revision has met the target and if it is the second revision of Business Transformation Agreement plan than it has to be at a minimum of 100BSI or the equipment will not be released.

2. That the second revision in an office has to be at a minimum of 100BSI otherwise Royal Mail will not agree for the revision to go in and the lump sum will not be paid.

3. The Royal Mail Regional Budget is set on what the Centre believes will be the spend on which they believe a region will be on when it hits the optimum performance i.e. 100BSI.
The problem is that where an office needs to re-invest hours for the revision to actually work then the manager’s budget is failing and they then in turn introduce higher absorption levels to cover the budget shortfall therefore causing further problems.

4. Royal Mail have centralised all the performance and lump sum indicators away from the spirit of achieving local agreement. Now the Centre decides if an agreement can be made and the centre than authorises whether the delivery equipment can be released and whether the lump sum can be paid.

5. The CWU believes that all of the above are not contained within the national agreement and that Royal Mail`s unrealistic performance measures have led to a number of delivery method revisions failing in terms of quality of service, not achieving the agreed hours, not achieving the joint aims of the agreement, higher sick leave and a disgruntled and de-motivated work force.

6. The latest example of this is Royal Mail`s “centre” unrealistic timescales and target in terms of the Flow Project. This includes Royal Mail`s belief they can introduce a quicker move to 100BSI under the roof, they estimate in 10 weeks. This in the CWUs view is both unworkable and simply a recipe for a number of further revision failures which will alienate the workforce and decrease customer satisfaction.

The CWU have informed management that no further revisions will be agreed until the issue over 100BSI has been clarified and agreed as a result of the point of principle. However normal data gathering and the work around phase zero 1 and 2 can continue.
Please contact us if you wish to discuss any further.

Yours sincerely

Martin Walsh , Barry Jennings , Terry Jackson , Mark Palfrey , Dennis King , John Simkins , Adam Oakes and Geoff Loftus.
Representatives for the Anglia, London and South Central CWU Divisions

CWU%20point%20of%20principle%20%283%29.doc

[POSTMAN]

No one got any thoughts on this?

[fishtank]

No one got any thoughts on this?

Apart from should have been the national position 18 months ago...no.
None of it is new.
The CWU have always known that RM wanted the revisions set at 100BSI.
In fact somebody once wrote as long ago as Apr 17, 2009

Their response to the delivery blue print is total rejection and they are proposing regualr revisons based on 100BSI

In almost the words of Bobby Gibson...they seem to be saying one thing and...well, pretty much doing what they please...but at least we are still talking.

[hotshothamish]

i think its great but why moan its agreed above local level anyway

[DGP1]

Why would it make any difference to me? We've been told that we're not getting a revision until at least next Christmas but that is unlikely to happen because they need to put hours in (and we know that ain't going to happen).